4 ms·

What if Pincus he had just fired them, with the reason being that they were not earning their compensation? It seems reasonable to fire someone if they are not

What if Pincus he had just fired them, with the reason being that they were not earning their compensation? It seems reasonable to fire someone if they are not pulling their weight? Giving them a choice seems unfair, but how is it worse than just being fired? I think this is just Pincus being a nerd and over rationalizing the situation, instead of just decisively 'pulling the trigger'. On the other hand, these people were given an offer of X% of the company in exchange for taking lots of risk early on. They took the risk, and now that the value of the company is greater, Pincus is taking the incentive back. So Pincus offloaded personal risk (paying lower salaries + stock instead of just paying market salaries) and then when the risk was gone he is canceling his agreement. I would never trust this man.

joshz 15y ago
Perhaps because they were earning their compensation and new employees would just be too expensive, since Pincus didn't want bait them with anymore (possibly no longer worthless) stock. Might as well try to squeeze it out of current employees knowing that finding a new job can be a bitch.
larrys 15y ago
"Giving them a choice seems unfair, but how is it worse than just being fired?" Sure but the point is the reason and the circumstance matters because of either the way laws are written or how the reason is perceived in the court of public opinion. For example you can fire someone for any reason as long as the reason that you state isn't prohibited (woman, minority you get the point) or objectionable in the eyes of the public. In other words there is a difference in "fired because business has gone down" and "fired because your kid is sick and we need someone who isn't distracted" (by public opinion not law).
rhizome 15y ago
What if Pincus he had just fired them, with the reason being that they were not earning their compensation? Begging the question: he didn't. Why? Because they were earning their compensation. There is no other explanation. He just wants to be a jerk, legal techniques for which are very valuable among management types.

joshz 15y ago

Perhaps because they were earning their compensation and new employees would just be too expensive, since Pincus didn't want bait them with anymore (possibly no longer worthless) stock. Might as well try to squeeze it out of current employees knowing that finding a new job can be a bitch.

larrys 15y ago

"Giving them a choice seems unfair, but how is it worse than just being fired?" Sure but the point is the reason and the circumstance matters because of either the way laws are written or how the reason is perceived in the court of public opinion. For example you can fire someone for any reason as long as the reason that you state isn't prohibited (woman, minority you get the point) or objectionable in the eyes of the public. In other words there is a difference in "fired because business has gone down" and "fired because your kid is sick and we need someone who isn't distracted" (by public opinion not law).

rhizome 15y ago

What if Pincus he had just fired them, with the reason being that they were not earning their compensation? Begging the question: he didn't. Why? Because they were earning their compensation. There is no other explanation. He just wants to be a jerk, legal techniques for which are very valuable among management types.