3 ms·

During the layoffs, I've seen some commenters here express that any agreements were to the previous owners and since Musk is a new owner taking over the company

During the layoffs, I've seen some commenters here express that any agreements were to the previous owners and since Musk is a new owner taking over the company, those previous agreements are no longer valid. This was with respect to severance packages. It'll be interesting to see what kind of reaction this gets this time around.

clipsy 3y ago
This is a prima facie absurd view of buyouts; if this were actually how things worked it would be fiscally irresponsible to lend money to any corporation (because the ownership might change, absolving them of their debt), for example. Or, succinctly: the owners of my bank made an agreement that I can withdraw my money at any time without fee. Should new owners suddenly be able to ignore that agreement? Impose fees? Perhaps even simply deny me the ability to withdraw money at all? I would hope the answer from any reasonable person would be a resounding "No."
- Ajay-p 3y ago
  I sense a great deal of passion in your comment. Has this issue impacted your life in the past?
  - jtthe13 3y ago
    I sense a great deal of sarcasm and a lack of constructive criticism in your comment. Has this issue impacted your life in the past?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    It’s… not an issue! To be clear, a change of ownership does absolutely not get a company out of its obligations. That is not how it works, at all.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bananapub 3y ago
what on earth are you talking about? the agreements were with the company, the company having a new set of owners obviously doesn't let it unilaterally ditch al existing agreements.
- Freedom2 3y ago
  That much is obvious. Where did I ever say that I also held that opinion?
  - bananapub 3y ago
    > During the layoffs, I've seen some commenters here express that any agreements were to the previous owners and since Musk is a new owner taking over the company, those previous agreements are no longer valid. This was with respect to severance packages.
rsynnott 3y ago
> During the layoffs, I've seen some commenters here express that any agreements were to the previous owners and since Musk is a new owner taking over the company, those previous agreements are no longer valid Those commenters were, at best, extremely confused. This isn’t feudalism; their contracts are with the _company_, not the ‘owner’.
gargablegar 3y ago
This is why a company is a “person” and it’s own legal entity. To abstract ownership from responsibility

clipsy 3y ago

This is a prima facie absurd view of buyouts; if this were actually how things worked it would be fiscally irresponsible to lend money to any corporation (because the ownership might change, absolving them of their debt), for example. Or, succinctly: the owners of my bank made an agreement that I can withdraw my money at any time without fee. Should new owners suddenly be able to ignore that agreement? Impose fees? Perhaps even simply deny me the ability to withdraw money at all? I would hope the answer from any reasonable person would be a resounding "No."

Ajay-p 3y ago
I sense a great deal of passion in your comment. Has this issue impacted your life in the past?
- jtthe13 3y ago
  I sense a great deal of sarcasm and a lack of constructive criticism in your comment. Has this issue impacted your life in the past?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rsynnott 3y ago
  It’s… not an issue! To be clear, a change of ownership does absolutely not get a company out of its obligations. That is not how it works, at all.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bananapub 3y ago

what on earth are you talking about? the agreements were with the company, the company having a new set of owners obviously doesn't let it unilaterally ditch al existing agreements.

Freedom2 3y ago
That much is obvious. Where did I ever say that I also held that opinion?
- bananapub 3y ago
  > During the layoffs, I've seen some commenters here express that any agreements were to the previous owners and since Musk is a new owner taking over the company, those previous agreements are no longer valid. This was with respect to severance packages.

rsynnott 3y ago

> During the layoffs, I've seen some commenters here express that any agreements were to the previous owners and since Musk is a new owner taking over the company, those previous agreements are no longer valid Those commenters were, at best, extremely confused. This isn’t feudalism; their contracts are with the _company_, not the ‘owner’.

gargablegar 3y ago

This is why a company is a “person” and it’s own legal entity. To abstract ownership from responsibility