[aedron]

The company could have shut down, and he would have gotten nothing. Would he have felt cheated then?

Instead they sold a part of the company (out of everybody's share) and with the money that brought in, they eventually succeeded. I don't see anything unfair in it.

[wastedhours]

But also, the company succeeded due to the people who worked there working for less than market rate. Obviously dilution and all of the (fairly numerous) ways your share can be reduced are a risk factor and need to be taken into account, but still valid to feel hard-done by. Just because it's fair doesn't mean it's an easy pill to swallow.

[hubb]

it shouldn't be hard to understand that being mislead about the actual value of your options is unfair. pointing out that things could have gone worse doesn't change that.

[danielweber]

> (out of everybody's share)

Except that every dilution I've witnessed has come with re-upping the people who really Matter. Current employees we want to keep, and people sitting the board room.

Not everyone takes an equal hit from dilution. Some don't get hit at all. Some can get hit but handle it. (A founder diluted from 10% to 5% still is sitting on a huge nest-egg. An employee diluted from 0.01% to 0.005% may see her 200K payout changed to 100K.)

[cmdrfred]

I think the moral of the story is rate equity like that as worthless and refuse to work at a discount for it. These contracts are complicated and as a programmer you likely won't completely understand them unless you get a lawyer involved.

[wcummings]

Tech workers need an organization to provide legal services, most people I know aren't empowered to have a lawyer review their employment terms. More accessible legal help would create pressure on employers to stop bad practices.

People on HN sometimes talk a big game about negotiating job offers, but in my experience, most software engineers are terrible at it, and are not equipped to go up against enormous companies with a lot of resources dedicated to paying them as little as possible.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

In my experience, most software engineers simply don't ask.

Forget negotiation. Just saying "I want $XXX" when interviewing for a position is a simple thing to do. What's the worst thing they can do? Not hire you! What's the best thing they can do? Give you what you asked for.

Is it really that hard to say "I really like the position you're offering, but unless you can meet my salary requirements, it's a non-starter?"

[danielweber]

How long has it been since someone linked 'patio11's guide to getting more money? If more than a week, too long, so:

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/

We should all read this once a year. Even if you can't take it all to heart, whatever you read will help, and getting your colleagues to negotiate better will raise your rate, too.

[acjohnson55]

Lots of companies don't have the cash to pay market rate, in the early stages. Our even the mid stages. In those cases, it's best to make sure you're advocating for your stake on the business. But you're not going to get much unless you're indispensable to the company's success.

[logfromblammo]

From a perfectly rational standpoint, the companies that cannot pay market rates for those employees required for their success should either raise more capital from qualified investors or fail immediately.

Don't defecate where you eat; don't invest where you work.

[acjohnson55]

One does not simply "raise more capital" to pay employees market wages in cash. That might very well be the morally superior approach, but it simply doesn't match reality. Most startups can't get that kind of capital at all, let alone on terms that would be worthwhile to the founders. Besides, the labor market is largely clearing, so you're not going to shame founders and investors to put more cash into comp. The much better bet is to educate employees so they can advocate for themselves.

> "Don't defecate where you eat; don't invest where you work."

That sounds pithy, but I don't see why that's good advice. If you work in a role where you can have a significant impact on the success of your employer, that can be a very advantageous situation compared to being a random investor in a venture you have no agency within. You also potentially have a lot more visibility than a silent investor. These are reasons one might choose to take equity over cash.

Had you argued that it might not be a universally great idea, from a portfolio management standpoint, to trade a lot of upfront cash for illiquid, volatile stock option, I'm with you.

[logfromblammo]

In practice, the people that can have a significant impact on the success of their employer are officers, or at least upper management. And they will also be in a position to negotiate their equity compensation. They don't need to take sound-bite advice from the Internet.

If you don't have a contract (you are "at will"), don't invest in your employer, ever. If you do have a contract, but can be fired for any reason that is outside your control, don't make an investment that is not completely liquid. If you can make the stock price move unilaterally, perhaps you should consider shorting it, quitting, and airing all the dirty laundry in public? That would be a dick move, but so is diluting all your employees into oblivion so you get a bigger share of the payout.

If one cannot raise enough capital to execute on the business plan, I question the value of the investment. In any case, the market is not homogenous. If you can't afford the market wages in Silicon Valley, move your startup to the Rust Belt. If you can't afford those wages, hire remote from Britain, Australia, or India. If you can't afford that, try your hand at lowballing freelancers. Or maybe hire one 40+ developer at 120% median pay instead of two 25-year-olds at 80%. Tricking your employees into thinking you're paying them more than they're actually getting is not a viable way to conduct business in the long run. Believe it or not, there is value in not being a scumbag employer.

[st3v3r]

Really? How much of the founders share got sold? And how much of a say did he have in this happening?

I see nothing but unfairness in this.