5 ms·

I have an offer that vests over 6 years with a 1.5 year cliff. Is that normal? I'm used to 4 years 1 year cliff, but the CEO said that 1.5/6 are common for comp

I have an offer that vests over 6 years with a 1.5 year cliff. Is that normal? I'm used to 4 years 1 year cliff, but the CEO said that 1.5/6 are common for companies that "want employees who care about the long term"

majormajor 5y ago
No, have had multiple recent better offers than that. They're trying to rip you off. If they want to keep you motivated for the long term even if value isn't increasing rapidly then they can do bonuses, refreshers, etc.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
matheist 5y ago
I've never heard of 1.5/6 being a thing. Would be a red flag for me but of course I only have the context you mentioned. Refresher grants could also motivate employees to stick around for the long term!
devnulll 5y ago
No, I don't believe that's normal. That sounds like a CEO trying to take advantage of the labor force.
- mcgingras 5y ago
  Thanks everyone, that's what I was thinking as well, but I'm fairly new to startups so I wasn't sure.
  - xtracto 5y ago
    Mhmm, I wouldn't put it like GP (someone wanting to take advantage of...). The large majority of employments DO NOT give stock options. Shit, in most countries that's unheard of (in Mexico for example, someone with a similar offer would think of the stock options as the cherry on the cake). Nonetheless, given YOUR market, you should check whether the other parts of the compensation they are giving you are right. For example, there was the case of Mailchimp a couple of days ago: They gave no stock to their employees. However, in theory their compensation package was good in other ways. So if the company is offering you a good salary + benefits (what about 401k matching? PTO? sick days? gym membership, WFH and whatnot), that will give you the full picture.
freewilly1040 5y ago
4 year vest, 1 year cliff is the standard, and even that is going away at some places. An employer who wants to keep you will demonstrate that by compensating you well and giving you an opportunity to augment your skills. This offerer sounds like someone who has experienced turnover problems and has decided that it's everyone else's fault.
dudul 5y ago
Never heard of such a schedule, and I've worked for startups for the past 15 years.
jdavis703 5y ago
Never heard of this or received an offer like this. Are you based in the US? Because if you are it sounds like you and your coworkers took a bad deal.
anamax 5y ago
[1] What is the CEO's cliff and vesting? [2] Longer vesting means more stock, around 50% in this case, for companies who want employees long-term. (The relevant measure is stock/year, not total stock.) [3] Ask the CEO to name three comparable companies with such terms. If there's a hostile reaction to [3], you just learned something valuable. If there's a neutral reaction, you can say that you're evaluating the CEO's ability to negotiate and persuade, which is true. Interviews and offer negotiations go both ways.
bagels 5y ago
It's common for companies that want to exploit employees and not reward them for their contributions.
wilsynet 5y ago
And 1/4 is for companies that care about compensating employees fairly, while adhering to market norms. Run away. This CEO wants to hold your equity hostage.
michaelcampbell 5y ago
> "want employees who care about the long term" Run away. Next thing they'll start in on how they're a family.

majormajor 5y ago

No, have had multiple recent better offers than that. They're trying to rip you off. If they want to keep you motivated for the long term even if value isn't increasing rapidly then they can do bonuses, refreshers, etc.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

matheist 5y ago

I've never heard of 1.5/6 being a thing. Would be a red flag for me but of course I only have the context you mentioned. Refresher grants could also motivate employees to stick around for the long term!

devnulll 5y ago

No, I don't believe that's normal. That sounds like a CEO trying to take advantage of the labor force.

mcgingras 5y ago
Thanks everyone, that's what I was thinking as well, but I'm fairly new to startups so I wasn't sure.
- xtracto 5y ago
  Mhmm, I wouldn't put it like GP (someone wanting to take advantage of...). The large majority of employments DO NOT give stock options. Shit, in most countries that's unheard of (in Mexico for example, someone with a similar offer would think of the stock options as the cherry on the cake). Nonetheless, given YOUR market, you should check whether the other parts of the compensation they are giving you are right. For example, there was the case of Mailchimp a couple of days ago: They gave no stock to their employees. However, in theory their compensation package was good in other ways. So if the company is offering you a good salary + benefits (what about 401k matching? PTO? sick days? gym membership, WFH and whatnot), that will give you the full picture.

freewilly1040 5y ago

4 year vest, 1 year cliff is the standard, and even that is going away at some places. An employer who wants to keep you will demonstrate that by compensating you well and giving you an opportunity to augment your skills. This offerer sounds like someone who has experienced turnover problems and has decided that it's everyone else's fault.

dudul 5y ago

Never heard of such a schedule, and I've worked for startups for the past 15 years.

jdavis703 5y ago

Never heard of this or received an offer like this. Are you based in the US? Because if you are it sounds like you and your coworkers took a bad deal.

anamax 5y ago

[1] What is the CEO's cliff and vesting? [2] Longer vesting means more stock, around 50% in this case, for companies who want employees long-term. (The relevant measure is stock/year, not total stock.) [3] Ask the CEO to name three comparable companies with such terms. If there's a hostile reaction to [3], you just learned something valuable. If there's a neutral reaction, you can say that you're evaluating the CEO's ability to negotiate and persuade, which is true. Interviews and offer negotiations go both ways.

bagels 5y ago

It's common for companies that want to exploit employees and not reward them for their contributions.

wilsynet 5y ago

And 1/4 is for companies that care about compensating employees fairly, while adhering to market norms. Run away. This CEO wants to hold your equity hostage.

michaelcampbell 5y ago

> "want employees who care about the long term" Run away. Next thing they'll start in on how they're a family.