[wsdfsayy]

At this point, why wouldn't you just quit? I get that there's equity on the line, but the average tenure is probably around a year (if that) given how new the company is. It was clear from the WSJ article on the drama between the two founders up to the other one's death that the current CEO is a textbook sociopath.

Convinced the only reason why talented rank-and-file employees would petition instead of leave is because we live in a world where we're all expected to become grossly emotionally attached to our work, despite how toxic work environments can be.

[olliej]

Because you need to pay the rent?

Seriously, this is the risk aspect of working for a startup that people seem willing to ignore when justifying VC getting preferential treatment to employees.

If you have a non-C-level job at a startup you likely need that to pay your rent, to buy food, to have health insurance (become HI system in the US actively fights freedom of employment).

The best you can do is delay while you find jobs elsewhere, as the article said the people who had an easy time working elsewhere have already left - the first step in employment in tech is to know people at other companies so you can skip the randomness of standard recruitment. I cannot imagine that the remaining people in this startup aren't actively searching for or negotiating new jobs.

[wsdfsayy]

I think this is a special situation. Everyone at HQ is mid-career, ex-FANG, almost certainly all have a decent level of savings and could likely find another job pretty easily.

[wheelerwj]

yeah, 100%. not everyone can just bounce or put up with a significant amount of downtime between jobs. But still, a petition is a terrible idea in a startup. Its just going to make things worse.

> If you have a non-C-level job at a startup

even C-level people need to pay their rent, especially in early stages where its likely the founding c-team is likely compensated mostly in stock.

[nwsm]

Being compensated mostly in stock would make it easier to leave if you are just worried about paying rent.

[olliej]

I guess what you're trying to say is that "if you're being paid mostly in stock then you're earning so little cash you're not really losing much cash if you quit".

This is a fundamentally incorrect assessment. If your cash salary is lower it is harder to leave the company. Being able to leave a company without a replacement job lined up requires having enough saved cash (not unsaleable pre-IPO stock), but if you're being paid less cash you have less to save after paying rent.

Put very simply, you're interpreting a "low cash income given actual market rates" and "no cash income" as being somewhat interchangeable. Hopefully when phrased that way it should be obvious why that isn't the case if you have mortgage/rent/healthcare to worry about.