251–260 of 383 posts
So Zynga takes away shares from some people they considered top talent. It lets situation to became public. Then after all that moves it hopes to attract more top talent.
I cannot help myself laughing.
This really made my day. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I went to Startup School in 2009 and 2010, but not this year. In 2009, Mark Pincus was one of the speakers. In 2010, Andrew Mason was one of the speakers. It looks like Pincus spoke again this year. If a seemingly honest man like pg can't arrange a nice little startup conference without having at least one speaker every year who turns out to be some sort of con man, then yes, I'd have to say tech is particularly slea…
I would fault the Startup School organizers for this. They are creating a community that is catering largely to people who are young, talented, but not experienced. They need to be educating people about how to avoid the pitfalls and scams of the startup world as well as about how to succeed. Instead, they bring scummy fast talkers and put these people up on the stage as ideals. Not only is that teaching the next gen…
Lets all remember, PG is in business to make money. He does that by selling the upside and lifestyle as much as possible.
They can just fire non-performers with stock options? Correct? Meaning you hire somebody and gave him/her a bunch of stock options, latter on you figure out he/she is not so good, so you fire. Simple. Why this shenanigan?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL. Considering the employees are going to be challenging California's "at will" employment laws and the fact that the charges against the employees is performance based, how likely is #2 to have a fighting chance?
Just because California is an "at will" state doesn't mean a company cannot be sued for wrongful termination or constructive dismissal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because California is an "at will" state doesn't mean a company cannot be sued for wrongful termination or constructive dismissal.
But it's pretty difficult to prove unless you are a protected minority and the boss shows up in a white robe and says "we are firing all the N.....s" or you fire a secretary after he/she refused to sleep with you AND you got the refusal in writing! Usually the employee only wins because the company messed up the paperwork.
It's about an employment contract which involved compensation while an employee was working, where the employer backed out of that later and terminated the employee to keep from paying what are effectively back wages.
I am against suing to get one's job back, esp. here. However, suing to keep the unvested stock they took when dismissing you is a bigger deal.
Here's the thing:
1) Employee is promised stock for efforts
2) Company doesn't want to pay as promised
3) Employee is fired
4) Stock not paid as promised.
I don't think the fact that this occurs in an at will state has any major impact on the analysis.
Is it just me or is tech particularly sleazy right now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because California is an "at will" state doesn't mean a company cannot be sued for wrongful termination or constructive dismissal.
Zynga would be effectively firing them for being too expensive. That's probably the most common reason for any layoffs. It sucks, but I can't imagine they have a legal leg to stand on.
Sometimes you just have to sue to enforce a contract and your rights. Many employees either don't realize this or they don't have the stomach for it. If you find yourself in this position, my advice is to play the game and see it through. 1. Don't resign, don't capitulate and hire a good lawyer immediately. If you don't have the cashflow, but are defending a huge pile of stock about to IPO you'll probably find a lawy…
IANAL. Considering the employees are going to be challenging California's "at will" employment laws and the fact that the charges against the employees is performance based, how likely is #2 to have a fighting chance?
Coming from Australia where you can't fire anybody without good reason (even demoting people can be considered unfair dismissal) this just sounds insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're talking about what should be illegal, I find it hard to argue that it shouldn't be. If you hire someone on the promise that they'll get a bonus at 5 years, and purposely fire them at 4 years, 11 months solely to avoid paying them the bonus, that should be illegal. In any reasonable interpretation of the contract, that isn't good-faith upholding of the contract--- you promised them something at certain milest…
I disagree, what you describe is shady, but also pretty unrealistic. Normally there's a vesting schedule with only a 1 year cliff, and then chunks vest yearly. That's essentially pro-rata.
The exception is M&A earn out or vesting for key hires, which is often yearly, and sometimes even crazier; 1/2/3/4 where it's 10% the first year, 20% the second, 30% the third, and 40% the fourth.