3 ms·

It's ludicrous that it's even necessary to paint the archetypical "Google chef" as someone who daringly sacrifices for their scrappy company for them to be wort

It's ludicrous that it's even necessary to paint the archetypical "Google chef" as someone who daringly sacrifices for their scrappy company for them to be worthy of windfall profits. If you compensate employees with options, they deserve whatever they end up being worth. Period. That's the whole point of options. If there were an asterisk attached that said, "...but only if people agree in retrospect that you deserve the money," nobody would accept them as payment.

retrogradeorbit 15y ago
Yeah. I find it humourous that they say they are clawing them back so they "could attract more top talent with the promise of stock." What? By demonstrating how they'll screw them out of that stock when the time comes?
- perfunctory 15y ago
  That's exactly right. It's bizarre how people believe they can improve their business by being dicks.
- zem 15y ago
  there are always people willing to believe that they won't be screwed out of their options because they deserve them more than those lazy early employees.
  - lambda 15y ago
    I loved the local coffee shop that had a sign up by the register: "We cheat the other guy, and pass the savings on to you!" That's exactly the message that Zynga is sending out now.
Vivtek 15y ago
Exactly. If they didn't want early people to have disproportionate gains, they should have paid them with money. This just looks like what it is - regret that they didn't keep more, now that Zynga is successful. Cheap bastards.
stfu 15y ago
Absolutely. But I somewhat see this as a growing trend. That some "social concerns" are increasingly trying to reduce the rewards of taking a risk. Ironically this is somewhat reflected already here in the discussion in regards that the chef earned that by physically working hard. He would have had to do the same at any other restaurant job. But the real issue here is that he was willing to take the risk of working as the chef for some unknown company without knowing what is going to happen, while most of his colleagues were going for much saver options.

retrogradeorbit 15y ago

Yeah. I find it humourous that they say they are clawing them back so they "could attract more top talent with the promise of stock." What? By demonstrating how they'll screw them out of that stock when the time comes?

perfunctory 15y ago
That's exactly right. It's bizarre how people believe they can improve their business by being dicks.
zem 15y ago
there are always people willing to believe that they won't be screwed out of their options because they deserve them more than those lazy early employees.
- lambda 15y ago
  I loved the local coffee shop that had a sign up by the register: "We cheat the other guy, and pass the savings on to you!" That's exactly the message that Zynga is sending out now.

Vivtek 15y ago

Exactly. If they didn't want early people to have disproportionate gains, they should have paid them with money. This just looks like what it is - regret that they didn't keep more, now that Zynga is successful. Cheap bastards.

stfu 15y ago

Absolutely. But I somewhat see this as a growing trend. That some "social concerns" are increasingly trying to reduce the rewards of taking a risk. Ironically this is somewhat reflected already here in the discussion in regards that the chef earned that by physically working hard. He would have had to do the same at any other restaurant job. But the real issue here is that he was willing to take the risk of working as the chef for some unknown company without knowing what is going to happen, while most of his colleagues were going for much saver options.