Live data from Hacker News

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

news.cnet.com

371–380 of 383 posts

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

#371
I have to agree that the reporting was really unclear if the ask was to forgo unvested options, forgo unexercised but vested options, or give back stock from already vested options. I assume it's the unvested options under consideration, since the latter two seem impossible.

Then I've seen no discussion of AMT anywhere. Say you have vested but exercised options but for currently illiquid stock, and that someone threatens you with dismissal. You can exercise but then owe a bunch on AMT that you might not have the resources to cover. Does that make you more likely to go along?

This makes it seem like an even more hardball move to me.

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

#372

What if Pincus he had just fired them, with the reason being that they were not earning their compensation? It seems reasonable to fire someone if they are not pulling their weight? Giving them a choice seems unfair, but how is it worse than just being fired? I think this is just Pincus being a nerd and over rationalizing the situation, instead of just decisively 'pulling the trigger'. On the other hand, these people…

What if Pincus he had just fired them, with the reason being that they were not earning their compensation?

Begging the question: he didn't. Why? Because they were earning their compensation. There is no other explanation.

He just wants to be a jerk, legal techniques for which are very valuable among management types.

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

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL... ...but I'm sure Zynga has some good ones. I don't think they're trying to annul the contract. Essentially, they're saying that these employees are underperforming, and thus they have the right to fire them "with cause". If they straight up fired the employees, those employees would lose out on their unvested shares. They would have nothing. Instead, Zynga is saying, "Give some back and you can stay." Low and…

I am not a lawyer either, but saying 'give some stock back and you can stay' would make a wrongful termination suit a slam-dunk. Announcing it (especially to multiple employees) is about as dumb as it gets.

Indeed. What I wonder is how they decided that they'd come out ahead on this one.

Did they really think it'd be cheaper for them to pull this shady stuff? I'm almost certain that firing the alleged under-performers, including the subsequent cost of the inevitable wrongful termination suits, would be desirable over the shit storm they chose to stir up.

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

#374
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as an executive, do you think that zynga's executive team gave any thought to the bad press this might generate and the talent that this might scare away? From my perspective, this sort of thing scares me away from companies, because they might do it again in the future.

It's not like Zynga will have another IPO in the future, or will need to promise future employees equity. Precisely why "trust" should never be a part of an equity negotiation. When millions are on the table people will do whatever they can get away with. Zynga doesn't want another "google chef", but they took full advantage of the "google chef" when promising equity to early employees.

[deleted]

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

#375
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got it. Yeah, someone with CTO title might bend the rules a little. Otherwise stock and option plans are generally approved by the board. Asking a company to redraw the contact essentially makes it a CEO's call to reconvene the board as it goes outside of standard grant plan - not something that they'd do for a staff employee.

I have done it on small contracts as well, granted we are talking about a sizable start-up in this thread, but never the less many first employees are in a position to renegotiate the options; most start-ups are much smaller at the time these contracts are written, even the company we are talking about in this thread was probably much smaller when most of these "big award to get them in the door" contracts where writ…

Please please do a detailed post on this, either on HN or elsewhere. Engineers who join in early NEED to know this.

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

#376
Pincus and his financial backers were looking for ways to maximize their own wallets without having the Skype fallout of firing people before the IPO. This was simply the reason for the clawback.

If he just fired the people there would have been a big blowback like what we heard happen when Skype fired a group of employees before the Microsoft acquisition was a done deal.

Pincus is a ruthless and shrewd businessman. From the co-opted game designs of others to cutting out some employees from the IPO's rewards, he is definitely not someone who can totally be trusted. He will do what's best for him.

Skype, Groupon, and Zynga are showing a more cutthroat way of doing business in SV. The high valuations that their investors entered into these deals are demanding ways to squeeze out as much of return as possible.

Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and the old guard were all about maximizing both investor and employee shareholder value. Now it seems its mostly about the investors and some "worthy" "chosen" few.

Be careful!

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

#377
Pincus and his financial backers were looking for ways to maximize their own wallets without having the Skype fallout of firing people before the IPO. This was simply the reason for the clawback.

If he just fired the people there would have been a big blowback like what we heard happen when Skype fired a group of employees before the Microsoft acquisition was a done deal.

Pincus is a ruthless and shrewd businessman. From the co-opted game designs of others to cutting out some employees from the IPO's rewards, he is definitely not someone who can totally be trusted. He will do what's best for him.

Skype, Groupon, and Zynga are showing a more cutthroat way of doing business in SV. The high valuations that their investors entered into these deals are demanding ways to squeeze out as much of return as possible.

Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and the old guard were all about maximizing both investor and employee shareholder value. Now it seems its mostly about the investors and some "worthy" "chosen" few.

Be careful!

UPDATE - Come to find out that Silver Lake, the guys behind the SKYPE firing fiasco, are also investors of Zynga. Please blackball working with any of their portfolio companies http://www.silverlake.com/partners/content.php?page=team-par...

Jim Davidson Co-Founder and Co-Chief Executive Menlo Park Glenn Hutchins Co-Founder and Co-Chief Executive New York David Roux Co-Founder and Chairman Menlo Park Alan Austin Managing Director Menlo Park Mike Bingle Managing Director New York Eric Chen Managing Director Hong Kong, Shanghai Egon Durban Managing Director Menlo Park Charles Giancarlo Managing Director and Head of Value Creation Menlo Park Kenneth Hao Managing Director Menlo Park and Hong Kong Christian Lucas Managing Director London Greg Mondre Managing Director New York Joe Osnoss Managing Director London Sean Delehanty Director New York Stephen Evans Director London Tony Ling Director Menlo Park Todd Morgenfeld Director Menlo Park Simon Patterson Director London Zheng Wang Director Hong Kong Masao Yoshikawa Director Tokyo Joerg Adams Principal Menlo Park Jonathan Durham Principal London John Flynn Principal London Adam Karol Principal New York Karol Niewiadomski Principal London Jason White Principal Menlo Park Lee Wittlinger Principal Menlo Park Phillip Wood-Smith Principal New York Jason Young Principal

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

#378
post #377

Pincus and his financial backers were looking for ways to maximize their own wallets without having the Skype fallout of firing people before the IPO. This was simply the reason for the clawback. If he just fired the people there would have been a big blowback like what we heard happen when Skype fired a group of employees before the Microsoft acquisition was a done deal. Pincus is a ruthless and shrewd businessman.…

Interestingly enough, these bozos were also backing Groupon as well. We've got the trifecta - Groupon, Skype, & Zynga.

With the shortage of talent, we have no need to work at company backed by these guys. Do so at your own risk!

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

#379

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…

> Sometimes you just have to sue to enforce a contract and your rights.

If you can sue. At my last job, they made me sign a binding arbitration agreement as a condition of being employed. I needed the job, so I couldn't play hardball and refuse.

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

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (particula…

> 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.

Ah, this is a very good point!

Post reply on HN