Slashdot Mirror
Uber Lawsuit Alleges Employees Were Misled On Equity Compensation (techcrunch.com)
An Uber employee has filed a lawsuit accusing the company of misleading employees about their equity compensation. Uber "devised a fraudulent scheme to recruit highly sought software engineers," according to the case. From a report on TechCrunch: The lawsuit claims that Uber promised a more tax favorable type of options at the time employees were hired and then later changed the plan. The case alleges that at least 100 others on the Uber staff may have been impacted and that these stock options can potentially be worth "hundreds of millions of dollars" to employees and also save Uber "millions of dollars of tax deductions." The plaintiff, Lenza McElrath, who was previously a lawyer and is now an engineer at Uber, says that he was under the impression that all his shares could be treated as ISOs, which do not require an upfront tax bill. He said he was later given a notice about a change to the exercisability schedule, that effectively turned most of his shares into NSOs, which are taxed at the time they are exercised. While many startups allow their shares to become exercisable over the course of a four-year vesting agreement, Uber has share agreements that become exercisable after just six months. In other words, Uber employees can buy the stock they are entitled to shortly after they gain employment.
Another article so soon?
C'mon, 40 minutes isn't enough time for a good old Micro$haft bashing.
Just look at that guy travis kalanick's face: classic douchebag cunt face. Did you really think that he wasn't gonna try to fuck you over? He's done that for all his life. You could have at least googled his name before going to the interview to know with what type of individual you were going to interact. I can't believe software developers are so dumb. For people who build the so called 'next generation' stuff, they sure are bad at reading crooks when they promise them endless riches...
You want a full time job being a taxi driver, go apply at a taxi company. Want to pick up a few extra bucks taking someone who happens to be going your way, then try Uber.
Short version: Uber is an extra money deal, not a job.
A company that behaves in an unethical manner in the marketplace also deceives employees.
Who would have thought about that.
Now, I would get that they exercize their share options a lot sooner than most. So, I would think there would be a catch.
Uber lost 800 mil this quarter. They're projected to lose 2.6 billion next year. And that's not even accounting for cities turning on them and employees wanting proper compensation.
Uber is fucked. So go ahead, fight for your worthless equity.
You're saying that a company that is infamous for skirting the law and screwing people over is skirting the law and screwing people over?! How unpredictable! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
You're saying that a company that is infamous for skirting the law and screwing people over is skirting the law and screwing people over?! How unpredictable! ;)
But were they infamous for that when they were hiring the early-hire developers in question? Or did they only develop the reputation AFTER the developers had built the platform and the executives used it in ways that screwed over the "line workers".
Hindsight is 20/20. How were the engineers hired to build the infrastructure to know, at the time, that they were going to be shafted in a way even the early-hire shafting executives of most Silicon Valley startups would never dare? This strikes at the fundamental draw for engineer hiring for startups. If it becomes common practice, the startup-driven innovation cycle could collapse. Uber needs a big, public, spanking over this, to nip it in the bud.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Well boo-hoo. Dude doesn't want to pay his taxes early. Cry me a river.
But were they infamous for that when they were hiring the early-hire developers in question?
If they are unethical scumbags now they probably were back then too. We just know more about it now.
The plaintiff, Lenza McElrath, who was previously a lawyer and is now an engineer at Uber, says that he was under the impression that all his shares could be treated as ISOs, which do not require an upfront tax bill. He said he was later given a notice about a change to the exercisability schedule, that effectively turned most of his shares into NSOs, which are taxed at the time they are exercised.
I must be misunderstanding something. "Does not require an upfront tax bill", to me, sounds exactly like "taxed at the time they are exercised". Because calling something an "upfront" tax bill, to me sounds like something that would come before exercising those options.
White people problems.
TFA makes it sound like this guy made an assumption before he got anything in writing and is suing because the writing didn't match his assumption. If other people also feel they were mislead, it would be interesting to hear about that.