man, how joining an early stage startup many years ago at the comparably lower salary, yet with comparably large option grant makes the person to come off as "being motivated by short-term considerations"?
Being an early employee should not entitle a person to sabotage the company's future just b/c the founder made a mistake, whether that mistake was being too generous with option grants, forgetting to change a password, revealing a secret about one's personal life, etc. Sabotage is sabotage. Creating the hubbub is essentially an attempt to blackmail Pincus and the company's current investors into complying.
Why should these employees be responsible for saving the company from a mess caused by the executive team and investors?
Continuing with that "logic", Pincus is apparently worth $2 billion. So if he chips in $1.9 billion of his own assets, maybe he'd have a leg to stand on.
Creating the hubbub is essentially an attempt to blackmail Pincus and the company's current investors into complying.
Blackmailing the company into...abiding by the terms they originally agreed to. Appalling.
And yet when the company is successful, now the company feels it has rights to dump the employee and deny all the compensation for work, risk and lesser monthly pay.
And all this for what? Because you suddenly realize that somebody whom you had promised to pay is getting big money. And you feel out of your own self elitist attitude that he doesn't deserve it, then you decide to dump him so that you can pocket money instead.
Seems like classic tissue example to me. People being used and thrown. Promised, money so that you can work hard to make the company successful. And then when the company is done squeezing the last drop of juice out of you making money. Dumping you, as they no longer need you.
Would that also be classed as sabotaging the company to refuse?
No one is claiming that this isn't good for the company - they are claiming it is unethical (at least) and bad for the employees.
Stock options are an important part of the compensation package at start-up companies.
If Pincus said to a group of employees: "Ok, we've paid a salary but now we have decided we want that money back. Give it to us or we will fire you" would your argument be the same? If not, what is the difference? The extra money would be good for the company, too, right?
Honestly, with the bizarre position you've taken over this issue one would have to imagine you are one of the people who stands to gain from this. You're lamenting the failing of a company that is on par with ambulance chasers and patents trolls? You're claiming the employees are greedy when a billionaire tries to extort them for the shares he promised them?