So she did what every HN thread on the matter says, with good reason : focus on your actual job and salary, not on equity that may or may not have some value some day.
Dont get me wrong it appears the reason she ended up with none is not ok, but would that thread have been made if wework had ended up being one of those "failed" startup and those equities never gain any value?
Would she have preferred to get equity but a lower salary (either at that moment, or on further yearly negotiation) if wework had ultimately failed? Or if like here she left long before she could use it?
Don't think about what could have been with such things, equity as a lowly employee at a tech startup is very much like playing the lottery. If you're not directly invested in it such prefer the hard cash of your salary and don't let survivor bias make you regret that one time things could have been.
At the end of the day, the startup world is about creating opportunity where there was none before. It gets nasty, and even nastier when you realize the only personal recourse you will ever have for being in that world and not getting the opportunity despite doing the work is to go make your own opportunity, with even more work.
If it's crushing your soul to be there, then you really don't belong. That's the long and the short of it.
I personally look at the world of business as a necessary evil, that what makes business evil makes startups especially evil. But no less necessary because of it.
I don't think any attempts to make startups less evil will do anything but just make it more evil. The attempts will fool people into believing that evil has been conquered, when it's just been painted over with lip service.
HN threads focus on equity/salary tradeoffs, particularly for people joining a startup. This situation - where nobody was getting a salary 'cut' or negotiating a split, but where a startup was issuing equity to existing employees, is not what HN discusses, and her decision was not the same. Heck, her decision wasn't really a decision because a crummy company made it for her.
If you are joining a startup, you should be there to get equity. This is the main financial reason to join a startup. If you prefer cash, join a established company.
I think if the options are clear and up front, with the "exchange rate" between equity and salary laid out, what you said holds true. I think the tweeter is generally dissatisfied with how little transparency there was.
But then the fact that it is equity has no weight what so ever in the story, it works the same with regular salary : ask for what you want, evaluate properly your position and worth, negotiate, change job if you genuinely think you're worth more but he won't agree, and don't let your boss be the one in charge alone of deciding what's fair to say you're worth, not when he has vested interest in that being as small as possible and you in it being as big as possible. Your boss is not on your side during your contract negotiation.
Make the story about how they gave automatic raise based on position but she's not in the grid so don't get one and it's even something many have heard. Except maybe she would have reacted and argued more.
I think there’s a genuine problem with the way that compensation has evolved though. This is in the 2nd or 3rd thread tweet, she says perfectly upfront that she was 23 and had no idea. That is far from unique, I talk to all kinds of people commonly who have the same tales of their early career. And I don’t think it’s particularly healthy to have complex compensation structures where workers are unprepared to actually make intentional informed decisions. That is ripe for abuse and deserves some sunshine.
Right. The reason given “you don’t get options because you have a unique job title” is clearly total bullshit to those of us who have been around the block, but being naive she believed it. That’s the issue. Her boss knowingly and deliberately deceived her.
Dont get me wrong it appears the reason she ended up with none is not ok, but would that thread have been made if wework had ended up being one of those "failed" startup and those equities never gain any value?
Would she have preferred to get equity but a lower salary (either at that moment, or on further yearly negotiation) if wework had ultimately failed? Or if like here she left long before she could use it?
Don't think about what could have been with such things, equity as a lowly employee at a tech startup is very much like playing the lottery. If you're not directly invested in it such prefer the hard cash of your salary and don't let survivor bias make you regret that one time things could have been.