Doesn't sound much different than getting paid in equity at a startup.
1: https://www.forbes.com/profile/eduardo-saverin/?sh=1b75ae527...
Perhaps some founders and investors don't want this to be known...
In my negotiations I inquired about said equity and the other founder was vague as hell around all of those important questions that early employees need to ask.
The extra $100k wasn't worth it and I'm making the difference in real, liquid equity (and then some) from my current employer.
Company 1: The company went bankrupt, founder renamed the company, started a new company with the same name as the original, transferred some assets for pennies on the dollar. It later went public, but collapsed in the dot-com crash.
Company 2: Company raised $50 million during the dot-com boom. After 5 or so years, it still did not have much revenue to speak of. After several down rounds, it was eventually was sold to a major corporation for pennies on the dollar. All common stock was worthless.
Company 3: Still working on it. There have been several down rounds. All employees got their options re-issued at the lower price after a key employee threatened to walk...
Is that legal? It looks like the CEO of the company willingly harmed the company's interest to enrich himself, which is basically fraud.
http://stockoptioncounsel.com/blog/standards-ownership-canth...
Do not work overtime without compensation, no company is your baby and companies have no legal obligation to remember your service. Labour laws are terribly slanted against employees so be very conservative about your expectations from work and never sacrifice your health (mental or physical) due to some B.S. team oriented camaraderie.
I work hard at my shop, I really love all the things we've managed to accomplish and I appreciate all the folks I've built them with. But when it comes to money it is good to be incredibly self-interested because no one else will do it for you.
1. You can be put in a position where you're able to exercise your options but you'll be doing so blindly - trading personally held cash for stock and hoping the company doesn't end up tanking.
2. Bonuses are almost never legally promised in practice, so they remain at the grace of the employer.
3. At-will employment laws means that all future implied payments can be retracted if employment is terminated excepting those that are contractually owed.
in practice, I've certainly heard people use camel case to refer to either convention. I hear pascal case a lot when people specifically mean a capitalized first character. wikipedia lists dromedary case as the complement of pascal case, but I've never actually seen this term used IRL.
https://gist.github.com/errantspark/7000c8a5192eb0b8ee64ba21...
I didn't realize how easy this was to setup and do. Here's a first crack at making user names more prominent.
https://gist.github.com/capnmidnight/b61dcecf587949d6adf1dc4...
Why is your first reaction to "riot" instead of just "quit"? Unless it's in your contract, you don't deserve a bonus.
Quitting is for cowards.
You don't have to be your job. I wish you well.
No, quiting is for people who want something they don't have. Loss-aversion is a very powerful force, especially in the hands of senior leadership.
Honestly not even sure I agree that you're being taken advantage of if the policy is enacted after your hiring.
A bonus is a bonus. It is given out at the companies discretion, unless stipulated in your employment contract.
>> Why is your first reaction to "riot" instead of just "quit"?
>>> Why, when someone tries to take advantage of you, is your first reaction to retreat?
Because, "rioting" when you don't get your way is... unprofessional?