3 ms·

This is false. The $90M was optional, not contractual. Google did indeed choose to pay out this amount when it didn't have to. Some sources: https://www.nyt

This is false. The $90M was optional, not contractual. Google did indeed choose to pay out this amount when it didn't have to. Some sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18023364/google-andy-rubin-payoff-90-million-sexual-misconduct-harassment https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18023364/google-andy-rub... Also, take a step back and consider how there was a worldwide walkout of 10k+ employees. That wouldn't have happened if Google's hands were tied here and they had been contractually forced to pay that money out to Andy Rubin. The outrage was because they knew about his misconduct and yet still chose to let him "retire" and give him a big amount of extra money, rather than firing him and giving him the $0 he was legally entitled to.

stickfigure 6y ago
That NYT article says: In settling on terms favorable to two of the men, Google protected its own interests. The company avoided messy and costly legal fights, and kept them from working for rivals as part of the separation agreements. Real life isn't a melodrama. I suspect there's plenty of nuance here.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  You claimed: > If someone walks away with 8-digit sums, there were contracts involved The NYT article is pretty unequivocal that that is false, even if you want to pull out quotes talking about different issues. > paying them millions of dollars as they departed, even though it had no legal obligation to do so. They had no legal obligation to pay the severance. If you want to discuss a different reason to pay $90 million to someone fired for sexual harassment, fine. But your original comment was unequivocally wrong, let's just recognize that.
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    Nonsense. Implied contracts are still contracts - they wouldn't be worried about avoiding a "messy and costly legal fight" otherwise.

stickfigure 6y ago

That NYT article says: In settling on terms favorable to two of the men, Google protected its own interests. The company avoided messy and costly legal fights, and kept them from working for rivals as part of the separation agreements. Real life isn't a melodrama. I suspect there's plenty of nuance here.

whimsicalism 6y ago
You claimed: > If someone walks away with 8-digit sums, there were contracts involved The NYT article is pretty unequivocal that that is false, even if you want to pull out quotes talking about different issues. > paying them millions of dollars as they departed, even though it had no legal obligation to do so. They had no legal obligation to pay the severance. If you want to discuss a different reason to pay $90 million to someone fired for sexual harassment, fine. But your original comment was unequivocally wrong, let's just recognize that.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  Nonsense. Implied contracts are still contracts - they wouldn't be worried about avoiding a "messy and costly legal fight" otherwise.