8 ms·

Someone please explain this to me: You apply for a job, you accept the job, and you work to perform your duties as is expected of you. Options are a perk that

Someone please explain this to me: You apply for a job, you accept the job, and you work to perform your duties as is expected of you. Options are a perk that some companies offer. How is it acceptable in any way to believe you are owed something more than what was agreed upon? Personally I’m getting really tired of reading stuff like this where people see what others have and immediately feel they are owed the same or more.

tluyben2 7y ago
I did not read the article (WeWork is a joke of an overhyped company in most respects anyway, not sure why anyone bought into it to begin with) but it really depends does it not? You apply and accept but if you, for instance, find out later your colleagues get more for the same work or you take risks (coming from the EU, being able to lose your job at any moment is such a risk), that should be compensated with money or, if you like that kind of thing, options. If she accepted and it is still a competitive salary for the position then you are right. But if that changed or somehow there is risk that is compensated at other corps (in options or money) then it would be a valid complaint. You seem to imply in this case it is just whining or FOMO or something while being compensated properly. I think there are kind of cases worth reading about where it is actually simply unfair.
- ktaylor 7y ago
  Maybe read the Twitter thread and then comment.
jmull 7y ago
I think it's the contrast between what she got vs what others got. The initial terms of employment don't have anything to do with it. At some point wework decides to grant options to some of their 120 employees -- basically a form of bonus. From her perspective, she's been working just as hard, productively and creatively as many other people who were granted the bonus, and had been there longer than most. The terms of the initial employment offer aren't really relevant since it sounds like various other people who weren't guaranteed options nevertheless received them (people couldn't have been guaranteed options under a plan that didn't exist when they hired).
- codeddesign 7y ago
  Agreed. However, the company had the right to give or not. To assume you personally are owed something because someone else has it is a fairly new and large cultural issue within tech. You don’t see this coming out of any other sector. It’s like my children saying that they are owed my money in their inheritance. It’s my money, I can choose what to do with it. Within bounds, anyone has the right to disagree with their employer, change jobs, or start their own company. But never feel that you are owed something.
  - jmull 7y ago
    Of course they have the right. That doesn’t make it a good idea! A company should be smart, insightful and take the long view with compensation decisions. Anyway, you’re using the word “owed” but the twitter thread doesn’t, so I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing.

tluyben2 7y ago

I did not read the article (WeWork is a joke of an overhyped company in most respects anyway, not sure why anyone bought into it to begin with) but it really depends does it not? You apply and accept but if you, for instance, find out later your colleagues get more for the same work or you take risks (coming from the EU, being able to lose your job at any moment is such a risk), that should be compensated with money or, if you like that kind of thing, options. If she accepted and it is still a competitive salary for the position then you are right. But if that changed or somehow there is risk that is compensated at other corps (in options or money) then it would be a valid complaint. You seem to imply in this case it is just whining or FOMO or something while being compensated properly. I think there are kind of cases worth reading about where it is actually simply unfair.

ktaylor 7y ago
Maybe read the Twitter thread and then comment.

jmull 7y ago

I think it's the contrast between what she got vs what others got. The initial terms of employment don't have anything to do with it. At some point wework decides to grant options to some of their 120 employees -- basically a form of bonus. From her perspective, she's been working just as hard, productively and creatively as many other people who were granted the bonus, and had been there longer than most. The terms of the initial employment offer aren't really relevant since it sounds like various other people who weren't guaranteed options nevertheless received them (people couldn't have been guaranteed options under a plan that didn't exist when they hired).

codeddesign 7y ago
Agreed. However, the company had the right to give or not. To assume you personally are owed something because someone else has it is a fairly new and large cultural issue within tech. You don’t see this coming out of any other sector. It’s like my children saying that they are owed my money in their inheritance. It’s my money, I can choose what to do with it. Within bounds, anyone has the right to disagree with their employer, change jobs, or start their own company. But never feel that you are owed something.
- jmull 7y ago
  Of course they have the right. That doesn’t make it a good idea! A company should be smart, insightful and take the long view with compensation decisions. Anyway, you’re using the word “owed” but the twitter thread doesn’t, so I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing.