5 ms·
What WeWork is giving laid-off employees who aren’t named Adam Neumann
- AYBABTME 7y agoHow exactly is it that no one seems to have a legal case against Neumann? I have a hard time to believe that one can mess with investor's money so blatantly and get away with one of if not the largest payout ever.
- unlinked_dll 7y agoit's not fraud if the investors knew what he was doing and were ok with it.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoThat has rarely stopped investor lawsuits in the past.
- draw_down 7y agoWhich is why it’s so fishy that all the press and everyone keep focusing on Neumann. No interest in defending him, but he didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 7y agoI think Neumann's package, especially the $185 million "consulting fee", was particularly disgusting and outrageous. That said, I think 4 months of severance is quite generous, so not sure what these folks are complaining about.
- rolltiide 7y agoThat severance is way above the market rate of nothing
- tyre 7y agoTo be clear, his package was to relinquish control of the company. It’s not like he was laid off. He had tremendous leverage and used it. It’s really shitty that people are being laid off. With four months and a still-booming job market, hopefully they’ll find somewhere quickly with a short break in between to reset.
- xiphias2 7y agoFrom what I thought employees took part in the Ponzi as well...they thought (and the HR helped them thinking) that the public market will take the bs of Adam, and they can sell their shares.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago>>I think Neumann's package, especially the $185 million "consulting fee", was particularly disgusting and outrageous. why? It's not like he took it from you or me. Softbank bet on him and lost. Oh well.
- rolltiide 7y agoTl;Dr 4 months severance But we are supposed to be mad that the largest and founding equity holder got money for his equity commiserate with the market value that another equity holder requires so they dont get bonesawed by their own limited partners
- dmarlow 7y agoI wish I could be surprised by stuff like this. Feels like this stuff is the norm, not the exception. Unfortunately, I don't see how this is going to change anytime soon.
- rolltiide 7y agoThere is a capital class and there is a non-capital class The only difference between now and feudal society is that the peasants knew it
- manigandham 7y agoExcept back then you couldn't actually move up. Most people today can save and generate wealth from leveraged capital today. That's literally every startup.
- gonvaled 7y agoThat"s the dream being sold, which everybody buys. In practical terms, social mobility is very low.
- rolltiide 7y agoThere are numerous avenues of social mobility today and chronic structural issues with each and every one of them today I wasn’t going to write a dissertation to make my point
- manigandham 7y agoYet you decided to compare with feudal society...
- rolltiide 7y agoI would do it again. Would you prefer I replace “only difference” with “similarity” or “analogy”? So then I can just say metaphors compare dissimilar things that share at least one common attribute. The point itself would be the exact same and also skirt right by the most pedantic rebuttals. The peasants were aware of their place in society, the non-capital class has cognitive dissonance their whole lives.
- seibelj 7y agoWhen you join a startup as a normal employee, the vast majority of the upside goes not to you but to the founders and investors. Assume they make at least 100x what you will, or more like 1000x. So if you get a $100k payout in a very good exit as a normal employee in a startup, likely the founders made at least $10mil. So none of this is surprising except the startup crashed so spectacularly.
- moonka 7y agoLaying off employees and expecting them to sign non-competes for a month of severance (since they are required by WARN to provide 3 of the 4 months) feels very miserly and in bad faith. Why the non-compete?
- sverhagen 7y agoWhy any non-compete at all ever? Why is this case special?
- X6S1x6Okd1st 7y agoI thought WARN was 60 days. https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/WARN_Fact_Sheet_updated_03.06.2019.pdf https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/WARN_Fact_Sheet_upda...
- moonka 7y agoThe article states: >Under New York State WARN act labor regulations, employees are promised 90 days of paid notice or leave if they are laid off en masse.
- justinzollars 7y agoI think if you are a worker, it makes more sense to be at a big tech company. I've been in Silicon Valley a while now, and I feel like something has changed where the benefits have tilted away from startups. Greed is out of control, there is too much money and I'm afraid it's not being invested wisely or spent wisely.
- microcolonel 7y agoOnce ordinary con men figured out that boundless optimism is all it takes to get money, that's all many companies had.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 7y agoGetting 4 months severance is not getting shafted.
- V-eHGsd_ 7y agothis is an underrated comment. I've been through layoff(s); 1-2 months is pretty standard.
- aaronbrethorst 7y agoWere you prohibited from working for a competitor for twelve months after the layoff?
- privateSFacct 7y agoSuch restrictions are largely unenforceable in California
- adamparsons 7y agoI don't believe that matters. The comparisons are not equal, even if it's potentially unenforceable.
- aaronbrethorst 7y agoSome people are known to live and work outside of California.
- CaliforniaKarl 7y agoI would agree, except for the apparent extension of the noncompete beyond the severance period. It really doesn’t seem appropriate to me, especially given how many fields We was in.
- smacktoward 7y agoIt is when the boss walks away from the same wreckage with a big enough payout to make all those severance payments out of his own pocket.
- manigandham 7y agoNon-competes have no legal standing in several states (like California). It's odd to tie them to severance.
- adamparsons 7y agoThen they shouldn't be included in the first place. If the company enforces it, they don't become any less of the asshole just because you can get away with it.
- manigandham 7y agoThat was my point. It's a strange decision to do so considering all the bad PR already.
- goatherders 7y agoPeople who way this have never had to fight one. I've been to court 3 times to get out of "unenforceable" non competes. The contract may be empty, the legal Bills are not.
- manigandham 7y agoIt would be immediately thrown out unless there are other factors (like if you signed under a different state's law) but it's no different than a company filing any frivolous civil suit against you. It costs money for both sides, but that cost usually deters the enforcement too unless you're really about to start a major direct competitor. I don't see WeWork doing that.
- the_watcher 7y agoIn California? My understanding is that even attempting to enforce on opens the employer up to an unfair competition lawsuit.
- evanelias 7y agoWeWork is headquartered in New York, where non-competes are enforceable (albeit with limitations, but still, it's not like in CA...)