4 ms·

I hope this doesn't become the norm of employment agreement. I don't want to return money when I fail at my job. It could easily bankrupt me. Imagine if you a

I hope this doesn't become the norm of employment agreement. I don't want to return money when I fail at my job. It could easily bankrupt me. Imagine if you are fired and have to return all the salaries and stock you've ever earned.

Godel_unicode 4y ago
There are employment agreements doing this already, just time-boxed with signing bonuses and RSUs.
- ergocoder 4y ago
  Yeah, in a more limited manner. Are you arguing that it should be the norm and apply to years of employment? Like if you are fired, you have to return the compensation for the last 4 years?
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    How did you get there from what I wrote…?
    - ergocoder 4y ago
      We are discussing about whether we should crawl money back. I am against it. Then, you showed up and said that crawling back money was already done widely. I responded that it was done limitedly. Maybe I assume your position, but you didn't make your position clear either...
sytelus 4y ago
C-Suits are different than ground workers. They get golden parachutes, you don't. They get full vesting at firing, you don't. C-suits get paid for company performance, while you get paid for the task done. Ton of C-Suits simply get paid for growing fast (aka hypergrowth aka overhiring). They pose this as performance and take home millions. These millions should be returned when they admit that the growth they claimed was simply overhiring.
- ergocoder 4y ago
  > C-Suits are different than ground workers. It doesn't matter because that is not what was agreed at the time of employment. You are trying to apply your idea retrospectively without any prior agreement. Now moving forward I can see your idea being implemented but be prepared for c-suite's compensation to skyrocket even more because the downside is much higher... The upside has to be much higher as well.
  - sgu999 4y ago
    > You are trying to apply your idea retrospectively without any prior agreement. You misread them, they didn't write that money should be taken from him but rather that he should willingly donate it to be in line with his statements. More so, it was probably just a stylistic device to make a point.

Godel_unicode 4y ago

There are employment agreements doing this already, just time-boxed with signing bonuses and RSUs.

ergocoder 4y ago
Yeah, in a more limited manner. Are you arguing that it should be the norm and apply to years of employment? Like if you are fired, you have to return the compensation for the last 4 years?
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  How did you get there from what I wrote…?
  - ergocoder 4y ago
    We are discussing about whether we should crawl money back. I am against it. Then, you showed up and said that crawling back money was already done widely. I responded that it was done limitedly. Maybe I assume your position, but you didn't make your position clear either...

sytelus 4y ago

C-Suits are different than ground workers. They get golden parachutes, you don't. They get full vesting at firing, you don't. C-suits get paid for company performance, while you get paid for the task done. Ton of C-Suits simply get paid for growing fast (aka hypergrowth aka overhiring). They pose this as performance and take home millions. These millions should be returned when they admit that the growth they claimed was simply overhiring.

ergocoder 4y ago
> C-Suits are different than ground workers. It doesn't matter because that is not what was agreed at the time of employment. You are trying to apply your idea retrospectively without any prior agreement. Now moving forward I can see your idea being implemented but be prepared for c-suite's compensation to skyrocket even more because the downside is much higher... The upside has to be much higher as well.
- sgu999 4y ago
  > You are trying to apply your idea retrospectively without any prior agreement. You misread them, they didn't write that money should be taken from him but rather that he should willingly donate it to be in line with his statements. More so, it was probably just a stylistic device to make a point.