4 ms·
Vesting is an anti-competitive practice for retaining laborers and we should be shaming all companies that practice it.
by beebmam 5y ago
Vesting is an anti-competitive practice for retaining laborers and we should be shaming all companies that practice it.
- xboxnolifes 5y agoVesting can happen linearly and be no different from a more volatile salary.
- Broken_Hippo 5y agoTo be fair, paying someone a volatile salary (for example, mostly or all commission) should be banned as well.
- xboxnolifes 5y agoFor what reason?
- Broken_Hippo 5y agoBecause it creates instability in someone's life and easily causes folks to work for hours just to have no paycheck if they didn't sell a car (for example). Another example is a cleaning service: I knew someone that worked for one. She got paid a percentage of the cost - she had a schedule, but folks cancelled and other such things. It wound up that she was stuck at work in between jobs, couldn't go home, yet wasn't getting paid. In other words, it creates a job environment that easily exploits people. I'm not absolutely offended by bonuses and commissions, mind you, but base pay realistically should make up the majority to most of the salary and be fairly consistent from week to week. Pay based on tips can do the same thing (and you can cause this to happen to tipped employees with scheduling).
- mgfist 5y agoVesting has upsides. Your company essentially fronts you free capital on the stipulation that you invest it in the company's stock with specific lockups. Essentially it comes down to two choices: do you think cash over the course of your vest cycle will perform better than the company's stock. If you believe cash will do better, then RSUs are worse than cash bonuses. Otherwise the RSUs do better.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- slt2021 5y agoyou can just not apply to work there if that is your opinion. plenty of other people have different opinion. no need to shame, this cancerous cancel culture must die