anuragingle
Explorer
@redhotiron2004 you are extremely stupid, please read through your post once again and think hard about what you have written
The redBus sale: A cautionary tale
- Thread starter avi
- Start date
- Status
redhotiron2004
Forerunner
If you don't have anything to say then keep quite. Rather than making personal comments. The last response have been made in response to lord nemesis. If you don't have the basic common sense/comprehension to read the paragraph which have been quoted then Nobody can spoon feed you. And commenting like that makes you look like a fool.
People like sama exist because of there own efforts. True everbody else puts an effort but everbody else too get paid salaries for that. At the end of the day its a private company owned by a few or single individuals or investors with PERSONAL STAKES(how hard is it to understand for you?). Owners or proprietors will keep the money for themselves. If they share with there employees good enough. But even if they didnt. Its perfectly on there own discretion and not something for the employees or outside people to decide.
And I have already mentioned something that you don't want to understand. If sama is a fraud(according to you) and have entered Personal contracts with specific employees. It can easily be challenged in the court of law. End of story. Ask any of those employees to produce that document and read the fine prints(devil is in the details). According to me those employees know very well that there case is weak or non existent. Accusations can be made against anyone. As no law stop any person from making that. But, until or unless a person have been proved guilty in the court of law. He remains innocent. If you are not aware of that then Increase your knowledge.
And leaving aside the employees who have had a profit contract(according to you) with sama. The other employees too should be beaten royally( in your own words) for maligning there boss image as they simply have no lawful grounds to ask for the share or credit. And those kind of employees creates a bad precedent for other employees working for different entrepreneurs.
Every company that have started in all history have been a startup in the beginning like from birla or tata etc. But, there the employees don't ask for shares. Its the companies themselves that provide the equity shares or bonds to the employees. That are legally enforceable mind you. And it's perfectly fine when they sell of those companies. The owners and investors make the money. And other employees( who doesn't have those bonds and shares) don't have the lawful right to ask for that. It's for the investors or owner to decide whether those employees would get anything or not. Which is what that always happens.
Everybody including employees, investors etc works for there own benefit. Some gets a lot and some get less. There is no need to be jealous of that. Afterall, profit is the result of risk taken by the investors and owners. And they alone have the right to choose and pick with whom they would share that profit and with they won't(regarding particular contracts I have already mentioned above).
Last edited:
anuragingle
Explorer
@redhotiron2004 if after going through all the posts in this thread you are still convinced that you are right and everybody else is wrong, then you may be one of the dumbest dudes we have seen on TE.
You are a prime example of what i call the educated illiterate, you may be highly qualified and have lots of professional experience but you have zero knowledge about concepts like common sense, morality and ethics.
BTW heres a quote for you
You are a prime example of what i call the educated illiterate, you may be highly qualified and have lots of professional experience but you have zero knowledge about concepts like common sense, morality and ethics.
BTW heres a quote for you
Everyone must have their pound of flesh. Shylock tried so, so let me too:
See below, please:
See below, please:
It was an industry example, @redhotiron2004. What more can users offer here, but insights from personal experience...? The professional work front is all that it is, experience and what one has seen in their career. It was not generalizing towards the Chief Officer, Sama; but stating a malpractice which can occur in India, and how difficult it is to fight a war vs. the management. Most of the occurrences: the management wins due to clout, more fiscal corpus, distributed manpower, and ample time at their disposal. It is the singular entity (read employee) which gets the short-end of the stick here.
It was never stated that everybody out their is of malign character. But it is a normal malpractice in companies to give the worst bargain to the people lower down. It trickles lower basically. This was a startup (SU). It is common knowledge that people sign on: at lower wages, non-finite JDs, disintegrated - non encapsulated operational domains, erratic timings, and the whole environ. plus ecosystem is fluid and dynamic. The risk by the entrepreneurs (or envisioning partner) is the money put forward as the seed amount. The equivalent risk the employee puts up is: market credibility, experience continuity, remuneration bracket with hardly any fall-back plan. This was not the vanilla set-up in which we could expect an orthodox approach of: 22days x 8H = salary + bonus. The core and crux of this magnet were the ESOP options. Which sadly, were not fulfilled. The biggest fallacy of Sama was: not to have informed people, and shut shop without any foresight. Also that he was not available for an interim period, aggravated the situation even more..! No one per day got greedy. It is part of the bundle, that ESOPs will move to liquid, when there is a sell-out or take-over. These are underlying promises which acutely to put, is and what professionalism is all about. Yes, from a business PoV, Sama was aggressive, astute and cunning. But those descriptors leave a bad taste in the mouth. It literally poisons the well for SUs here in India..! Of course he is not going to get sued, but a lack of thereon does not justify what he has done.
We all know the job situation in India. Frankly, speaking it is GOOD. At least for trained professionals. The people joining RB, were not beggars. They were top-notch top of the cream. That is why they were lured at delta levels, and ESOPs are what sweetened the deal. But garnering them pauper status after an achievement is petty down-manship and show cased flawed mettle within Sama and his operational standards. A worker should not be thankful for the salary that is dished out to him at a certain frequency. He is doing equivalent work, and is earning what he deserves. So justifying this scenario with: they were getting a salary, and that is all they should be concerned with, makes no sense what so ever. That is equivalent to literally a farmer tilling the land of a landlord, and walking off in the evening. Is that what the IT industry wants to set as a benchmark...? It does sound archaic, but that is what happened at RB, and you are connoting that it is just fine. I think, that is not fair, at all..!
That is an incorrect comparison. No such group demand was done at RB. An illiterate: machining / running industrial equipment is totally ingrained different to an IT regime, something like RB. Hero worship gets one nowhere.
I doubt anyone had bit Sama, before the sale. It was going fine. He sold out, without anyone knowing..! Please understand, that an SU is different from the classical MNC setup. The whole dogma and thought process behind a SU is fortified around gain-share and mutual growth; financially and professionally.
That is the structure of ESOPs. Accountability has to be there. Sama deemed himself transcendental to this and followed his own path.
That is like saying: the management is always right. It cannot not be the case each time. Too wide a generalization. Same way, the fault is not always with the exiting (even if forced) employee.
Incorrect stance...! Assuming, guilty until proven innocent is detrimental.
SUs are a really new phenomena here in India. There is hardly any typical contract binding and/or honor mechanism. The absence of a litigation does not exhibit the factor -that- all was fine in the proceedings.
People were scared to deal with Sama, a behemoth. That is about it. It was fear.
Truth behold. But a bad way to implement such companies. It is exploitation of workers. India needs to come of age, for this to be balanced. It is for this reason, that foreign companies have such a strong judiciary and HR structure in place. It is to prevent the expendable battery on employees, as well as keep the company interests positive. It should be win-win.
You are equating the establishment-employee system akin to slavery. It is scary.
It is a two-way street. Mutual.
@redhotiron2004
As I said before, you do have the mental maturity and experience to make sensible debates about this topic. So I suggest you refrain till you get suitable experience.
The fact that you think that entrepreneurs are some sort of divine beings who are doing a great favour by giving jobs to their employees is laughable at best. An entrepreneur regardless of his engagement level, attitude, dedication and capital is only capable of being a factor in its failure. Even the best efforts of an entrepreneur on its own cannot ensure success. The success of a company is decided solely by its employees.
There are many enterprises which have fallen due to the person/people who started them, but there isn't a single one who has succeeded solely because of them. It is always the employees who play the key role in success.
Secondly, regardless of how you try to undermine it, if an employer is making promises that he cannot keep or does not intend to keep, there is no two ways to look at it. It is plain and simple fraud. Does not matter whether you want to call it their bad luck, does not matter whether they can get justice in the courts, it is still fraud.
Further more, it is the employees who are taking the bigger risk when they become part of a start up. Both the entrepreneur as well as the employees have to work hard to make it a success. However, if an entrepreneur is not doing well, then he has nobody else to blame but himself. After all, it is his money, his decisions, his organizational skills and the people that he hired. He has control over all those factors. For the employees, not only do they have to just as much or more than the employer, but they also have to have some faith in the sincerity, honestly and ability of their employer.
If an employer is screwing his employees out of the incentives promised to them despite the company succeeding because of those very employees, then there is nothing more to say about such employers. They are just trying to take advantage of their employees trust. In the case of redbus, Its not even a question of stock options being withheld, from what I read, even before the acquisition, there were many employees who were offered bonus as part of the incentives (which would of course have been with reduction in base salaries) and despite the company exceeding the targets by a huge margin, this guy Phani refused to sign the papers for payout of the bonuses. He hired people on false pretences and was merely using them to make money for himself.
As I said before, you do have the mental maturity and experience to make sensible debates about this topic. So I suggest you refrain till you get suitable experience.
The fact that you think that entrepreneurs are some sort of divine beings who are doing a great favour by giving jobs to their employees is laughable at best. An entrepreneur regardless of his engagement level, attitude, dedication and capital is only capable of being a factor in its failure. Even the best efforts of an entrepreneur on its own cannot ensure success. The success of a company is decided solely by its employees.
There are many enterprises which have fallen due to the person/people who started them, but there isn't a single one who has succeeded solely because of them. It is always the employees who play the key role in success.
Secondly, regardless of how you try to undermine it, if an employer is making promises that he cannot keep or does not intend to keep, there is no two ways to look at it. It is plain and simple fraud. Does not matter whether you want to call it their bad luck, does not matter whether they can get justice in the courts, it is still fraud.
Further more, it is the employees who are taking the bigger risk when they become part of a start up. Both the entrepreneur as well as the employees have to work hard to make it a success. However, if an entrepreneur is not doing well, then he has nobody else to blame but himself. After all, it is his money, his decisions, his organizational skills and the people that he hired. He has control over all those factors. For the employees, not only do they have to just as much or more than the employer, but they also have to have some faith in the sincerity, honestly and ability of their employer.
If an employer is screwing his employees out of the incentives promised to them despite the company succeeding because of those very employees, then there is nothing more to say about such employers. They are just trying to take advantage of their employees trust. In the case of redbus, Its not even a question of stock options being withheld, from what I read, even before the acquisition, there were many employees who were offered bonus as part of the incentives (which would of course have been with reduction in base salaries) and despite the company exceeding the targets by a huge margin, this guy Phani refused to sign the papers for payout of the bonuses. He hired people on false pretences and was merely using them to make money for himself.
Last edited:
anuragingle
Explorer
In contrast to RedBus look what TaxiForSure did when they had to sellout, and Sama had a role to play here also
Full article at http://www.livemint.com/Companies/t7TozTlZCAmvtSxog3OQ7L/Behind-TaxiForSures-sellout.html
Full article at http://www.livemint.com/Companies/t7TozTlZCAmvtSxog3OQ7L/Behind-TaxiForSures-sellout.html
avi
Keymaster
techie_007
Galvanizer
This:
"Early startup employees often take stock options in lieu of higher salaries. It’s a transaction covered in optimistic capitalism, with the employee betting that today’s worthless paper eventually will be valued higher than a few thousand greenbacks. And so the employee goes to work, in an effort to realize that vision."
Now, if as an employee, you dont believe in this, you won't work for a startup.
If, as a founder, you don't believe this and dont provide options, you won't be able to hire any worthwhile tech talent at all.
When people change their mind after the fact is when it is unethical, whether legal or not is not the point.
avi
Keymaster
Grab your popcorn and look out for housing.com in near future
http://www.nextbigwhat.com/rahul-yadav-housing-297/
- Status