4 ms·

Not quite, since it's unvested shares they're taking back. The company has promised to give those shares to the employees when they hit certain tenure milestone

by tghw 15y ago

Not quite, since it's unvested shares they're taking back. The company has promised to give those shares to the employees when they hit certain tenure milestones, but the company still owns them in the meantime. If they fire the employee, the company keeps those shares.

davorak 15y ago
The fact that it is unvested shares changes little. The employees where lead to believe that if they meant a certain milestones they would receive stock. Now the milestones have been changed. The employees must now also meet new criteria for productivity to receive stock. They signed up for one deal and are now being served another.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Except the possibility always existed that they could get fired and not get that stock. The only thing that has changed is that Zynga is now saying that they're willing to fire you just so you don't get that stock. Deeply unethical, and terrible for employee relations, and not at all in the interests of the company, but probably legal.
  - rayiner 15y ago
    Even in right to work states, there's all sorts of reasons a company can't fire you, it's just the burden is on you to prove them. Pedagogical example is that your boss can't fire you just because you wouldn't sleep with him. If they fire you claiming it was just for performance, but you have evidence of circumstances that makes it clear it was because you wouldn't sleep with him, then you've got a problem. Firing someone to screw them out of contractual rights you both agreed to is problematic. And even if the company claims it was performance-based, which they will have to, the CEO's statements basically give the other side all the evidence they need to refute that.
shad0wfax 15y ago
This is extortion of sorts right? I mean, yes they could fire the employee for genuine reasons, but if there is a way to prove that the conversation did occur, where the execs did tell the employee to return the unvested stocks in order to keep the job, its pure blackmailing. I wish there was someway to expose these crooks and bring them to justice.

by tghw 15y ago

davorak 15y ago

The fact that it is unvested shares changes little. The employees where lead to believe that if they meant a certain milestones they would receive stock. Now the milestones have been changed. The employees must now also meet new criteria for productivity to receive stock. They signed up for one deal and are now being served another.

hugh3 15y ago
Except the possibility always existed that they could get fired and not get that stock. The only thing that has changed is that Zynga is now saying that they're willing to fire you just so you don't get that stock. Deeply unethical, and terrible for employee relations, and not at all in the interests of the company, but probably legal.
- rayiner 15y ago
  Even in right to work states, there's all sorts of reasons a company can't fire you, it's just the burden is on you to prove them. Pedagogical example is that your boss can't fire you just because you wouldn't sleep with him. If they fire you claiming it was just for performance, but you have evidence of circumstances that makes it clear it was because you wouldn't sleep with him, then you've got a problem. Firing someone to screw them out of contractual rights you both agreed to is problematic. And even if the company claims it was performance-based, which they will have to, the CEO's statements basically give the other side all the evidence they need to refute that.

shad0wfax 15y ago

This is extortion of sorts right? I mean, yes they could fire the employee for genuine reasons, but if there is a way to prove that the conversation did occur, where the execs did tell the employee to return the unvested stocks in order to keep the job, its pure blackmailing. I wish there was someway to expose these crooks and bring them to justice.