| Wait so you think it's reasonable to bank on some uncertain future benefit to pan out, and expect people to be 'heartbroken' when it doesn't go through? Come on, you don't mean that, do you? When I worked for a startup, I only considered my salary in my financial decisions. This also meant that I could switch jobs and be reasonably certain that my standard of living wouldn't change. We were offered equity as well, and the agreement we had to sign had several provisions that I could only describe as being pro-founder/anti-employee. For example: 1. Upon termination of employment (for any reason), the company can buy back your shares at book price, whether you like it or not. In other words: You'll never see a big payout from your work if you go. 2. There should be no expectation of a market for the shares in the company, and there may never be one. Again, good luck selling those shares. 3. The founder has the right to sell his shares, but employees have no tag-along right. So even if the company is sold, you will probably not be able to cash in at that point, since your labor/skill are part of the sale. 4. The employees' shares are subject to dilution. How much dilution? Who knows, maybe 1%, maybe 99%, whatever's good in the view of the founders. This stuff is pretty standard, too. What I don't get though is how people will make multi-decade (i.e. mortgage, kids) financial decisions on a benefit that's this uncertain. Instead of actual equity, they could just say "we'll give you more money later if we get rich and feel like it". At least it would be more honest. |
Please tell me that at least some companies have reasonable agreements with their employees/shareholders. Otherwise it's like someone else said a few months ago, Silicon Valley is just overrun with sleazy leadership types who do their best to screw over their employees.