Hacker News Reader

Comment by confluence | Hacker News Reader

As an employee of a company, I'm paid salary for my time.

I'll take a pay cut for more equity if I want it, not for nothing.

If I take risk, I get rewarded with ownership, but if I'm paid cash, why do I honestly care what happens to a company.

This isn't some fairytale, we're all here to get paid, and employees aren't your buffer for bad cash flow management, that's the responsibility of owners and management.

View on HN

Blaming management make it sound like you have never owned a company.

When cash is getting low two choices. Paycuts or firings. Pros and cons to both.

In the OP sounds like they arent that drastic yet. Just no raises. Seems not that dire all things considered.

Not holding management responsible makes me think you might have owned a company.

Let me spell out the compact that undergirds capitalism: employees don't take risks and are paid a constant stream of cash, owner's do take risk, and it is up to them to ensure there is enough capital buffer to meet their constant stream obligations. Employees do the work, management/owners ensure they get paid.

Ok so you are argued that OP or one of his coworkers should be fired, so OP can get his 3% raise. And on top of that, his workload now went up 10%, as there are less people to do the work.

Got it. Sounds like good decision making.

From what I read, throwaway-sc is being paid 100% of salary. They're just not being paid 103.5% of salary after a raise that's been deferred.

While there are certainly things to worry about, this is not a case of employees not being paid.

Funny thing is that salary changes with a raise, so technically they'd be < 100% of their promised benefits after July, and past that, who knows?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com