4 ms·
This seems weird. Of course, CEO is not supposed to know everything, but this particular clause was probably seen as a deal breaker for many candidates, includi
by summerlight 2y ago
This seems weird. Of course, CEO is not supposed to know everything, but this particular clause was probably seen as a deal breaker for many candidates, including strategically important top talents who care more about freedom. Unless Sam was completely excluded in the recruiting process, I guess he should've heard complaints against this?
- lolinder 2y agoWe're talking about a clause in the exit documents, not the onboarding documents. This would never have come up while recruiting, only when people quit or are fired, at which point their complaints probably don't seem important enough to escalate to the CEO.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- summerlight 2y agoIf this was not in the employment contract, then it's even more problematic. I'm pretty sure this is very likely violation of multiple laws. If some random lawyer added this lifetime clause for their own sake without escalating to the board, then they should be immediately fired. It's possible that Sam was not aware of its illegality and now wanted to minimize his liability though.