3 ms·
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 deci
by 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 agoAgreed. 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 agoOf 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.