As long as the employee's enter into the agreement with full transparency that this is how the compensation works then it's completely fair. This isn't the result of some kind of secret court deciding that it's how a company should pay employees. Adults are consenting to this arrangement.
There is only so much "fair" to be had in business. It's not like there aren't 1,000 other "mini ubers" that want to own the market Travis and Co built.
I don't think anyone believes that the issue with indentured servitude is that it was enforced by contract. As a society, we have decided that there are certain things you can't sign away (e.g., your freedom) and there are certain things you can (e.g., your right to exchange an illiquid asset for cash).
The GP's point is that calling this arrangement "indentured servitude" is more than a little dramatic.
I read it as hyperbole for the sake of making a point. I don't think the OP meant it literally.
But, debating that term seems to be getting away from the main point--that an employee could have an option on a sizable asset with no way to assert ownership of the asset, despite having fulfilled the vesting requirements set forth in the stock option agreement.
I'm not sure it is getting away from the main point. The OP's original assertion was that Uber is acting unethically, and calling the arrangement "indentured servitude" was meant to highlight how Uber's actions are morally wrong. I disagree.
The employees who are saddled with options they can't exercise are adults who agreed to the terms of their employment. They are free to quit Uber and work somewhere else if they want. There are a number of other ways options can become worthless while you're waiting for them to vest. The employees gambled on options and are finding out that there is yet another way to lose that bet.
And I do think it's unethical to exploit this particular corner-case. So we disagree.
I can't refute your second paragraph. You're totally correct on every assertion. I just happen to think it stinks, and I happen to think Uber is taking advantage of the situation. There are other companies who recognized this issue and chose to remediate it (to their employee's benefit), rather than exploit it.
So yeah, it's another way to lose the options lottery. I'm glad I know about it now. I'll add it to my list of things to look out for.
Finding one similar fact (which sounds strange so I would question without evidence anyway...) doesn't make a point correct. Horses and dogs both have 4 legs. It doesn't make them the same animal.
> As long as the employee's enter into the agreement with full transparency that this is how the compensation works then it's completely fair.
Fair carries with it a connotation of plain dealing, that is true; but one can consent to things which are not fair in the sense of "without unjust advantage".
As long as the employee's enter into the agreement with full transparency that this is how the compensation works then it's completely fair.
I expect that the vast majority of tech employees with agreements about stock options do not have full transparency about how they work. Thought experiment: ask random (US) employees with stock options "What is an 83(b) election" and "Should you make it, and why/why not," and see how many people have coherent answers.
There is only so much "fair" to be had in business. It's not like there aren't 1,000 other "mini ubers" that want to own the market Travis and Co built.