3 ms·

"Sure, but if you're terminated for cause you shouldn't receive anything." This assumes that, for example, when he became an SVP, he was still on any sort of s

"Sure, but if you're terminated for cause you shouldn't receive anything." This assumes that, for example, when he became an SVP, he was still on any sort of standard employee agreement. That is highly unlikely. Almost all execs at that level in that large a company would have a specially negotiated agreement. Most still end up with something even if terminated for cause. Almost all their exits would be specifically negotiated mutual separation agreements. (I'm not defending the above, obviously, just explaining what i expect is the case based on experience) Also worth pointing out: don't know when he was made SVP/etc, but it probably predates any pushes to change any of this in tech. :(

econner 8y ago
Very good point. I hadn't thought of that.
defen 8y ago
The New York Times article about him today said: > Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms. However I don't know if that's just opinion or based on some set of facts about his situation.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  That seems just like opinion. Some data: My wife works in HR (not at Google, but in tech and other industries), and has handled things like executive compensation/retention/etc. She has done many of these types of situations over the years. She was doubtful they would have been able to pay him nothing. I've also seen a bunch fly by on the legal side over the years, and most (but not all) that i've seen would have paid out something in a case like this. Best guess as to the 90 million was that it was not about this, but stock payout in exchange for not competing with google for a while or something.
tptacek 8y ago
I did a key-person contract negotiation after my last company was sold, and I over-spent on legal for it (20/20 hindsight everything would have worked out peachy for me had I just blind-signed what the acquirer gave me) and it was not my experience that compensation after termination for cause was a market ask. My lawyer, for whom I was very small fish indeed, suggested that I could probably ask for anything I wanted short of any kind of severance or acceleration on termination for cause. You know more about the market in the Valley than I do, but I am surprised to hear the suggestion that anyone at the SVP level would have negotiated severance on for-cause termination. (The point you made subsequently, about him maybe having locked in some amount of comp in exchange for non-compete, makes more sense.) Again you know this stuff way more than I do. I'm just sort of probing here.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  The problem is that there were usually no morals clauses, etc back then, so there is no "for-cause" termination happening here. The causes in for-cause termination generally have to be listed. Here's a sample clause: http://www.elinfonet.com/prov/14 http://www.elinfonet.com/prov/14 You will see that for example, these sample clauses (which are not uncommon) say nothing about morals except conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. Sometimes they say stuff about code of conduct violations, etc. But that's a fuzzier area (particularly since most companies revise their codes of conduct constantly).

econner 8y ago

Very good point. I hadn't thought of that.

defen 8y ago

The New York Times article about him today said: > Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms. However I don't know if that's just opinion or based on some set of facts about his situation.

DannyBee 8y ago
That seems just like opinion. Some data: My wife works in HR (not at Google, but in tech and other industries), and has handled things like executive compensation/retention/etc. She has done many of these types of situations over the years. She was doubtful they would have been able to pay him nothing. I've also seen a bunch fly by on the legal side over the years, and most (but not all) that i've seen would have paid out something in a case like this. Best guess as to the 90 million was that it was not about this, but stock payout in exchange for not competing with google for a while or something.

tptacek 8y ago

I did a key-person contract negotiation after my last company was sold, and I over-spent on legal for it (20/20 hindsight everything would have worked out peachy for me had I just blind-signed what the acquirer gave me) and it was not my experience that compensation after termination for cause was a market ask. My lawyer, for whom I was very small fish indeed, suggested that I could probably ask for anything I wanted short of any kind of severance or acceleration on termination for cause. You know more about the market in the Valley than I do, but I am surprised to hear the suggestion that anyone at the SVP level would have negotiated severance on for-cause termination. (The point you made subsequently, about him maybe having locked in some amount of comp in exchange for non-compete, makes more sense.) Again you know this stuff way more than I do. I'm just sort of probing here.

DannyBee 8y ago
The problem is that there were usually no morals clauses, etc back then, so there is no "for-cause" termination happening here. The causes in for-cause termination generally have to be listed. Here's a sample clause: http://www.elinfonet.com/prov/14 http://www.elinfonet.com/prov/14 You will see that for example, these sample clauses (which are not uncommon) say nothing about morals except conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. Sometimes they say stuff about code of conduct violations, etc. But that's a fuzzier area (particularly since most companies revise their codes of conduct constantly).