Slashdot Mirror
Employee Stock Options?
Evil Butters asks: "ComputerWorld has an interesting article regarding the decline of Employee Stock Options. Long gone are the days when companies would pass out stock options like toilet paper (as you were lucky if it was worth as much). Since most of us are probably in IT related fields, is anyone seeing any turn-around in compensation packages -- especially for IT folk? Everywhere I look, companies are still cutting back and finding reasons why compensation does not need to be increased (except for CEO's of course) no matter what your performance is like. But according to the article, 54% of the top S&P 250 companies are (at least) using restricted stock as performance perks, etc."
Call me old fashion, but I believe the old saying "One bird in hand is better than two in the bush".
My preferred compensation is profit-based bonus. So if a company is making profit, employees share the pie, it's like dividends to shareholders except you hold your "shares" in the form of employment/position.
My company's doing an incremental performance bonus, so if this month's profit is up compared to previous month, you get some money added in the bonus pot, and the size of bonus depends on the % increase. This is ideal for employers because it ensures growth, but employees could be working just as good for 5 years in a row, but with the last 4 years without bonus.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
So I just saw a post that says IT jobs are getting harder and harder to find .. and now this one complaining that compensation packages are going down.
Do we need to go back to Economics 101 ??
When there are more people than jobs, they don't have to pay you what you're worth, because there's someone out there, probably equally or more qualified, willing to work for a lot less.
The days of being overcompensated are over. Count your blessings if you're paid market average (which no longer includes options). Don't like it? Start your own company.
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
...is not getting the job outsourced to India.
Programmers are a lot like lawyers, value-wise. Like lawyers, the value of programmers is, or traditionally has been, their creativity and intellect. Better tools have reduced the value of that personal asset in programmers, but not eliminated it.
It is notably different from most engineering in that the products do not require large capital to distribute, once the creativity is complete.
In this manner, I have often wondered if programmers would work better in limited liability partnerships rather than corporations. A small group of programmers who produce on contract to corporations would be, if well organized, very valuable.
The corporate structure lends itself to growth in traditional economy, whereas a larger programming companies have, in my limited experience, not been efficient. There are exceptions, like Electronic Arts, I think.
But the hierarchical view of corporations, looking down upon employees, is flawed in the programming world because the direction of the company is often better felt by the programmers themselves, and management has often had a terrible disconnect from the technical reality, and a tendency to dictate where they should listen. Good management isn't necessarily this way, but many people cling to this management style.
In a partnership, the partners would be responsible for bringing in clients, the design, the programming, and the effective reuse of code. In a corporation, they are typically responsible only for the programming. I believe savvy programmers would be much better at selecting appropriate clients and choosing the direction of the code. I believe, when it comes to the effective reuse of code, a partnership would have better structures adopted to accommodate it.
This sort of delegation among partners has been very effective, in my opinion, in lawyer partnerships. I believe the effectiveness could translate into programmer partnerships. Mind you, moving programmers into management positions in companies may have the same effect, but I think the hierarchial structure inherently causes problems. The distinguishing feature being that in a partnership, management would also be programmers, and vise versa. There wouldn't just be a "delegation to programmers" by management, so to speak.
Just food for thought.