No, that's not how ESPP works. There is zero risk that they'll make less money than someone who takes it all as salary instead. It's a guaranteed significant increase in income.
> Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative net worth and no cash flow.
Yes, really. Wealthier Netflix employees are paid more than you because they can afford to defer 100% of their comp for six months.
I wasn't asking really in terms of wether or not it was true, I'm asking really as in you somehow think this is some negative point against the company. I'm just not sure I understand how providing an opportunity to employees is a negative?
The wealthier Netflix employees who accept more risk than me are paid more than me, because they're in a position to accept more risk.
Furthermore at-the-market strike prices give you the least amount of leverage. What is the point of accepting the risk of complete loss and illiquidity when you can put up just 2.5x more and buy the damn shares outright?
However, that doesn't explicitly refute my point. Am I wrong in assuming that there are no limits on ESPP contribution?
If that is indeed the case, then my argument stands.
Also, would you say your experience matches those of people you know on other teams with other managers?
I'm told the only "fuck up" that will get you fired on the spot for the first occurrence is sexual harassment.
My experience is fairly consistent with others I know, there are of course a few exceptions. Though please do bear in mind I have a severe observation bias here. I interact with significantly more people that want to work at Netflix than I do those who don't.
The shortest IC tenure I've seen here was the result of being a brilliant jerk (which interviewers did not catch during the interview cycle (and I speak here as one of the people who interviewed this person)). The shortest Manager tenure I've seen here was noticeably shorter than this, and was the result of pissing off your engineers.
I've not seen any IC here screw up on a technical level in such a way as to get fired for a first or even second screwup -- it really takes a pattern. My shortest IC termination was six months from hiring to termination.
The turnover rate you quoted is undoubtedly overstated or at least out of date. As for getting fired within a month, it won't happen. People are generally let go for a repeated pattern of major failures, and I can elaborate here if necessary.
I work on an incredibly high performing team at Netflix and would consider myself to be one of the bottom percentile people on the team. I don't fear for my job, and I don't have to. I get amazing coworkers, and I learn a lot almost every day. I can really depend on my team.
I'll address a few criticisms I've seen in other comments:
Unlimited vacation: It's not BS. My manager recently told the team to take more vacation. I responded by letting him know that next week if be taking a month off. His response "just so we're both clear, you're telling me, not asking me, because I'd be really uncomfortable if you felt like you had to ask."
Performance: Coworkers are generally really high performers, people genuinely care, but the tendency to hire senior employees means a lot of family people, and there is work life balance. There is no "stack ranking" system in place and to my knowledge there never has been.
Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative net worth and no cash flow. You're taking risk in exchange for potential reward with the stock plan. Those who are rich can afford to take more risk, and they are taking more risk by putting more in. Sure maybe not risk of ruin but there is financial risk. What's wrong with this? it's been lucrative, I was considered a "heavy contributor" by company standards but pretty light compared to some I talked to.
Expectations: You set and manage these for yourself. Sometimes you screw then up. This is sometimes a challenge for me, but it's entirely within my own influence. This quarter I set lower commitments and took the first month off. It hasn't been an issue.
Again, opinions are my own.