6 ms·

Earned? Accrued maybe, but I don't think earned is the appropriate word.

nilkn 11y ago
It was earned in the same sense that any income or salary is earned. It's agreed upon payment exchanged for an agreed upon service. It was just as much a part of his compensation as his base salary.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  The implication is that he did not deliver agreed-upon services.
  - nilkn 11y ago
    It's extremely uncommon to have to pay back compensation when one is fired. The board has the option of denying the severance entirely if they think that he did not deliver the requested services.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      I'm sure legally he's entitled to the money. That does not imply he did his job properly.
      - nilkn 11y ago
        > That does not imply he did his job properly. That would not be surprising given that he was fired. Unless you're suggesting that an employee who is fired should have to pay back all the compensation they were paid, I honestly don't see what you're trying to argue here. The real problem here is that companies mistakenly place such an incredible amount of confidence in their CEOs and therefore offer them extraordinary leverage in the negotiations. They become convinced that they've found the one person in the world who can lead their company into the future, and once that belief has settled they're willing to pay almost anything to keep that person.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        In an extreme case, let's say an employee was a total fraud, filling out timesheets and never coming to work. It would make sense to take all compensation back. At a certain point of literally not doing what you were paid to do, on purpose, at the very least all bonuses should be revoked. Signing bonuses should require a certain amount of honest effort before they lock in, and exit bonuses should require the same or more.
        nilkn 11y ago
        I agree when we're talking about that extreme, but I don't think we have evidence that their CEO was a total fraud. He was just the figurehead of a scandal that may or may not have involved him, and if it did involve him that doesn't necessarily mean he held sole responsibility. In fact, this notion that he wasn't performing his agreed upon duties might be spectacularly false if the whole executive team was in on it. For all we know his resignation was simply a PR stunt to make it seem as if the company is recoiling in shock at the revelations.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        It's very true that we don't have the full picture yet. If he has even moderate responsibility, I don't think he deserves any bonuses or similar he got. It doesn't take 'full' responsibility. But maybe he had almost none, and it's fine.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      > It's extremely uncommon to have to pay back compensation when one is fired. I'd imagine it's extremely uncommon to incur $18B in fines, either.
      - nilkn 11y ago
        I'd say that's actually more common than employees being required to pay back all their compensation from their job.

nilkn 11y ago

It was earned in the same sense that any income or salary is earned. It's agreed upon payment exchanged for an agreed upon service. It was just as much a part of his compensation as his base salary.

Dylan16807 11y ago
The implication is that he did not deliver agreed-upon services.
- nilkn 11y ago
  It's extremely uncommon to have to pay back compensation when one is fired. The board has the option of denying the severance entirely if they think that he did not deliver the requested services.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    I'm sure legally he's entitled to the money. That does not imply he did his job properly.
    - nilkn 11y ago
      > That does not imply he did his job properly. That would not be surprising given that he was fired. Unless you're suggesting that an employee who is fired should have to pay back all the compensation they were paid, I honestly don't see what you're trying to argue here. The real problem here is that companies mistakenly place such an incredible amount of confidence in their CEOs and therefore offer them extraordinary leverage in the negotiations. They become convinced that they've found the one person in the world who can lead their company into the future, and once that belief has settled they're willing to pay almost anything to keep that person.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        In an extreme case, let's say an employee was a total fraud, filling out timesheets and never coming to work. It would make sense to take all compensation back. At a certain point of literally not doing what you were paid to do, on purpose, at the very least all bonuses should be revoked. Signing bonuses should require a certain amount of honest effort before they lock in, and exit bonuses should require the same or more.
        nilkn 11y ago
        I agree when we're talking about that extreme, but I don't think we have evidence that their CEO was a total fraud. He was just the figurehead of a scandal that may or may not have involved him, and if it did involve him that doesn't necessarily mean he held sole responsibility. In fact, this notion that he wasn't performing his agreed upon duties might be spectacularly false if the whole executive team was in on it. For all we know his resignation was simply a PR stunt to make it seem as if the company is recoiling in shock at the revelations.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        It's very true that we don't have the full picture yet. If he has even moderate responsibility, I don't think he deserves any bonuses or similar he got. It doesn't take 'full' responsibility. But maybe he had almost none, and it's fine.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > It's extremely uncommon to have to pay back compensation when one is fired. I'd imagine it's extremely uncommon to incur $18B in fines, either.
    - nilkn 11y ago
      I'd say that's actually more common than employees being required to pay back all their compensation from their job.