> including employees who put in years at the company but left before May 2020. Zoox was founded in 2014.
I mean, I don't want to get into the legal side, or even the ethical side, but on a practical note, former employees with stock should really expect to be at the very bottom of the pecking chain here. If you leave and hold stock, you're coming out in decent shape if you aren't completely screwed over.
Like, Amazon doesn't care about you -- you're not joining the company. The startup doesn't care -- you've already left, there's no need to retain you. Even your former coworkers likely don't give a shit; you're profiting off of work they put in to get over the finish line (to paraphrase their thoughts).
You kind of have to be on the rocket when it reaches orbit, to get the payout. I dunno what they're trying to accomplish other than make a few quick bucks to make them go away.
The options one vested during their tenure was part of their compensation and encouraged them to work harder in a riskier environment than later employees, and arguably if later employees have continued to see their options gain in value, it's in large part for the work these earlier employees put in. Work that was compensated in salary and stock options.
The argument you're making is putting early employees against later ones, at the benefit of executives and investors. It's not a good argument, if you're hoping to make an empathetic and moral one.
On the practical side breaking the law doesn't always work though. Shareholders are owners, and regardless of how they got their shares (vesting, purchase, gift, poker game) there are rights that go along with that.
Following this logic, all acquisition should have 0 cash, with what would've been the money for the acquisition going to retention bonuses instead.
This is definitely better for retention, and the share holders that aren't working there anymore? Well they aren't working there anymore so have nothing more to contribute right?
Will some shareholders sue? Probably. Will they recover any additional value? Maybe! Have to see how it plays out in court if a settlement doesn't occur first.
If that were the case then options or shares would have a clause stating that they only retain their value if you are still employed. They do not, and for good reason - you paid for them in sweat and opportunity cost, and probably well below market pay, during a period when the company was very risky. The whole point is to be rewarded greatly for that effort in case of company success. It has nothing to do with whether you were employed when the exit occurred.
I mean, I don't want to get into the legal side, or even the ethical side, but on a practical note, former employees with stock should really expect to be at the very bottom of the pecking chain here. If you leave and hold stock, you're coming out in decent shape if you aren't completely screwed over.
Like, Amazon doesn't care about you -- you're not joining the company. The startup doesn't care -- you've already left, there's no need to retain you. Even your former coworkers likely don't give a shit; you're profiting off of work they put in to get over the finish line (to paraphrase their thoughts).
You kind of have to be on the rocket when it reaches orbit, to get the payout. I dunno what they're trying to accomplish other than make a few quick bucks to make them go away.