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

Zynga to employees: Give back our stock or you'll be fired

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 383 posts

Re: Zynga to employees: Give back our stock or you'll be fired

#361

Post by ahoyhere »

tripzilch wrote: post #342
epo wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy is telling it how it is, you are behaving like an 11 year-old. The world is not a nice place, it gets less nice when money is involved, grow up.

You're both right. Just because "it is how it is" doesn't make something OK, as you say the world is not a nice place, but it also doesn't mean you have to sit down and take it like a cabbage either. And it's perfectly fine to tell people with questionable moral values to go and fuck themselves. Even though it's not always the most strategically sound way to make sure they get what they got coming in a world that is…

Kamaal never said "this is what you should do," he said "this is how it is."

You guys are behaving disgracefully.

Re: Zynga to employees: Give back our stock or you'll be fired

#362

Post by chollida1 »

alastairpat wrote: post #259
thezilch wrote: post #59

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?

"At-will"?! I had no idea that in California you could just terminate employment for no reason. Coming from Australia where you can't fire anybody without good reason (even demoting people can be considered unfair dismissal) this just sounds insane.

Playing devils advocate, Why shouldn't things be symmetrical between the employee and employer when it comes to leaving?

If an employee can give 2 weeks notice to say they are quiting at any time for any reason, why shouldn't an employer be allowed to do the same.

Re: Zynga to employees: Give back our stock or you'll be fired

#363

Post by scott_meyer »

Stock options have always been valued at the discretion of the board. Zynga is perhaps guilty of coming up in "innovative" ways of manipulating value but the end result: optionees get less money than they thought, is the same.

Choose your employer carefully because the treatment you will receive is a pure test of professional ethics: how someone with power treats someone without.

Re: Zynga to employees: Give back our stock or you'll be fired

#365

Post by aneth »

alastairpat wrote: post #259
thezilch wrote: post #59

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?

"At-will"?! I had no idea that in California you could just terminate employment for no reason. Coming from Australia where you can't fire anybody without good reason (even demoting people can be considered unfair dismissal) this just sounds insane.

I think this is illustrative of a fundamental difference in philosophy between employment in the USA versus elsewhere, and one which favors economic growth and innovation over social stability.

Requiring cause to fire someone is business-hostile at best. Business can not improve efficiency, pivot, or generally adapt to changing markets if they are not free to hire and fire at will.

The one major point most "liberals" (in the American sense) miss regarding employment security is that employers are far less likely to take risks on hiring - whether in quantity, salary, or experience - when they can not fire at-will. This leads to less employment overall, not more.

The arguments are similar to other well intentioned, but seriously deleterious policies, such as rent control and Calfornia's "Prop 13."

That said, ethics and treating people well are very important. I find Zynga's actions unethical and think there is a good chance they should be held civilly liable.

Re: Zynga to employees: Give back our stock or you'll be fired

#366

Post by okaramian »

samstave wrote: post #312
kamaal wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't surprising, not everybody in the game is for building something or for changing the world or for passion . Someone is here only for the money multiplication factor. Sales, advertising, marketing and your usual MBA subjects are all about that. That is, not to care about what you are selling, but to create an illusion which gives an opportunity to amplify that seed investment. That is the time to cash on and…

>not everybody in the game is for building something or for changing the world or for passion. You fucking suck. I am not clear if youare advocating these actions or not - but let me make it very clear to you; if you are a proponent of such behavior - lets make sure we never cross paths. This is NOT OK. People like this are CANCER. Sure - many instances of CEOs end up in the position of a Pincus - but it DOES NOT mak…

Seems like the capitalist machine is doing what it's doing. Someone is going in and generating profit which is pretty much how it's supposed to be.

Now whether someone who has that specific goal in mind is better at generating profit than someone who's not soulless is a separate question. But at the end of the day it's hard to blame an individual when it's a systematic problem.

Re: Zynga to employees: Give back our stock or you'll be fired

#367

Post by tripzilch »

mseebach wrote: post #345
tripzilch wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're both right. Just because "it is how it is" doesn't make something OK, as you say the world is not a nice place, but it also doesn't mean you have to sit down and take it like a cabbage either. And it's perfectly fine to tell people with questionable moral values to go and fuck themselves. Even though it's not always the most strategically sound way to make sure they get what they got coming in a world that is…

There's a bloody big leap from "screwing employees over stock options" over "excessive 'inspiration' from competition" to "not in it to change the world with a passion". Replying "you fucking suck" to someone taking the position that it's actually OK to go and do a job without having passion and unicorns and rainbows flow out of your ass all day is not the opposite of "taking it like a cabbage", it's the opposite of…

I was taking the "you fucking suck" remark as him just being really passionate about it, possibly before his first coffee, even. I can see his point, I wouldn't word it like that (or perhaps word it at all).

Re: Zynga to employees: Give back our stock or you'll be fired

#368

Post by nknight »

postfuturist wrote: post #299
alastairpat wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"At-will"?! I had no idea that in California you could just terminate employment for no reason. Coming from Australia where you can't fire anybody without good reason (even demoting people can be considered unfair dismissal) this just sounds insane.

"At-will" means that either both the employer and employee can break it off at any time. It's the maximum freedom for everyone involved. No company is compelled to hire anyone, why should they be compelled to continue employing someone indefinitely?

Notice how you say "maximum freedom for everyone involved", and then "no company is compelled to hire anyone". The cultural disconnect lies right there.

Corporate personhood is a funny artifact of English Common Law, and its present state in the US is almost unique. Much of the world views corporations rather differently than our (I'm assuming you're American) legal system does.

When you start from the premise that a corporation is an artificial construct that exists at the whim of, for the purposes intended by, and for the general good of, society as expressed through laws, including a corporation in words like "everyone", and speaking of its "freedom", becomes nonsensical.

Re: Zynga to employees: Give back our stock or you'll be fired

#369

Post by samstave »

kamaal wrote: post #302
keeran wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/zynga_pincus_cop... Tells his team to steal game ideas, makes millions in the process then shafts the people who made it happen for him. Would love to hear from someone who can paint him in a better light than the horrible individual I have in mind at the moment.

This isn't surprising, not everybody in the game is for building something or for changing the world or for passion . Someone is here only for the money multiplication factor. Sales, advertising, marketing and your usual MBA subjects are all about that. That is, not to care about what you are selling, but to create an illusion which gives an opportunity to amplify that seed investment. That is the time to cash on and…

I apologize for what i said last night. I went to the Rock Health event with an open bar and had too much wine, and one should never internet under the influence :)

Sorry about that. I am, however, still passionate that the actions of Pincus and other executives like him are deplorable and in no way should they be seen as OK - even if "everyone else is doing it".

Re: Zynga to employees: Give back our stock or you'll be fired

#370

Post by alastairpat »

chollida1 wrote: post #362
alastairpat wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"At-will"?! I had no idea that in California you could just terminate employment for no reason. Coming from Australia where you can't fire anybody without good reason (even demoting people can be considered unfair dismissal) this just sounds insane.

Playing devils advocate, Why shouldn't things be symmetrical between the employee and employer when it comes to leaving? If an employee can give 2 weeks notice to say they are quiting at any time for any reason, why shouldn't an employer be allowed to do the same.

As I said below (above? Depends on how it renders), it's a valid argument. I guess the only real counterargument is that employers (by default) have a lot of power over their employees. If an employer decides to fire somebody, it'll make very little difference to the company - they'll just hire somebody else.

However, losing your job as an employee is devastating. It's financially difficult and job hunting (particularly in this economic climate) is difficult. I suppose that Australian employment laws are an attempt to make things more equal and force employers to really think before hiring/firing – it makes employees people again rather than just entries in a payroll system.

Post reply on HN