3 ms·
I think they do this to keep bad hires from sticking around until the cliff. It takes a lot to fire someone legally - oftentimes you have to document ~6 months
by nostrademons 5y ago
I think they do this to keep bad hires from sticking around until the cliff.
It takes a lot to fire someone legally - oftentimes you have to document ~6 months of poor performance, put them on a PIP, give them a chance to remediate, etc. Combine that with normal long ramp-up times in a tech company, and by the time you know it's not working out and can fire them, they're pretty close or past the 1 year vesting point anyway. It's much more efficient if the employee decides to leave on the their own, if they know it's a mutual bad fit.
This removes the incentive to stick around for the windfall - if you're not enjoying your workplace, go leave and find a better one, and you get paid fully for time served. It's a lot like the buyout offers at places like Zappos or Coinbase, designed to make sure that everyone is on-board with the existing company culture.
- soheil 5y agoI get the point about unhappy employees sticking around just for their cliff to vest, but what about attracting a new breed of employees looking for short term employment?
- nostrademons 5y agoThat's already a risk in tech, because wages are so high but ramp-up times are pretty long. They get weeded out relatively quickly and usually run out of desirable employers, though. That's why employers are skeptical of employees with multiple short-duration stints or gaps on their resume.
- soheil 5y agoSo if they do get weeded out quickly then why would any rational employee even care about not having a cliff when looking for a new job to begin with? This is simply increasing the risk of hiring short term employees in addition to existing risks including the high cost of ramp-up times.