3 ms·

You'll mostly get altruistic and/or theoretical answers, like that all employees should have equity on principle, execs should on principle, or that it motivate

You'll mostly get altruistic and/or theoretical answers, like that all employees should have equity on principle, execs should on principle, or that it motivates execs to deliver results. I'll give you a practical answer: it's a compensation agreement. There's no right or wrong answer what should or shouldn't be part of compensation, nor how much. 0% isn't any more or less "correct" than 2% or 0.2% or 20%. If you don't like your compensation, negotiate harder. In your case, it sounds like you perceive the pay is already lower than you could get elsewhere, so there's not much of a trade to give. Basically, you believe you're worth a lot more than the company does, and also, it's personally important to you that you have equity in the company. That's fine. Either tell them that (and be ready to move on - there's probably not a satisfactory outcome), or simply accept that the parties disagree on how valuable this role is and move on.

stevievee 4y ago
Agree completely. I like the point on disagreement of value and OP should be prepared to move on. I just want to add that OP should negotiate for the future and not get too hung up on trying to recover the past or think they are entitled to any equity appreciation they missed out on. Sticking too much to principle might just leave resentment lingering. While it is possible to negotiate to make up for the past I think there is more value in focusing on the future. ie. Even if OP negotiated harder now, the equity is unlikely to be gifted to make up for the past. It may come in the form of vesting options but that will likely be structured to only gain value from the time of grant (now) onwards. That... or OP will get lower % equity than would have been received in the past. Knowing this, I think it is still better to correct it going forwards than worry about any missed appreciation.
x0x0 4y ago
Also, the post sounds like namelesscto wants a referee to tell his/her boss that he/she is wrong which... that isn't how anything works. NB: equity on small companies is often worthless anyway. There's no liquid market for it, so turning it into cash is often impossible or at a pretty arbitrary price. And one last thought: @namelesscto should go get an offer. I'm not saying it's the case here, but I've found (as a person who hires engineers) that many engineers are optimistic about their market value. eg yes, engineers at google make a lot of money. However, most engineers aren't capable of getting a job at a faang. I've made a couple people pretty sad by bluntly telling them that if they want to earn a google salary, they should go work at google and I'll be bummed, but I'll help them transition out. Getting an offer will turn that market value from hypothetical to concrete, and will be informative both for @namelesscto and his/her boss.
hackitup7 4y ago
I really like this take. There are moralistic arguments to be made when it comes to compensation, and I personally have my own viewpoints on what is fair that are rooted in morality, but at the end of the day for the sorts of high-demand, high compensation tech roles that we're usually talking about it's 100% a contractual agreement. It's like selling a car – the price is whatever you can get for it.

stevievee 4y ago

Agree completely. I like the point on disagreement of value and OP should be prepared to move on. I just want to add that OP should negotiate for the future and not get too hung up on trying to recover the past or think they are entitled to any equity appreciation they missed out on. Sticking too much to principle might just leave resentment lingering. While it is possible to negotiate to make up for the past I think there is more value in focusing on the future. ie. Even if OP negotiated harder now, the equity is unlikely to be gifted to make up for the past. It may come in the form of vesting options but that will likely be structured to only gain value from the time of grant (now) onwards. That... or OP will get lower % equity than would have been received in the past. Knowing this, I think it is still better to correct it going forwards than worry about any missed appreciation.

x0x0 4y ago

Also, the post sounds like namelesscto wants a referee to tell his/her boss that he/she is wrong which... that isn't how anything works. NB: equity on small companies is often worthless anyway. There's no liquid market for it, so turning it into cash is often impossible or at a pretty arbitrary price. And one last thought: @namelesscto should go get an offer. I'm not saying it's the case here, but I've found (as a person who hires engineers) that many engineers are optimistic about their market value. eg yes, engineers at google make a lot of money. However, most engineers aren't capable of getting a job at a faang. I've made a couple people pretty sad by bluntly telling them that if they want to earn a google salary, they should go work at google and I'll be bummed, but I'll help them transition out. Getting an offer will turn that market value from hypothetical to concrete, and will be informative both for @namelesscto and his/her boss.

hackitup7 4y ago

I really like this take. There are moralistic arguments to be made when it comes to compensation, and I personally have my own viewpoints on what is fair that are rooted in morality, but at the end of the day for the sorts of high-demand, high compensation tech roles that we're usually talking about it's 100% a contractual agreement. It's like selling a car – the price is whatever you can get for it.