I wonder if any early Google employees begrudge Charlie (he's the "early Google chef", right?) his millions.
An army travels on its stomach. Google's chefs helped make Google the company it is today. Why is it so wrong that they be rewarded?
An army travels on its stomach. Google's chefs helped make Google the company it is today. Why is it so wrong that they be rewarded?
There's also a level of buy-in that startups demand. You're asked to make it more than "just a job." Even the guy mopping the damn floor is asked to mop it until it shines, just because "we're all in this together."
People deserve to be compensated for that if things go well. But to your stereotypical business sociopath only executive-level individuals and their cronies are real human beings. (Actually, nobody is a real human being. It's only about winning in the shortest possible term.)
And I'd be willing to wager that these particular executives were more of the empty suit, posturing, clueless, "let's do lunch," "I'll have my people talk to your people," variety. There is a negative correlation between actual merit and this kind of behavior.
Guy I used to work for said one of his proudest moments was hearing the receptionist at the company he had founded was able to buy a house outright with cash from the proceeds of her stock options.
Only soulless suits and maybe a few key nerd-slaves deserve lots of money! If anyone else gets money, it's a crime against humanity and we must take bold action to rectify it!
Runaway sociopathy is the only way to describe this behaviour.
"He signed up, however, and started easing the computer engineers into the long hours culture with innovations including free beer and fortnightly "big ass" barbecues, and breakfast specials. He converted the "googlers" to a diet that ensured they kept working after lunch and weaned them off pizzas."
(source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582494/Chef-lifts...)
Presumably he took stock options and was paid less than he would receive elsewhere. And the options also compensate him for career risk.
The way I read it, committing to Google was a much bigger risk for him than that of any of the programmers. What if Google had never grown beyond a handful of employees? How does that look on a resume? Instead of "sous-chef at Restaurant le Snob", "managed the cafeteria in some anonymous company in a Mountain View office park."