7 ms·

These employees were given options for some combination of performance and risk / opportunity cost from taking an early job in an unproven startup. For Pinkus

by earl 15y ago

These employees were given options for some combination of performance and risk / opportunity cost from taking an early job in an unproven startup. For Pinkus to renegotiate with only the former in mind while ignoring the latter is bs. These employees need lawyers. But such self-dealing is what you would expect from someone like Mark; I can't understand how anyone believes someone involved in lead-gen scams the way Zynga was retains any ability to claim to be ethical, and particularly to be "proud of the ethical and fair way that we've built this company."

gm 15y ago
Funny... How's the conversation with the lawyer going to go? "Ok, so you're employed at-will. You are only talking about losing your unvested shares. Your employer has the option to fire you and prevent you from vesting anymore shares, yet he is keeping you on board and wishes to renegotiate the matter of your remaining unvested shares.. Do I have that right?" "Yes. I want to remain employed, and I want to vest all my unvested shares" "You realize your employer can perfectly legally just fire you and you will not vest any shares at all, right?" "Yes, but I want to get all the shares I'm entitled to" "I realize that, bu you realize your employer can perfectly legally just fire you and you will not vest any shares at all, right?" "Yes, I guess they can." "You don't need a lawyer, you have no claim here at all, there is nothing I could do. The underlying assumption of your employer is that you have not been doing a good job. I'm pretty sure they have a paper trail to support their case. You will have to contest that, but first you need to get fired, otherwise there is no harm done. But once that happens the onus will be on you to prove that you were fired for an illegal reason, and that is a very high standard to meet. Very high." "Hmm, ok" "Now, let's see what 'at-will employment' means: 'The employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.'" "Oh shit." "Maybe you better negotiate for your remaining unvested shares. Some shares are better than no shares. You could be getting fired right now for all I know. You could bring me in to help you negotiate, but if I were them and my employee brought in a lawyer to negotiate, I would fire him on the spot rather than play a game I don't need to play." "Damn."
- davidcuddeback 15y ago
  > You realize your employer can perfectly legally just fire you and you will not vest any shares at all, right? I'm not so sure that's true. Zynga is headquartered in San Francisco and is subject to California's employment laws. I may not be an expert on California's laws regarding at-will employment, but I sat on a jury for a wrongful termination lawsuit and "at-will" never came up. I would assume any lawyer worth his salt would bring that up in the company's defense if it was valid. Does anyone know what California's laws are regarding at-will employment? Edit: After Googling around for a bit, my impression is that California is an at-will employment state without many exceptions (basically can't fire someone out of discrimination).
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Virtually every state but Montana is at-will (Montana requires "good cause" after probationary periods expire). In no state can you fire someone because of race, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability.
    - davidcuddeback 15y ago
      Any idea what the justification is for at-will employment? My visceral reaction is that it seems unfair. I like Montana's idea of a probationary period. But I'd like to understand the intellectual justification.
      - MBlume 15y ago
        The intellectual justification is probably something like: Hiring someone always represents a risk. You don't know if the person is going to succeed at the job you hired them for. You don't know if they're going to wind up a positive asset to the company. You need the option of firing them, and the possibility that you might wind up in a legal battle because you did so -- that even if you have an airtight case, you'll have to lawyer up and spend time in a court room -- is scary and could therefore have a chilling effect on hiring in the first place.

by earl 15y ago

gm 15y ago

Funny... How's the conversation with the lawyer going to go? "Ok, so you're employed at-will. You are only talking about losing your unvested shares. Your employer has the option to fire you and prevent you from vesting anymore shares, yet he is keeping you on board and wishes to renegotiate the matter of your remaining unvested shares.. Do I have that right?" "Yes. I want to remain employed, and I want to vest all my unvested shares" "You realize your employer can perfectly legally just fire you and you will not vest any shares at all, right?" "Yes, but I want to get all the shares I'm entitled to" "I realize that, bu you realize your employer can perfectly legally just fire you and you will not vest any shares at all, right?" "Yes, I guess they can." "You don't need a lawyer, you have no claim here at all, there is nothing I could do. The underlying assumption of your employer is that you have not been doing a good job. I'm pretty sure they have a paper trail to support their case. You will have to contest that, but first you need to get fired, otherwise there is no harm done. But once that happens the onus will be on you to prove that you were fired for an illegal reason, and that is a very high standard to meet. Very high." "Hmm, ok" "Now, let's see what 'at-will employment' means: 'The employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.'" "Oh shit." "Maybe you better negotiate for your remaining unvested shares. Some shares are better than no shares. You could be getting fired right now for all I know. You could bring me in to help you negotiate, but if I were them and my employee brought in a lawyer to negotiate, I would fire him on the spot rather than play a game I don't need to play." "Damn."

davidcuddeback 15y ago
> You realize your employer can perfectly legally just fire you and you will not vest any shares at all, right? I'm not so sure that's true. Zynga is headquartered in San Francisco and is subject to California's employment laws. I may not be an expert on California's laws regarding at-will employment, but I sat on a jury for a wrongful termination lawsuit and "at-will" never came up. I would assume any lawyer worth his salt would bring that up in the company's defense if it was valid. Does anyone know what California's laws are regarding at-will employment? Edit: After Googling around for a bit, my impression is that California is an at-will employment state without many exceptions (basically can't fire someone out of discrimination).
- tptacek 15y ago
  Virtually every state but Montana is at-will (Montana requires "good cause" after probationary periods expire). In no state can you fire someone because of race, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability.
  - davidcuddeback 15y ago
    Any idea what the justification is for at-will employment? My visceral reaction is that it seems unfair. I like Montana's idea of a probationary period. But I'd like to understand the intellectual justification.
    - MBlume 15y ago
      The intellectual justification is probably something like: Hiring someone always represents a risk. You don't know if the person is going to succeed at the job you hired them for. You don't know if they're going to wind up a positive asset to the company. You need the option of firing them, and the possibility that you might wind up in a legal battle because you did so -- that even if you have an airtight case, you'll have to lawyer up and spend time in a court room -- is scary and could therefore have a chilling effect on hiring in the first place.