The first one bugs me because it goes against the entire point of options.
When you sign up for a company and accept options, you are taking a *risk*.
That's the point. You should know that, and you should be careful as to
what you accept. Just because options have been flying around the valley
like currency, doesn't mean that they're guaranteed. The point is to give
you a bigger stake in the success of the company. If they're going to be
lowered every time a company does poorly... what's the point? I'll admit
that in the case of Netscape, many of the regular workers aren't
responsible for the boneheaded moves of some of the upper management, but
guess who's going to benefit from this the most?
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/other/business/story/10286.html
>Netscape takes care of its own:Netscape
>Communications has lowered the price of
>employee stock options to reflect the beating its
>share price has taken on the market, the Wall
>Street Journal reported today. Options are key in
>wooing new employees or keeping staffers on
>board, so Netscape - whose stock plunged from a
>high of US$49 to below $15 last month - reportedly
>lowered its option price to just over $16.
This next one is just plain *dumb*. This is no different than it's been
for the 200+ years the Constitution has been around. The Constitution has
always been just to protect people from excesses of the Government. It was
never meant to govern private relationships with one another. Maybe I just
think it's obvious having taken over a semester's worth of Labor and
Discrimination law, but it doesn't take much to realize that in private
transactions the law doesn't protect very much. Especially labor law.
Yet, Wired seems to feel they have a big *scoop*.
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/other/politics/story/10217.html
> POL. 5:03 am
> FIRST AMENDMENT? NOT ON THE JOB
> The Constitution may protect your right to air unpopular
> opinions on the Net - but you leave your rights at the door
> when you enter the private sector, lawyers say.
>
-Mike