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

DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

blog.doordash.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 283 posts

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#151

Post by MattGaiser »

kerng wrote: post #141

This is good progress. Just two months ago I declined an offer from a known and well funded startup because of a one year cliff on equity. The recruiter didn't seem to be able to discuss this matter and I asked them to make sure to bubble this sort of thing up their food chain. I never heard back afterwards. As an "old timer" in the industry a one year cliff makes absolutely no sense to me. Its like working for credi…

I am so fascinated at how my grandfather would spend decades at a company, my Dad would spend a decade, and now people decline jobs over the expectation that they stay 1 year. And I was in my first job 51 weeks.

I don't think you are wrong in doing so as the market in tech moves fast while employers move like slugs, it is just such a shift from what I grew up to expect.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#152

Post by jshen »

zo1 wrote: post #111
jshen wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re not a big tech company, so comp isn’t quite what it is at Amazon, FB, etc. but, it’s solid. 100k+ salary, annual grant of restricted stock units, good health and other benefits etc. Having said that, there’s a contradiction in claiming that college grads can’t find jobs while suggesting that a company offering six figures can’t find people because of comp.

Are you offering remote? That might be a big factor that could influence things at this point in time.

We do, but that’s not the point. Someone suggested that new comp sci grads are having a very hard time finding work.

I don’t believe that given how hot the market is right now. If anyone is having real trouble, then they are either being selective (won’t move to a big city, have high demands, etc), OR something is wrong. Maybe their resume is terrible, maybe they are bad at interviews, etc.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#153

Post by le-mark »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #146
MattGaiser wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I graduated two years ago. We learned subversion :)

I also graduated two years ago. One of my peers in our group project refused to make a GitHub account and instead emailed us his code

I wrote all the code for group projects because I didn’t want to leave my grade up to the apathetic do nothings types in the cs dept where I went to university.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#154

Post by endtime »

MattGaiser wrote: post #151
kerng wrote: post #141

This is good progress. Just two months ago I declined an offer from a known and well funded startup because of a one year cliff on equity. The recruiter didn't seem to be able to discuss this matter and I asked them to make sure to bubble this sort of thing up their food chain. I never heard back afterwards. As an "old timer" in the industry a one year cliff makes absolutely no sense to me. Its like working for credi…

I am so fascinated at how my grandfather would spend decades at a company, my Dad would spend a decade, and now people decline jobs over the expectation that they stay 1 year. And I was in my first job 51 weeks. I don't think you are wrong in doing so as the market in tech moves fast while employers move like slugs, it is just such a shift from what I grew up to expect.

The problem isn't necessarily that the employee expects to want to leave in under a year, so much as they don't want the company to have an incentive to let them go in under a year.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#155

Post by Cerium »

MattGaiser wrote: post #151
kerng wrote: post #141

This is good progress. Just two months ago I declined an offer from a known and well funded startup because of a one year cliff on equity. The recruiter didn't seem to be able to discuss this matter and I asked them to make sure to bubble this sort of thing up their food chain. I never heard back afterwards. As an "old timer" in the industry a one year cliff makes absolutely no sense to me. Its like working for credi…

I am so fascinated at how my grandfather would spend decades at a company, my Dad would spend a decade, and now people decline jobs over the expectation that they stay 1 year. And I was in my first job 51 weeks. I don't think you are wrong in doing so as the market in tech moves fast while employers move like slugs, it is just such a shift from what I grew up to expect.

Things are very different in a field with long product cycles. If it takes 5 years to get a product into the field then the company has a huge incentive to retain employees.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#156

Post by __te__ »

Note: DoorDash employs the labor of approximately 104,000 people. Of those, about 4,000 are classified as employees. Of those, only a portion (of unknown size) are "equity-eligible."

Only equity-eligible roles classified as employees get equity. For everyone else employed by DoorDash, and on whose backs DoorDash is built, let them eat cake.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#157

Post by snotrockets »

novok wrote: post #120

TBH I'd feel jittery working at door dash. COVID is going to end completely soon and the boom in deliveries is going to drop with it, probably along with their stock price. If was to go work there, I could start selling every month. But they also don't give you units of RSUs as stock comp, just cash equivalents, so that is another major downside working there.

You should sell every month regardless. You already invested in your employer by betting your future on them. Diverse the rest.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#158

Post by jamiequint »

kerng wrote: post #141

This is good progress. Just two months ago I declined an offer from a known and well funded startup because of a one year cliff on equity. The recruiter didn't seem to be able to discuss this matter and I asked them to make sure to bubble this sort of thing up their food chain. I never heard back afterwards. As an "old timer" in the industry a one year cliff makes absolutely no sense to me. Its like working for credi…

"I declined an offer from a known and well funded startup because of a one year cliff on equity"

You might as well not bother interviewing at any startups if this is a deal-breaker for you. Whether you think it's fair or not this is an extremely standard term and no company is going to alter their employee stock grants on a one-off basis.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#159

Post by spotman »

jamiequint wrote: post #158
kerng wrote: post #141

This is good progress. Just two months ago I declined an offer from a known and well funded startup because of a one year cliff on equity. The recruiter didn't seem to be able to discuss this matter and I asked them to make sure to bubble this sort of thing up their food chain. I never heard back afterwards. As an "old timer" in the industry a one year cliff makes absolutely no sense to me. Its like working for credi…

"I declined an offer from a known and well funded startup because of a one year cliff on equity" You might as well not bother interviewing at any startups if this is a deal-breaker for you. Whether you think it's fair or not this is an extremely standard term and no company is going to alter their employee stock grants on a one-off basis.

Not really true. Have achieved multiple companies removing the 1 year cliff for me.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#160

Post by whimsicalism »

jshen wrote: post #152
zo1 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you offering remote? That might be a big factor that could influence things at this point in time.

We do, but that’s not the point. Someone suggested that new comp sci grads are having a very hard time finding work. I don’t believe that given how hot the market is right now. If anyone is having real trouble, then they are either being selective (won’t move to a big city, have high demands, etc), OR something is wrong. Maybe their resume is terrible, maybe they are bad at interviews, etc.

There are many companies where I don't get past the resume screen as a new grad, meanwhile the companies I do get interviews with will come back with an offer >$200k.

But I have to apply to 20-30 companies to get 1 interview, so there is clearly a problem at the resume-screening stage for new grads.

Post reply on HN