Employees! Give back stock or be fired

[The Black Forrest]

Zenga is about to go IPO which is estimated in the billions.

They decided they gave out too much stock. So rather then do a reverse split as many companies do.

Give us your unvested or be fired!

What a way to kill loyalty!

I almost accepted a position there. Glad I didn't.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57322 ... -be-fired/

[Genivaria]

Oh. I thought this was about an employee stealing store products....this is just assholish.

[Demonatrix]

Zenga is about to go IPO which is estimated in the billions.

They decided they gave out too much stock. So rather then do a reverse split as many companies do.

Give us your unvested or be fired!

What a way to kill loyalty!

I almost accepted a position there. Glad I didn't.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57322 ... -be-fired/

Typical corporate assholes, one line from that article really amused me...

"the firm's executives reportedly justified their strategy by saying it was best for the company. With the unvested shares, the executives believed they could attract more top talent with the promise of stock."

...that they will take back when it suits them too...

[Lackadaisical2]

Uh... sounds like bullshit at first glance, but if the vestment of the stock was dependent upon staying employed I guess it wouldn't be illegal. Seems pretty fucking shady though.

[Lubyak]

One would think they should BUY back their stock...

[Lackadaisical2]

One would think they should BUY back their stock...

The employees don't actually own it yet.

[Ethel mermania]

If this is true, this simply should not be legal. I kinda wonder if it is?

Maybe one of the lawyers here may know? some sort of violation of the contract that granted the shares to the employee in the first place, as the shares were given as a term of the employment?

[The Corparation]

Saw this in paper earlier. I think its retarded if they really want the stock back that badly why don't they just buy it back rather then stealing it back?

[Yootwopia]

There has to be some way to fuck these guys based on existing contract law...

[Demonatrix]

Saw this in paper earlier. I think its retarded if they really want the stock back that badly why don't they just buy it back rather then stealing it back?

I start a company worth $100, I employ you at bugger all wages, and give you $5 worth of stock in place of the wages the company cant afford...

We work had, the company is worth $100,000,000, so I decide to sell my 95% of the stock and retire to a tropical paradise...

But that means you make $5,000,000 just because you agreed to work for me, 20 yrs ago...

That aint right, and I'm not going to PAY you $5,000,000 for those shares, no I'll steal them because it's cheaper...

Mwahahahahahahaha...

Does that answer your question?

[Korintar]

Zenga is about to go IPO which is estimated in the billions.

They decided they gave out too much stock. So rather then do a reverse split as many companies do.

Give us your unvested or be fired!

What a way to kill loyalty!

I almost accepted a position there. Glad I didn't.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57322 ... -be-fired/

I wouldn't invest in a company that did that to their employees, at least not knowingly. If I found out I had stock in that company, I would immediately sell my shares to the first guy who'd offer to buy them. The only way I'd keep the stock is to hold on to it long enough to vote to fire the executives at the next shareholders' meeting.

[Lacadaemon]

There has to be some way to fuck these guys based on existing contract law...

Well there's your three problems:

1. Existing

2. Contract

3. Law

I mean, hell, in a properly regulated market, pension stripping schemes like Zynga wouldn't ever have a sniff of an IPO (see Groupon). But it's all wild westy now. Lie down with dogs and so forth.

[AiliailiA]

There has to be some way to fuck these guys based on existing contract law...

It's essentially the same as requiring an employee to pay cash or be fired. Which would be unfair dismissal in some jurisdictions (including some US states).

Zynga seems to be based in California.

[Wilgrove]

One would think they should BUY back their stock...

Why spend money when you can screw other people out of theirs?!

[Katganistan]

Might be worth it to them to keep the stock and look for another job.

[Consaria]

Mark Pincus sent you a Corporateville request.

Accept X

Mark Pincus just found out that he needs more stock, help him or you'll be canned.

[Galloism]

There has to be some way to fuck these guys based on existing contract law...

It's essentially the same as requiring an employee to pay cash or be fired. Which would be unfair dismissal in some jurisdictions (including some US states).

As it should be.

[Norstal]

A company that mismanage their finances and employees that makes management games.

Irony. Overwhelming.

[The Corparation]

Might be worth it to them to keep the stock and look for another job.

They can't. Its hand over the stock or you're fired and get the stock taken from you.

Saw this in paper earlier. I think its retarded if they really want the stock back that badly why don't they just buy it back rather then stealing it back?

I start a company worth $100, I employ you at bugger all wages, and give you $5 worth of stock in place of the wages the company cant afford...

We work had, the company is worth $100,000,000, so I decide to sell my 95% of the stock and retire to a tropical paradise...

But that means you make $5,000,000 just because you agreed to work for me, 20 yrs ago...

That aint right, and I'm not going to PAY you $5,000,000 for those shares, no I'll steal them because it's cheaper...

Mwahahahahahahaha...

Does that answer your question?

For an economic standpoint yes. But not a PR one. IT makes them look like an ass. As it is people probably aren't as likely to apply there now seeing as they'll realize that the stock they're being given can easily be taken from them to sucker in new staff and the staff they have aren't going to be happy with it.

[The Black Forrest]

Might be worth it to them to keep the stock and look for another job.

They can't. Its hand over the stock or you're fired and get the stock taken from you.

Unvested yes. If you don't purchase the vested, yes.

I start a company worth $100, I employ you at bugger all wages, and give you $5 worth of stock in place of the wages the company cant afford...

We work had, the company is worth $100,000,000, so I decide to sell my 95% of the stock and retire to a tropical paradise...

But that means you make $5,000,000 just because you agreed to work for me, 20 yrs ago...

That aint right, and I'm not going to PAY you $5,000,000 for those shares, no I'll steal them because it's cheaper...

Mwahahahahahahaha...

Does that answer your question?

For an economic standpoint yes. But not a PR one. IT makes them look like an ass. As it is people probably aren't as likely to apply there now seeing as they'll realize that the stock they're being given can easily be taken from them to sucker in new staff and the staff they have aren't going to be happy with it.

Indeed.

What's hilarious. A recruiter contact me about a job there. Told him thank you but no thank you. He asked why. He said recruiting is harder as people as inflating their stock demands because of that stunt.

I told them I would for 4 times the normal amount of my classification.

[Lacadaemon]

Might be worth it to them to keep the stock and look for another job.

No, not really.

[Ikonoclast]

I start a company worth $100, I employ you at bugger all wages, and give you $5 worth of stock in place of the wages the company cant afford...

We work had, the company is worth $100,000,000, so I decide to sell my 95% of the stock and retire to a tropical paradise...

But that means you make $5,000,000 just because you agreed to work for me, 20 yrs ago...

That aint right, and I'm not going to PAY you $5,000,000 for those shares, no I'll steal them because it's cheaper...

Mwahahahahahahaha...

Does that answer your question?

For an economic standpoint yes. But not a PR one. IT makes them look like an ass. As it is people probably aren't as likely to apply there now seeing as they'll realize that the stock they're being given can easily be taken from them to sucker in new staff and the staff they have aren't going to be happy with it.

But the people trying to grab all the stock back before the flotation, well, they will be selling it off, and retiring somewhere warm, right? so what do they care about how hard it is for the new management voted in by the new post sale shareholders, to recruit staff?

The old crew will take their improved share selloff payouts, and their golden goodbye payments, and their months salary in place of notice, and just vanish to a tax haven someplace, laughing merrily.

[New Chalcedon]

Uh... sounds like bullshit at first glance, but if the vestment of the stock was dependent upon staying employed I guess it wouldn't be illegal. Seems pretty fucking shady though.

Not quite, from what I read in the article. The stock was theirs - the article made mention of a former employee - and then the corporation told them to give it back.

And, of course, the corporate kludge that is the MSM will ignore this illegal activity, because it's being committed by a big, rich corporation - and it's so much easier to bash unions for exercising their right of association than to cover real news like this.

[Lackadaisical2]

Uh... sounds like bullshit at first glance, but if the vestment of the stock was dependent upon staying employed I guess it wouldn't be illegal. Seems pretty fucking shady though.

Not quite, from what I read in the article. The stock was theirs - the article made mention of a former employee - and then the corporation told them to give it back.

And, of course, the corporate kludge that is the MSM will ignore this illegal activity, because it's being committed by a big, rich corporation - and it's so much easier to bash unions for exercising their right of association than to cover real news like this.

Eh, it wasn't clear whether they left the company before or after the 'ultimatum'. Surely I'd just ignore the company if they had no legal right to 'take back' the unvested shares.

[Risottia]

Give us your unvested or be fired!

Wait, how is it even remotely legal to force stockholders to sell their property by blackmailing them? Or to threaten employees to have them do something that's not part of the job they're being paid for?