http://news.yahoo.com/report-zynga-ceo-wants-workers-back-stock-155029401.html
QuoteZynga CEO Mark Pincus is pushing some of the online game company's early employees to give back stock they own ahead of the company's initial public offering of stock, according to a published report Thursday.
The Wall Street Journal said that Pincus, who gave out stock freely to keep top talent early on, developed "giver's remorse."
That's because some of the early employees didn't contribute as much to the company as those hired later. But because they got in early, they got more shares.
Zynga's games include "FarmVille," ''Zynga Poker" and "CityVille" and are mostly played on Facebook. The company has filed for an IPO but has not yet said how much it plans to raise. Zynga is among several technology companies that either had IPOs recently or are planning to soon. Groupon Inc. had its IPO last week, and Facebook is likely to have one next year.
Getting into a hot startup early on and reaping the rewards after a sale or IPO is a big part of Silicon Valley culture. The promise of a big payout is what gets a lot of people working long hours with little compensation early in a startup's life.
But the Journal said Pincus wanted people to keep contributing to the company even when it got big rather than just "rest and vest" — that is, wait to cash in.
The Journal cited unnamed people with knowledge of the matter. Reached by The Associated Press, Zynga declined to comment because it is in a federally mandated quiet period ahead of its IPO, which is expected this year. The company, which is based in San Francisco, has about 3,000 employees.
Lynne C. Hermle, a Silicon Valley employment lawyer who does not represent Zynga, said the practice happens at other companies, too.
"I have not seen it publicized but it does happen," she said, citing attorney-client privilege for not naming the companies. "Sometimes it's a negotiation and sometimes it's a fight."
Whether Zynga could get into legal trouble over the issue could depend on whether the stock options it wants back are vested or unvested. The Journal said that in Zynga's case, demands to return stock only applied to shares that have not yet vested. If an employee leaves a company before stock options vest, they lose it. Vested shares, meanwhile, have a fixed value and can be sold.
Hermle, partner at the San Francisco law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, said there "aren't any legal implications with respect to unvested options."
"Certainly nothing that prevents an employer from saying to an executive 'you are making much too much money, accept a lower amount or we'll have to let you go,'" she said.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2011, 03:26:39 PM
Hermle, partner at the San Francisco law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, said there "aren't any legal implications with respect to unvested options."
"Certainly nothing that prevents an employer from saying to an executive 'you are making much too much money, accept a lower amount or we'll have to let you go,'" she said.
[/quote]
That's pretty greasy.
I thought you would approve, Yi.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 03:56:11 PM
I thought you would approve, Yi.
I thought you would post something retarded, Raz.
If they pay the workers less, don't you get whatever product they sell for cheaper? It's it good for you, the consumer?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:07:14 PM
If they pay the workers less, don't you get whatever product they sell for cheaper? It's it good for you, the consumer?
It's it good for me, the consumer, in the short run. In the long run it's it not good for the labor market in Silicon Valley, which as the article states is built on good faith promises of deferred compensation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:09:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:07:14 PM
If they pay the workers less, don't you get whatever product they sell for cheaper? It's it good for you, the consumer?
It's it good for me, the consumer, in the short run. In the long run it's it not good for the labor market in Silicon Valley, which as the article states is built on good faith promises of deferred compensation.
Do you have a problem with cutting salaries for union members or pensions of government employees?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:13:51 PM
Do you have a problem with cutting salaries for union members or pensions of government employees?
I have problems with cutting pensions of retired government employees. I have very little problem with cutting salaries or future pensions of anyone, as long as it's not a breach of contract.
What about pensions for Union members?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:19:18 PM
What about pensions for Union members?
Same as the above.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:20:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:19:18 PM
What about pensions for Union members?
Same as the above.
What about some sort of deferred compensation for the two above groups?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:21:19 PM
What about some sort of deferred compensation for the two above groups?
I think it's wrong to offer *anyone* deferred compensation contingent on continued employment and then threaten to fire them, voiding the deferred compensation, if they don't give it up.
Okay, you're off the hook. For now.
Yi actually make sense in this thread. :wacko: :blink:
Does "constructive dismissal" exist in the US?
Deoderant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 07:16:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 10, 2011, 05:43:36 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 10, 2011, 05:34:18 PM
Does "constructive dismissal" exist in the US?
Sure.
What's that?
The employer has created such a hostile work environment that the employee has to quit. I'm sure lawfaggits can recite the legal jaw-jaw.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 04:18:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:13:51 PM
Do you have a problem with cutting salaries for union members or pensions of government employees?
I have problems with cutting pensions of retired government employees. I have very little problem with cutting salaries or future pensions of anyone, as long as it's not a breach of contract.
These employees are not retired, unless I misunderstood the article. :huh:
Good God Marty.
:lol:
On the OP...this isn't the first douchey thing the Zynga guy has done, IIRC...didn't he steal a bunch of game ideas early on or some such?
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 10, 2011, 07:19:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 07:16:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 10, 2011, 05:43:36 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 10, 2011, 05:34:18 PM
Does "constructive dismissal" exist in the US?
Sure.
What's that?
The employer has created such a hostile work environment that the employee has to quit. I'm sure lawfaggits can recite the legal jaw-jaw.
In Canada at least, constructive dismissal can also include reductions in pay or changes in job duties.
I don't see anything wrong in pay reduction, if it is not discriminatory. When the crisis hit, we all accepted a 10% pay cut (excepting people earning below 5000 zloty).
Also, many banks clawed back some of the bonuses given already (or promised) to bankers (which is more akin to the situation described in the article).
So I really don't see the big deal, especially as these seem to be highly paid professionals.
Par for the course for Zynga.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 10, 2011, 07:19:46 PM
The employer has created such a hostile work environment that the employee has to quit. I'm sure lawfaggits can recite the legal jaw-jaw.
:yes: Personally sat in at a NJ Supreme Court case that dealt specifically with this (the issue was whether a court could award forward pay as well as back pay in such a case).
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:07:14 PM
If they pay the workers less, don't you get whatever product they sell for cheaper? It's it good for you, the consumer?
If that's the case. Most times the company keeps the product at the same cost.
Quote from: Strix on November 11, 2011, 02:31:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:07:14 PM
If they pay the workers less, don't you get whatever product they sell for cheaper? It's it good for you, the consumer?
If that's the case. Most times the company keeps the product at the same cost.
Then I suppose they can expand and create more jobs.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2011, 02:33:39 PM
Quote from: Strix on November 11, 2011, 02:31:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 04:07:14 PM
If they pay the workers less, don't you get whatever product they sell for cheaper? It's it good for you, the consumer?
If that's the case. Most times the company keeps the product at the same cost.
Then I suppose they can expand and create more jobs.
Usually they just want to keep profit at the same level. The employee "sacrifices" while the owner maintains.