14 ms·

The thing that most bugs me about this is that the Google chef somehow needs to have his rights defended. He was made a promise when he was hired and Google ch

by jfruh 15y ago

The thing that most bugs me about this is that the Google chef somehow needs to have his rights defended. He was made a promise when he was hired and Google cheerfully fulfilled its obligation to follow through with that. Ditto on whoever is being screwed at Zynga. "Unvested" does not mean "maybe you will get this at a later date, who can say."

alex_c 15y ago
Most of the business world has no issue with a "you deserve what you negotiate for yourself" mentality - if it applies to your own high compensation, or to someone else's low compensation. It only becomes an issue if someone you perceive to be lower on the pecking order than you has successfully negotiated a good deal. A contract's a contract, and a deal's a deal. "Deserving" it doesn't come into play beyond the scope of the contract.
esrauch 15y ago
That is exactly what unvested means, it means "maybe you will get this at a later date, maybe you will be fired, who can say." Zynga could just fire all of these people if they didn't want to give them the stock, and that wouldn't be "taking back stock", that would just be "you never had the stock". The only reason why it's evil is because they think the employees are actually valuable enough that they want to keep them around but not valuable enough to keep good on their stock units. They could easily fire the employees and let them re-interview for their old jobs if they wanted and it would be perfectly legal (companies do this on a regular basis to rehire employees as contractors without benefits). RSUs and stock options like this are pretty interesting to me because it provides a huge incentive for employees to stay at the company, but it also provides a huge incentive for employers to fire their employees after (N-1) time periods where N is when their units vest.
- damoncali 15y ago
  If the only reason you're firing someone is to keep their stock, you're a dick and it's wrong. This, unlike options agreemetns, is not complicated. It may be legal. And it may be financially rational. But it's wrong.
  - esrauch 15y ago
    You still slipped it "keep their stock", it isn't their stock. It's just like any other compensation; if the company just had people hired at salary X and decided that a particular employee isn't worth that salary anymore, they can either just fire that person or they can lower their salary. What you are saying is the same as "if the only reason you're firing someone is to not have to pay them anymore, you're a dick and it's wrong".
    - damoncali 15y ago
      Nonsense. Options are negotiated at the time of employment for a reason - their value is derived from the risk and their upside. You cannot go back and take them away "because they're worth too much". It defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. If you want to cap the value, do it at the time of the agreement. Otherwise you are misrepresenting the value of the compensation. As long as the employee is doing what they are supposed to be doning (and if they're not, they should be fired), those options should be paid out, regardless of their worth. Ask yourself this: What would Pincus be doing if those employees had worthless options? Do you think he'd be writing checks to cover their non-gains? I know the agreements are written to allow this behavior. It's still wrong, and goes against the spirt of equity grants.
      - esrauch 15y ago
        I still don't understand how this is any different than "What would he be doing if their salaries had been negotiated to be lower to begin with? If he didn't have to pay them, would he still be firing them?" I fail to see how this is any different than the spirit of a salary, you expect your salary to be the same or go higher and anytime it is lowered would be a surprise to most people. It is explicitly in writing that this stock do not belong to them and that they won't get it if the company decides to fire them for any reason. That is exactly what the contract says, otherwise there wouldn't be any dispute here, it would be a violation of the contract. Stocks don't belong to you until they vest, just like salary doesn't belong to you until it actually gets deposited into your bank account. It doesn't matter if the compensation is salary or stock grants or health insurance, and to act like stock is some magic form of compensation that is somehow different than the others, that it's perfectly ok to fire someone if their salary is too high but not ok to fire someone if their future stock grant would be too high makes no sense at all to me.
sliverstorm 15y ago
"Unvested" does not mean "maybe you will get this at a later date, it depends on whether it is worth anything. Fixed for accuracy.
jronkone 15y ago
It's not that Google chef needs defending, it's that the dickheads at zynga need to be exposed for what they are.

by jfruh 15y ago

alex_c 15y ago

Most of the business world has no issue with a "you deserve what you negotiate for yourself" mentality - if it applies to your own high compensation, or to someone else's low compensation. It only becomes an issue if someone you perceive to be lower on the pecking order than you has successfully negotiated a good deal. A contract's a contract, and a deal's a deal. "Deserving" it doesn't come into play beyond the scope of the contract.

esrauch 15y ago

That is exactly what unvested means, it means "maybe you will get this at a later date, maybe you will be fired, who can say." Zynga could just fire all of these people if they didn't want to give them the stock, and that wouldn't be "taking back stock", that would just be "you never had the stock". The only reason why it's evil is because they think the employees are actually valuable enough that they want to keep them around but not valuable enough to keep good on their stock units. They could easily fire the employees and let them re-interview for their old jobs if they wanted and it would be perfectly legal (companies do this on a regular basis to rehire employees as contractors without benefits). RSUs and stock options like this are pretty interesting to me because it provides a huge incentive for employees to stay at the company, but it also provides a huge incentive for employers to fire their employees after (N-1) time periods where N is when their units vest.

damoncali 15y ago
If the only reason you're firing someone is to keep their stock, you're a dick and it's wrong. This, unlike options agreemetns, is not complicated. It may be legal. And it may be financially rational. But it's wrong.
- esrauch 15y ago
  You still slipped it "keep their stock", it isn't their stock. It's just like any other compensation; if the company just had people hired at salary X and decided that a particular employee isn't worth that salary anymore, they can either just fire that person or they can lower their salary. What you are saying is the same as "if the only reason you're firing someone is to not have to pay them anymore, you're a dick and it's wrong".
  - damoncali 15y ago
    Nonsense. Options are negotiated at the time of employment for a reason - their value is derived from the risk and their upside. You cannot go back and take them away "because they're worth too much". It defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. If you want to cap the value, do it at the time of the agreement. Otherwise you are misrepresenting the value of the compensation. As long as the employee is doing what they are supposed to be doning (and if they're not, they should be fired), those options should be paid out, regardless of their worth. Ask yourself this: What would Pincus be doing if those employees had worthless options? Do you think he'd be writing checks to cover their non-gains? I know the agreements are written to allow this behavior. It's still wrong, and goes against the spirt of equity grants.
    - esrauch 15y ago
      I still don't understand how this is any different than "What would he be doing if their salaries had been negotiated to be lower to begin with? If he didn't have to pay them, would he still be firing them?" I fail to see how this is any different than the spirit of a salary, you expect your salary to be the same or go higher and anytime it is lowered would be a surprise to most people. It is explicitly in writing that this stock do not belong to them and that they won't get it if the company decides to fire them for any reason. That is exactly what the contract says, otherwise there wouldn't be any dispute here, it would be a violation of the contract. Stocks don't belong to you until they vest, just like salary doesn't belong to you until it actually gets deposited into your bank account. It doesn't matter if the compensation is salary or stock grants or health insurance, and to act like stock is some magic form of compensation that is somehow different than the others, that it's perfectly ok to fire someone if their salary is too high but not ok to fire someone if their future stock grant would be too high makes no sense at all to me.

sliverstorm 15y ago

"Unvested" does not mean "maybe you will get this at a later date, it depends on whether it is worth anything. Fixed for accuracy.

jronkone 15y ago

It's not that Google chef needs defending, it's that the dickheads at zynga need to be exposed for what they are.