Finally, many Lucent workers received incentives and pay in options and more options to buy stock, contracts now largely worthless. Almost every rank-and-file Lucent worker received stock options."

One might argue that management, in essence, coerced employees into purchasing stock. Couple that with the broad tendency in IT circles to "reward" employee performance with options instead of real money and you might conclude that the employees were dealth with unfairly, while managers (ahead of the game when it comes to the real condition of the company) could bail out whilest the price was still far from its bottom.

Wait a minute...let's take your typical dot-com 3 years ago and replace it with Lucent...

Hmmm...management coerced employees into purchasing stock?? Damn, I've FOUGHT with management to offer stock (the idiots refused and I left). Furthermore, employees (imo) often have a better idea of how good the company is doing compared with management (especially technical companies) as they know what 'really' going on.

Should operators of conventional pyramid schemes be illegal? Aren't the bottom rung (the ones left holding the bag) just victims of their own "bad judgement"?

You've never been offered to partake in (damn name went right out of my head - sells all kinds of stuff - known for soap - via MLM and was nailed as a pyramid scheme several years ago....amoco? Damn.) Anyway, I mention the name if it comes back to me, but there are a lot of MLM business schemes out there that are boardline pyramids. Should they be shut down? Even what's-its'-name (this is REALLY annoying) wasn't shutdown, they just reorganized.

It's difficult for government in these instances. While some people want themselves protected, others want what's offered. Where do you draw the line? (For MLM vs. pyramid schemes, it's where the focus is - bring in recruits or selling product). Protect the people and you prevent them from doing what they want. Leave them alone and you allow them to become victims.

And I wasn't kidding about the stock deals. I've got a friend who now works for Lucent (last I checked). He used to work for a consulting firm that Lucent bought out. I'm pretty sure (didn't ask) that he made a nice bundle when Lucent bought out the consulting firm. If Lucent goes under he may lose money if he still owns stock. Was he wrong to make the money on the first deal?

But then again, I've also worked for company that gave an entire $20 for a bonus. One I worked for offered no bonuses, period. Some offer stock options.

And, there's been companies that have (due to economic distress) offered employees solely stock options (no paychecks). They couldn't afford the payroll. Some employees left. Some stayed. Eventually the company got out of the hole and went public. An admin. assistant calculated that, when she cashed in her options, she had been making over a hundred dollars an hour.

What I think you want is the best of both worlds. Take a company and offer both low-risk and high-risk payment options, choosable by the employee. It may work, I don't know. But, I suspect that such an option probably wouldn't work. If I'm taking a high-risk payment option, I'm not going to be happy if you're sticking on your tail saying it's not your job during an economic crisis. Then again, like some Microsoft temp workers, you might not be happy if you're making minimum wage and I'm suddenly a millionaire.

Besides, if you don't like the options your company is providing, look elsewhere. There are other jobs on the market.