I feel like the editor that wrote the headline missed the main point of the article. The headline makes the article sound like there are a bunch of dumb and boring middle managers at Google. The actual article has nothing to do with people's direct bosses or even their bosses' bosses. The article was about how Google execs are ruining the company to appease the shareholders. Best quote from the article is:
“We get that execs are excited about Google’s future,” another question reportedly said. “Why should we be excited, when we might get laid off and not be around to share in that future? If we lose our jobs and equity grants, it’s cold comfort that Google is succeeding off our hard work, and we don’t get rewarded for it, but you do.”
IMO one thing I think should be made into law is that if a company grants unvested equity, everything granted will automatically vest when you get laid off.
If you decide to quit before they vest, I understand that those grants should be forfeited. If you get fired for not doing your job, I also get forfeiting them.
But if the company lays you off, that's on their side, so I think the opposite (automatic vesting) should be guaranteed by law.
I had to verify the current situation in the United States is what you stated because it's intuitively so wrong. I can't believe an employer can set terms for compensation and, through no fault of the employee, legally prevent that employee from completing those terms.
Land of the free!
Yeah, my company just re-organized their shares and reset my vesting schedule after 5 years. And are trying to get rid of me.
Reset the schedule for shares they already granted you? Or for future grants?
Ones they already granted me
Do you have a signed agreement with them on the original schedule? I don't think it's legal for them to unilaterally change that agreement.
Don't know anything about their case, but an acquaintance of mine works for a company that got bought and their vests just evaporated the moment the company changed hands ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ouch
Illegal. Sue them.
I wonder if that depends on the jurisdiction, but I'll ask if that's possible
It's the same everywhere. Companies will kick people out when they want to. Any talk of family or loyalty is extreamly manipulative.
Can't think why just can't open contractor positions and keep things honest.
"This is a year contract " great, pick if that's your path and move on when it's over.
You're right. Google employs over 140k people.
If the average team is 8-10 people, this article is kinda complaining about 10000+ people being shitty at their jobs.
When really, middle managers are also part of the same worker class.
AI will replace middle management.
But who will the VPs yell at? It's no fun bitching out a robot.
We'll just replace them with robots to bitch at the other robots.
Kicking the robots just won't grant them the same pleasure as kicking the serfs I bet. Worse yet might make the inevitable thought "maybe I'm bad at this" might get harder to dismiss it with automata following orders near perfectly.
Just kidding of course they will just blame the devs or personify the AGI making it to blame it.
I feel like the editor that wrote the headline missed the main point of the article. The headline makes the article sound like there are a bunch of dumb and boring middle managers at Google. The actual article has nothing to do with people's direct bosses or even their bosses' bosses. The article was about how Google execs are ruining the company to appease the shareholders. Best quote from the article is:
IMO one thing I think should be made into law is that if a company grants unvested equity, everything granted will automatically vest when you get laid off.
If you decide to quit before they vest, I understand that those grants should be forfeited. If you get fired for not doing your job, I also get forfeiting them.
But if the company lays you off, that's on their side, so I think the opposite (automatic vesting) should be guaranteed by law.
I had to verify the current situation in the United States is what you stated because it's intuitively so wrong. I can't believe an employer can set terms for compensation and, through no fault of the employee, legally prevent that employee from completing those terms.
Land of the free!
Yeah, my company just re-organized their shares and reset my vesting schedule after 5 years. And are trying to get rid of me.
Reset the schedule for shares they already granted you? Or for future grants?
Ones they already granted me
Do you have a signed agreement with them on the original schedule? I don't think it's legal for them to unilaterally change that agreement.
Don't know anything about their case, but an acquaintance of mine works for a company that got bought and their vests just evaporated the moment the company changed hands ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ouch
Illegal. Sue them.
I wonder if that depends on the jurisdiction, but I'll ask if that's possible
It's the same everywhere. Companies will kick people out when they want to. Any talk of family or loyalty is extreamly manipulative.
Can't think why just can't open contractor positions and keep things honest. "This is a year contract " great, pick if that's your path and move on when it's over.
You're right. Google employs over 140k people.
If the average team is 8-10 people, this article is kinda complaining about 10000+ people being shitty at their jobs.
When really, middle managers are also part of the same worker class.
AI will replace middle management.
But who will the VPs yell at? It's no fun bitching out a robot.
We'll just replace them with robots to bitch at the other robots.
Kicking the robots just won't grant them the same pleasure as kicking the serfs I bet. Worse yet might make the inevitable thought "maybe I'm bad at this" might get harder to dismiss it with automata following orders near perfectly.
Just kidding of course they will just blame the devs or personify the AGI making it to blame it.