Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 180 posts

Re: Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

#41

Post by Semaphor »

supernova87a wrote: post #37

For all the ire on this site about the likes of Google, Apple, etc. screwing over the small company with their 30% app store fee, why isn't there even more outrage over the founders and startups who screw over their even more deserving-of-help employees? You know, the employees who get subjected to unregulated dilution, tyrannical bosses, unreasonable hours and unclear compensation for trading off the prime years of…

Probably because people already tell you not to work at startups unless it is for ideological reasons.

Re: Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

#42

Post by luckylion »

supernova87a wrote: post #37

For all the ire on this site about the likes of Google, Apple, etc. screwing over the small company with their 30% app store fee, why isn't there even more outrage over the founders and startups who screw over their even more deserving-of-help employees? You know, the employees who get subjected to unregulated dilution, tyrannical bosses, unreasonable hours and unclear compensation for trading off the prime years of…

One is a lottery: invest time in this startup, accept a lower compensation, but if it works out, you'll never have to work another day in your life after 5 years.

The other isn't a lottery.

Re: Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

#43

Post by kelnos »

harikb wrote: post #11
mobileexpert wrote: post #2

How would they possibly know the terms of either offer as former employees?

If they exercised their stock options before they left the company, they receive all details (including executive comp). But they wouldn’t know what the other offer was. Btw this applies to those who are still employees too (if they explicitly bought vested options) My advice to anyone joining a startup - if you have the negotiating power, insists that you must pre-exercise and purchase all options immediately when y…

It's my understanding that early exercise is mainly only useful for tax purposes. You still won't be a shareholder until at least 1 share vests, which for a new employee, likely won't be for a year. Is that incorrect?

Re: Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

#44

Post by 0xfaded »

supernova87a wrote: post #37

For all the ire on this site about the likes of Google, Apple, etc. screwing over the small company with their 30% app store fee, why isn't there even more outrage over the founders and startups who screw over their even more deserving-of-help employees? You know, the employees who get subjected to unregulated dilution, tyrannical bosses, unreasonable hours and unclear compensation for trading off the prime years of…

90% of the time you hear of start-up employees getting "screwed", it's because the investors and founders are trying to recover their investments through an acquihire or IP sell off.

Cliffs on investments reduce the risk premium and lower the cost of money which is used to pay for the employees salaries. Founders (excluding previous successes) most likely draw a "survival" salary for many years. It's also a very demanding job, so good luck optimizing expenses at home. Employees are paid livable salaries plus options on common stock, which in a true runaway scenario will be worth something.

It's unfortunate that employees lose out on their lottery tickets, but that's really what option grants are. If you want more negotiating power, position yourself as a technical cofounder and accept the survival salary.

Re: Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

#45

Post by supernova87a »

0xfaded wrote: post #44
supernova87a wrote: post #37

For all the ire on this site about the likes of Google, Apple, etc. screwing over the small company with their 30% app store fee, why isn't there even more outrage over the founders and startups who screw over their even more deserving-of-help employees? You know, the employees who get subjected to unregulated dilution, tyrannical bosses, unreasonable hours and unclear compensation for trading off the prime years of…

90% of the time you hear of start-up employees getting "screwed", it's because the investors and founders are trying to recover their investments through an acquihire or IP sell off. Cliffs on investments reduce the risk premium and lower the cost of money which is used to pay for the employees salaries. Founders (excluding previous successes) most likely draw a "survival" salary for many years. It's also a very dema…

I see, so start driving the wagon instead of riding it, and be the one doing the screwing?

Re: Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

#46

Post by spurned_dev »

supernova87a wrote: post #37

For all the ire on this site about the likes of Google, Apple, etc. screwing over the small company with their 30% app store fee, why isn't there even more outrage over the founders and startups who screw over their even more deserving-of-help employees? You know, the employees who get subjected to unregulated dilution, tyrannical bosses, unreasonable hours and unclear compensation for trading off the prime years of…

Oh gonna need a throwaway for this one.

I had an exit interview where the founder told me their endgame was to destroy the value of the company to buyback the equity they sold to investors. I've never been more insulted in my life.

Re: Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

#47

Post by colordrops »

0xfaded wrote: post #44
supernova87a wrote: post #37

For all the ire on this site about the likes of Google, Apple, etc. screwing over the small company with their 30% app store fee, why isn't there even more outrage over the founders and startups who screw over their even more deserving-of-help employees? You know, the employees who get subjected to unregulated dilution, tyrannical bosses, unreasonable hours and unclear compensation for trading off the prime years of…

90% of the time you hear of start-up employees getting "screwed", it's because the investors and founders are trying to recover their investments through an acquihire or IP sell off. Cliffs on investments reduce the risk premium and lower the cost of money which is used to pay for the employees salaries. Founders (excluding previous successes) most likely draw a "survival" salary for many years. It's also a very dema…

So in summary you are saying it makes no sense to be an employee at a startup. There's no upside except for "lottery winners".

Re: Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

#48

Post by colordrops »

bpodgursky wrote: post #3

> including employees who put in years at the company but left before May 2020. Zoox was founded in 2014. I mean, I don't want to get into the legal side, or even the ethical side, but on a practical note, former employees with stock should really expect to be at the very bottom of the pecking chain here. If you leave and hold stock, you're coming out in decent shape if you aren't completely screwed over. Like, Amazo…

If that were the case then options or shares would have a clause stating that they only retain their value if you are still employed. They do not, and for good reason - you paid for them in sweat and opportunity cost, and probably well below market pay, during a period when the company was very risky. The whole point is to be rewarded greatly for that effort in case of company success. It has nothing to do with whether you were employed when the exit occurred.

Re: Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

#49

Post by mav3rick »

colordrops wrote: post #47
0xfaded wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90% of the time you hear of start-up employees getting "screwed", it's because the investors and founders are trying to recover their investments through an acquihire or IP sell off. Cliffs on investments reduce the risk premium and lower the cost of money which is used to pay for the employees salaries. Founders (excluding previous successes) most likely draw a "survival" salary for many years. It's also a very dema…

So in summary you are saying it makes no sense to be an employee at a startup. There's no upside except for "lottery winners".

This is so obvious to anyone who spent 2 minutes thinking about working at a startup.

Re: Former Zoox employees sue, alleging rival offer was better than Amazon's

#50

Post by MAGZine »

colordrops wrote: post #47
0xfaded wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90% of the time you hear of start-up employees getting "screwed", it's because the investors and founders are trying to recover their investments through an acquihire or IP sell off. Cliffs on investments reduce the risk premium and lower the cost of money which is used to pay for the employees salaries. Founders (excluding previous successes) most likely draw a "survival" salary for many years. It's also a very dema…

So in summary you are saying it makes no sense to be an employee at a startup. There's no upside except for "lottery winners".

Founding engineers may take 1%.

Go plug the numbers in for yourself on tldroptions.io and see what the return looks like.

That said, on the most rocketcorny of rocketcorns the growth curve continues and being an employee in series A or B can be a nice payday. But for the vast, vast majority of companies (VAST!), your share will be worth little, and more often than not, less than what you will make just going to work at a FAANG.

Startups have other innumerable benefits, but in terms of compensation, those benefits are (unfortunately) just that.

Post reply on HN