3 ms·
In my opinion, the acquihire you went through was poorly implemented, and the pay reduction disrespectful.
by tpxl 6y ago
In my opinion, the acquihire you went through was poorly implemented, and the pay reduction disrespectful.
- saghm 6y agoI think their more general point still stands, though; why would you expect a company trying to "sell" their employees to negotiate in the employees' best interests rather than that of the company itself?
- maffydub 6y agoI wouldn't... but I would expect the company trying to "buy" the employees to act at least partly in their interests - otherwise the new employees will soon become ex-employees!
- toyg 6y agoThat’s why in football there are 3 parties to a transfer deal: the two clubs and the player’s agent. In a regular company trying to sell a whole chunk of workers, that should probably be a union. Which is indeed what happens in many European countries when this sort of thing happens.
- nurettin 6y agoThe even more general point is, why would the owners even care about the company rather than themselves?
- 0xffff2 6y agoThat's somewhat irrelevant without data on what percentage of acquihires are poorly implemented.
- marcinzm 6y agoMost aquihires are "take it" or "you're all unemployed." Since some money > no money the aquihire is inherently a benefit to the employee. You still have the option of not taking it and being unemployed. Or taking it and then looking for a new job. But you have more options and more income than if it didn't happen.
- daniel-cussen 6y agoAn acquihire is also a solid opportunity to end your participation on the team. It's perfectly acceptable to stop working somewhere after only a month because the company got acquired. For similar reasons if the acquiring company presents you with a contract (I think there was an article about this, a noncompete?) they want you to sign as a condition of continued employment, it's very different than if they presented you with that contract as a condition of hiring you normally.