I'm getting screwed with my stock options

I'm not saying that bringing a lawyer at this point is a good (or bad) decision, I have no idea. But can they really fire him? If OP is in an EU country and they've setup an office there, aren't they under the jurisdiction of said country for employment purposes?

If so, it might not be so easy. I don't know labor law across the EU, but here our labor courts don't like companies who fire people for exercising their rights.

This is not sage advice.

First, percentages are meaningless. The OP needs to quantify what's at stake in absolute terms. If he has justification to negotiate or otherwise take action to protect his interests, he should do so based on an understanding of the dollar amounts involved, not percentages. When you negotiate around percentages, it's very easy to win the negotiation but lose money.

Second, the scenario described is a huge red flag. The OP's company raised capital from investors. Ostensibly the options pool was addressed as part of the funding. The OP's post suggests that the options pool was way too small but instead of expanding it (and diluting everybody), which is typical, the company's founders and the OP are forfeiting a portion of their piece of the pie, which is not at all typical. Why?

The OP needs to understand the true state of his employer's equity structure. What you refer to as a "newly valuable company" could just as easily be a cap table disaster. If that is the case, negotiating around percentages won't save the OP from a bad outcome.

The OP's language makes it seem like the relationship is already strained and he is isolated from the founders ("half-baked", "shit money", "feeling helpless") while still wanting to continue with the company. This negotiation is wrapped up in two things: 1) the financial issues and 2) the OP's value to the company. I think point 2 is the trickier part. Others have already suggested a few ways that the financial issues could be resolved, but he also has to get his relationship with the founders into a better state. If the relationship stays strained, it's only a matter of time before the next issue sets this whole process off again. Especially when we're feeling isolated, rearranging our own mental state often starts the process of claiming the power to fix the relationship.

Let's say they negotiate and his equity stake is cut back to 8.5% while the others give up 5.25% each. His narrative of the negotiation could be, "They tried to screw me again and I barely held on" or it could be "They gave up more money, I gave up a bigger proportion." Even though the finances don't change, the first response maintains the status quo while second response starts the process of reclaiming the relationship.

(Sorry for the male pronouns if you're not a male, OP. Writing he/she is annoying and I'm lazy.)

Sounds about right. I would even bump it up to 2% (even 8% is a HUGE allocation for what it sounds like you have done). And improve your tone dramatically.

You should not be asked to give up anything without getting something in return. The options you were offered are compensation for your below-market pay rate. As with any negotiable intrument, the vested and unvested options have a current value. If the founders want to offer them to someone else in lieu of pay, they need to buy them back from you first.

All the people saying "pro rata" don't seem to be distinguishing between options and actual equity. If you have options, you are offered the opportunity to buy equity in the company at discounted rates. Investor coupons. Your equity in the company is the number of shares you have removed from the option pool by exercising vested options.

The founders, who have actual equity in the company, are adding 8% of their company to the option pool, which is already at least 10% of the company, less whatever OP exercised out.

I assume the freelancer was paid in cash. That makes the current structure 40% Founder A, 40% Founder B, and 20% option pool, currently 10% allocated to Employee 1, and 10% distributed among employees 2-15. The proposal puts each founder at 36% each, grows the option pool to 28%, with 6% for employee 1 and 10% for 2-15, and 12% for new blood.

Until someone starts exercising those options out of the pool and into actual ownership shares, the founders are still 50-50 in control of the company. Those options remain just investor discount coupons. They have some value, which can be calculated.

Unvested options are worth less than vested options, because you have to apply a discount rate representing the time you have to wait to use them. The 4% given up are essentially the 4% from the end of the vesting schedule. What the founders could do is take the current value of that 4%, and pay that to OP as cash, or apply that amount towards exercise of vested options. It would replace a larger amount of future options with a smaller amount of current equity, but the current value of the assets remains the same.

You don't need to consult with a lawyer. The founders can do the right thing and pay you what they promised to pay you when you agreed to work for them, or they can reneg. If they don't at least pay you for the work you have already done for them, that's when you hire the lawyer and jump straight into the lawsuit.