4 ms·

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but are you implying that (a) the CEO announced this salary increase to deflect any negative reaction to this suit, and (b) t

by morley 10y ago

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but are you implying that (a) the CEO announced this salary increase to deflect any negative reaction to this suit, and (b) that denying any ulterior motive supports that theory? Both points seem shaky to me, unless there's more compelling evidence than the circumstantial timing.

ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
No you're not misunderstanding, aside from the puff pieces what do you know about Dan Price? >When Lucas left the company, Dan raised his own salary (from $50,000 to $1 million in one year), causing a rift between the two. And so on March 16, one month before the famous $70,000 announcement was made, Dan was officially served a notice that Lucas was suing him. Court documents prove that Dan signed the papers and knew of the lawsuit. However, Dan claimed that he was being sued after the wage announcement because Lucas was jealous of the press. >Price raised his employees’ wages to $70,000 so his brother wouldn’t receive his fair share of Gravity Payment’s dividends, not because he want to improve his employees’ lives http://thehustle.co/dan-price-the-ceo-paying-everyone-70000-dollars-is-lying http://thehustle.co/dan-price-the-ceo-paying-everyone-70000-...
tptacek 10y ago
I think the general issue here is simply that it's very much in Dan Price's interests to frame this lawsuit as a dispute over paying minimum salaries, and for him to deflect Lucas Price's complaint that Dan was paying himself $1.1MM per year prior to the suit. The facts seem to dispose completely of Dan Price's argument: the suit was prepared before Lucas Price even knew about the min-salary proposal.
imron 10y ago
Or maybe he's just trying to stick it to his brother - oh you don't like my large salary? Fine, I'll drop my salary, but don't think you'll see any of it in increased profit for the company because I'll increase employee salaries by the difference just to spite you. Though if that was the case, it seems to have backfired spectacularly if the article is to be believed about increased profits.
gedrap 10y ago
A year ago or so, on the front page, there was a post saying that the minimum salary increase after the suit might be done so that there would be less liquid assets (cash in the bank) to split. Because, if I remember well, Lucas wanted to get a share of it. Or something similar, which would make the increase not such a philanthropic thing as it seems at first. My memory might be failing, or the post back then might have been not based on facts (IANAL, nowhere near that). But that's what I remember :) Maybe somebody can correct me?

by morley 10y ago

ZoeZoeBee 10y ago

No you're not misunderstanding, aside from the puff pieces what do you know about Dan Price? >When Lucas left the company, Dan raised his own salary (from $50,000 to $1 million in one year), causing a rift between the two. And so on March 16, one month before the famous $70,000 announcement was made, Dan was officially served a notice that Lucas was suing him. Court documents prove that Dan signed the papers and knew of the lawsuit. However, Dan claimed that he was being sued after the wage announcement because Lucas was jealous of the press. >Price raised his employees’ wages to $70,000 so his brother wouldn’t receive his fair share of Gravity Payment’s dividends, not because he want to improve his employees’ lives http://thehustle.co/dan-price-the-ceo-paying-everyone-70000-dollars-is-lying http://thehustle.co/dan-price-the-ceo-paying-everyone-70000-...

tptacek 10y ago

I think the general issue here is simply that it's very much in Dan Price's interests to frame this lawsuit as a dispute over paying minimum salaries, and for him to deflect Lucas Price's complaint that Dan was paying himself $1.1MM per year prior to the suit. The facts seem to dispose completely of Dan Price's argument: the suit was prepared before Lucas Price even knew about the min-salary proposal.

imron 10y ago

Or maybe he's just trying to stick it to his brother - oh you don't like my large salary? Fine, I'll drop my salary, but don't think you'll see any of it in increased profit for the company because I'll increase employee salaries by the difference just to spite you. Though if that was the case, it seems to have backfired spectacularly if the article is to be believed about increased profits.

gedrap 10y ago

A year ago or so, on the front page, there was a post saying that the minimum salary increase after the suit might be done so that there would be less liquid assets (cash in the bank) to split. Because, if I remember well, Lucas wanted to get a share of it. Or something similar, which would make the increase not such a philanthropic thing as it seems at first. My memory might be failing, or the post back then might have been not based on facts (IANAL, nowhere near that). But that's what I remember :) Maybe somebody can correct me?