
Dear Gusto, Mission Is More Than Marketing - tyre
https://medium.com/@octopoedi/dear-gusto-mission-is-more-than-marketing-34340e594837#.o1iopfs58
======
cantreadgood
In the email that was posted, the "Legal Eagle" says:

"This approach is standard practice. During my time at Fenwick, virtually
every startup I helped incorporate decided to structure themselves in this
way. Other startups that restrict shares include: Airbnb, Dropbox and Tanium.
Many Y Combinator startups do this as well and Sam Altman, President of Y
Combinator, explains why in this [http://blog.samaltman.com/employee-
equity."](http://blog.samaltman.com/employee-equity.")

I read the Sam Altman blog. Direct quote:

"I think it’s fair that if founders sell stock, they should offer an
opportunity to employees that have been at the company for more than a certain
number of years to sell some portion of their shares."

Sooooo I dunno I can't really read good so maybe someone else who can read
good should tell me if she just sent the whole company an email citing a
source that explicitly disagrees with Gusto's approach? I dunno. I don't read
good.

~~~
fgage
What in the email tells you they can't sell some portion of shares after a
certain number of years?

~~~
cantreadgood
I was thinking this part:

"That means all stockholders (common and preferred) cannot sell their stock to
unaffiliated entities without the Board’s consent."

She said it by not saying it.

I don't read that good though so not sure. What you think fgage?

~~~
fgage
I would think the unaffiliated part is key here. But that's just me, I read
good.

------
sshahzad
Very well-written piece! I was at Gusto for over 2 years and was shocked when
my sale to a respected third party institution got blocked. Thanks Gusto...
"ownership mentality" to you must mean that you own me.

------
stanfordkid
The honest answer to this is to unite... the introduction of transfer
restrictions is new waters in the legal space and were only recently
introduced (past 5 years) and mostly limited to Silicon Valley. There are many
disgruntled former-employees at these types of companies. Band together enough
people with multi-million dollar stock options and you will have a big enough
pie that a high profile attorney might be willing to push and potentially
redefine the boundaries of what is lawful and what is not from a case law
perspective (and get a piece of the pie for him/herself). Ethically I think
these clauses should be made super transparent and they aren't -- and I agree
that that is wrong. Just because 5 large startups do something doesn't mean it
is right or fair in the long run legally. Sue strategically, band together and
do it with force before they run out of money.

------
localcrisis
Great article. Even if startup equity is a gamble, everyone should benefit
equally if it pays off.

Who's going to invest the energy to build something world-changing if they
can't trust that their ownership means anything?

------
MLouise
Very well written article. Brings to light a less publicized reality of being
an Gusto employee. Thanks

------
mlatif
This is ridiculous. It's a major problem that companies are allowed to do
this. Does this mean equity doesn't really matter because you don't actually
own anything? What a horrible way to treat your employees that you claim are
"family."

