Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

161–170 of 180 posts

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

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really need top notch people? Or do you just want them? Start lowering your expectations.

High performers are high earners, so their mobility is limited relative to a 99% developer. Easier to control.

Huh?

What does this have to do with the question I asked? If this person is having a hard time attracting top notch people, maybe it's time to find out whether they even need top notch people.

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a FAANG engineer that used to work for start ups I’ll give my honest feedback on why I don’t consider working for a start up anymore. A 15% options pool is insulting as you’ve decided to split off 85% for yourself and non-employees while leaving a measly 15% for the people who will actually build the company. 2% is just way to low to be of interest to me. And the sad part is, that is much higher that most offers.…

I appreciate the feedback, it's useful to hear this. I'd be willing to boost the options pool, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to do so right now for a few reasons. 1.) I don't trust that someone isn't going to come in, get offered a large chunk of equity (lets say it's 10%), and leave after 2 years with 5% of the company. In many ways that would be unfair to a future employee who works with us for a longer period of…

I'm glad to give feedback. I'd prefer to have start up jobs as an option, so I'm incentivized to help with this problem as well. Sorry you are being downvoted as you are at least thinking about the problem and possible solutions.

You say you don't trust someone to get a chunk of equity and then leave after two years, but you asking employees to trust that they won't get let go before vesting. I'm not saying you think of it that way, but that is how it comes across. You want to have your cake and it it too.

Re owning 50.1%: Do you not trust the 15% of employee votes to side with you over the investors? I really don't know much about corporate structures, but I'd love to see the collective employees represent a board vote as well. I have no idea if this is possible.

I would not join a start up without knowing the burn rate with existing revenue/investment (not sales about to close or an investor about to sign papers).

Re-unlimited vacation: What you say is a hassle sounds like offloading your burden as a founder to the employees in the form of a pay decrease. At least in California, PTO is debt owed to the employees, so 2 weeks at 200k is 8k being withheld because of a hassle. Again, does not feel good. Also, I believe in an "unlimited" pto situation employees will only take as much time off as their manager/leadership so in my interview I would be asking what time off my manager/founders have taken in the past year or what you are doing to ensure people take the time off they need to live a healthy and balanced life. I also ask this question at interviews for non-unlimited PTO jobs, but because at least that time will get paid out if unused it isn't as big of deal, although I still wouldn't accept a position if my direct manager hasn't taken at least one week off in the past year.

There are too many creative ways for options to go poorly for an employee. Even with founders with the greatest intentions, things change. Board control can change, divorces can affect shares and control, a co-founder could leave, market conditions could cause well intended founders to have to let people go when things get rocky. If there is medium-success acquisition will the investors/founders be paid before my shares?

Also with options... what am I expecting to be a good payout? $500k after 4-5 years maybe? Thats ~100k a year. With RSUs for actual public stock, sign on grants, ESPP, PTO, etc., the TCO at a FAANG company can be quite high, so it feels like I'm taking on a lot risk to maybe break even? Yes, there is the chance of a billion dollar startup, but those are outliers and aren't representative of most successful startups.

One thing that startups haven't yet started to utilize is the resource of time. Many FAANG engineers make more than enough. If a startup offered me half my FAANG salary for 3 days full time employment with benefits, this is an offer I would strongly consider. It also eases the pressure of PTO issue. Like the old saying goes... Time is money. I may not be representative of everyone, but these are things have become important to me as I've grown as both an engineer and a person.

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

#163
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Startups don't have a virtual monopoly on jobs the issue is much less pressing than with app stores. Of course that doesn't mean that programmers shouldn't form a union.

> Of course that doesn't mean that programmers shouldn't form a union. That's potentially quite an expensive trade-off. You give up your ability to negotiate so that somebody else will collectively negotiate on your behalf. That can work out well, at least for a while, but it's worth considering the longer-term consequences. E.g., in the longer term it can favour cheaper labour or cheaper competitors elsewhere. (Yes,…

Yes and no. You could likely work outside the union though with their minimum pay/max hours (and a employer side of the same). A union could work for local jobs with other unions (think districts) to keep things local and provide equitable pay guidelines or openness. You likely would not be required to join anyway.

Plumbers have it mostly sorted out though. Critical tech might demand higher pay but I love this story I read of a band doing a wedding and negotiating pay for a 4 hour reception. The planner and band can't come to an agreement so the band says to call the local plumbers union, ask what the cost is for 4 guys on a 4 hours job, and use that number with some drinks tossed in.

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

#164
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And you're still protecting them even after they admitted to fraud! This is in response to someone saying we need to look out for each other. Our fellow devs and employees. Y'all need to stop being so nice. Your founder isn't. You need to stop trying to play fair , your founder isn't. You need to put the people you work with on a higher level than your founder and get over this appeal to authority.

Who would people believe? The CEO or a disgruntled former employee?

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

#165
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not if the union negotiates upper limits on compensation. Or it negotiates yearly raise brackets. You can negotiate better individually if you are good and there arent union enforced guidelines, if you're not, the union deal would work out better.

Do you see yourself as becoming a top earner in your field? Do you know if you earn more than your colleagues? If so, is this because of your negotiating skills?

I know I am compensated fairly and that puts me as top earner for my current country.

It is due to demand and offer for my technical skills... I switch or ask for a raise if I get a better offer, anyone can/should do that.

It's not due to unions. Here unions are mandatory and result is what I said earlier, that plus making it hard to fire incompetent people.

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

#166
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not if the union negotiates upper limits on compensation. Or it negotiates yearly raise brackets. You can negotiate better individually if you are good and there arent union enforced guidelines, if you're not, the union deal would work out better.

Then your union is bad and you should work to improve it. No wonder if US unions always end up so bad if apparently nobody is willing to fix things and let pancilpushers do it.

I'm in europe, unions are mandatory everywhere, some are good, some are not, average just do what the company wants them to, usually the 2-3% raise every year.

Unions don't really work for software, high demand, low supply of people, here you can negotiate better then without one, and if you are not happy, next job.

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

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a ton of this on HN for the past couple of years, "Go work for FAANG, startups are worthless." As someone who has started a company, gotten it funded, and would like to hire high quality engineers, this is deeply disheartening. I've tried to hire a few people, offering them market rate or close to it for base salary (_very_ rough ballpark 150-200K for 2-5y experience) and a decent chunk of equity (highly va…

A few things would help * Options should not have a 3 month expiration after a person leaves the company. Anything vested should be exercisable 10 years after they were granted no matter what. * Give people a starting bonus for early exercise * Allow sales of exercised shares on secondary markets, or guarantee in writing X shares will be purchasable by your investor pool so some of the equity could be gained While yo…

I've actually talked to our lawyers and investors about some of these.

1.) More than 3 months expiration gets tricky legally and I'm not sure it's actually fair. At that point I'm told we can't grant them as ISOs, they have to be NSOs or RSUs which could have poor tax profiles. Investors are also not keen, because you're basically giving free optionality that pretty much nobody else has. Essentially a 10 year exercise window means you get to just wait and see and only put in money when it's a sure thing. You don't even need to put in time if the option is vested. This while others who come later likely can't benefit from the same treatment (because the awards will be taxable as NSOs, and at that point more than trivial in paper value), and while investors and founders have put in cash to purchase the shares.

2.) Early exercise we have offered and will continue to offer. It's tricky because those have to be NSOs as well, but it's totally something we do. We have given signing bonuses (I hate doing this as a general rule, but it's what we have to do to get the talent), could look at making that more tied to the early exercise in some way. Again I'm not sure how the tax side plays out for the employee though. Generally this is something I support, glad to see it'd be helpful.

3.) I'm not sure what restrictions we have but I think we do restrict secondaries. For very early stage companies it's hard to write these promises of future purchases down, there's too much uncertainty on how they plays out over the long term. It can spook investors to have non-standard clauses like this, and the lawyers get very upset which means they charge us more money. That said, it's worth thinking about how to accomplish the same outcome.

Keep in mind we are paying a decent base salary. It's actually strange to me how the compensation market in the bay area essentially discounts base pay because FAANG have had insane stock trajectories. When we recruit in other markets base pay is the main negotiating point, not equity.

Thanks for the feedback, this is helpful!

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the feedback, it's useful to hear this. I'd be willing to boost the options pool, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to do so right now for a few reasons. 1.) I don't trust that someone isn't going to come in, get offered a large chunk of equity (lets say it's 10%), and leave after 2 years with 5% of the company. In many ways that would be unfair to a future employee who works with us for a longer period of…

I'm glad to give feedback. I'd prefer to have start up jobs as an option, so I'm incentivized to help with this problem as well. Sorry you are being downvoted as you are at least thinking about the problem and possible solutions. You say you don't trust someone to get a chunk of equity and then leave after two years, but you asking employees to trust that they won't get let go before vesting. I'm not saying you think…

Thanks for engaging, this is really quite helpful and as you imply it's a kind of cancer on the ecosystem right now.

On the chunk of equity, I had a cofounder walk away early so I'm a little burned on the subject. You're right that the letting go before vesting is an issue, I think maybe rethinking the cliff to something like a 6 month rather than a year could do better there. Full disclosure, we do have a mildly backloaded vesting schedule (20-23-27-30) to encourage staying longer, but I think a crazy backload (like 10-15-25-50) creates toxic incentives on firing people before the equity hits.

I think essentially my (and the investor's) worries about that employee stem from a belief that a founder typically has a different level of emotional commitment than even very dedicated early employees. Obviously not always but often. Which means that even if it's a theoretical risk that the founder walks early with a hefty chunk, it's less likely.

On owning less than half, I actually tried to write a clause like that (I vote by proxy for employees who own less than a given percentage individually) into the term sheet. It was rejected by the investors. I'd love to have a board representative for the employees as we expand. I've actually considered a seat that has to be a non-exec employee that would rotate in every 6-12 months. Something to consider when we have more seats for sure.

With all hires I've been clear on how much we've raised, how many shares exist, who are the investors in rough proportion, rough estimate of runway, and milestones we have to hit to get the next round. I'll think about careful ways to share the information as we go down the road. One difficulty is that it's hard to judge how people react to these numbers. If I've got 6 months runway left, how many people look for the exits? And what does it say about me that I'm not sure about being honest about that? I'm honestly really torn.

On unlimited PTO and time I sense that there's a larger, "will you abuse my home life and time?" undercurrent. On the accounting, I don't know the details but I'm told it's more than just the price of the PTO, it's the way it complicates backend accounting. Maybe I should dig more.

One way I think I could mitigate the concerns and that I've considered are as follows:

- guaranteed 1 company holiday per month, if there's no official holiday in that month we'll designate one monday or friday as off.

- 1 week off in the winter 1 week off in the summer as scheduled company shutdowns. The nature of our business is not live, "keep the website running" so we have flexibility there.

I've also set a tone with all my employees that we don't burn out here, lets find schedules that work. We shouldn't be burning the midnight oil and weekends all the time. If we are, we need to rethink our objectives or staffing. Maybe setting the above two benchmarks would also set that tone. Maybe this is idealism, but I think we can do it. I guess we'll find out!

Your 3 day work week sounds interesting, will think on it a bit. We would need to have a good mutual understanding of what milestones we want to hit on what timeline, but could be doable with the right people.

I hear you on the many ways things go wrong. I can't predict that, and sadly layoffs can happen. I think you can do those humanely but it's awful and I hope we'll avoid it, though likely if we're around long enough we won't.

On the investor/founder vs employee split though, I have common stock, just like every other employee. We rise and fall together, though yes investors can have a liquidation preference. In those cases, my strike price was better but that's the only way I'd be treated differently than an employee. I see no reason to change that, and I think if secondaries happen (and my investors typically don't do those) they should be open to all in proportion to their ownership of the company.

The stock comp at FAANG is basically unbeatable and I'm convinced is designed to distort the startup ecosystem. The only thing I'd say as risk is this:

"We're going to pay you a decent base, you're not gonna struggle. If we go big, you'll have a nice upside, and you'll have done it building something cool from the core. If we go medium, you'll probably not make as much overall as a FAANG, but you'll get to build something cool that mattered and was more directly tied to you personally. If we fail after a few years, then worst case you've worked on something cool, and FAANG will take you right back."

It's strongly tied to us building something cool to work on AND that while building it we don't abuse you. It sounds like I have to find ways to convincingly make that promise.

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

#169
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a ton of this on HN for the past couple of years, "Go work for FAANG, startups are worthless." As someone who has started a company, gotten it funded, and would like to hire high quality engineers, this is deeply disheartening. I've tried to hire a few people, offering them market rate or close to it for base salary (_very_ rough ballpark 150-200K for 2-5y experience) and a decent chunk of equity (highly va…

> 1.) I have 15% of the company in my option pool, so no I can't do that unless I effectively want to give nothing to everyone after that person. Just out of interest, why couldn't you increase the size of the options pool?

Answered elsewhere but 1.) unsure about implications on corporate governance at this stage of the company. 2.) I didn't think very much about this initially and thought 15% would be fine, now it would take a fair amount of legal wrangling to get right 3.) honestly part of the reason I worry about double digit grants when people are earning near market base salary is that I don't feel they're committed in proportion to the equity that's vesting. Maybe could be solved with long vesting schedules.

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

#170
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a ton of this on HN for the past couple of years, "Go work for FAANG, startups are worthless." As someone who has started a company, gotten it funded, and would like to hire high quality engineers, this is deeply disheartening. I've tried to hire a few people, offering them market rate or close to it for base salary (_very_ rough ballpark 150-200K for 2-5y experience) and a decent chunk of equity (highly va…

> and that someday stock worth 10s or 100s of K will be worth 100s or 1Ms This sounds a bit dodgy. I don't endorse paying someone with less than 5 years 250k/year but if you're looking at someone then the amount of options you give them should be worth at least the salary cut over the vesting period. So say you're looking at some VP potential that could get 400k per year working at Netflix or something and you're goi…

I understand the perspective, but from my view that sounds like the person wants to take zero risk. Essentially, they don't believe in the idea enough to believe that the stock is undervalued by virtue of the company being early on. We have to pay well, but as you imply if someone doesn't want to take a pretty small risk then they're not the right fit.

I say small risk, because the worst case scenario is that we fail in a year or two and then that person will likely have no trouble going back to the crazy high comp at FAANG. So the biggest downside is some opportunity cost and a few years of yes lower financial cost but without a devastating lifestyle change if we're paying decent base salary.

Post reply on HN