4 ms·

> Employment At-Will. Please understand that this letter does not constitute a contract of employment for any specific period of time, but will create an employ

> Employment At-Will. Please understand that this letter does not constitute a contract of employment for any specific period of time, but will create an employment at-will relationship that may be terminated at any time by you or Yahoo!, with or without cause and with or without advance notice. Just like being a cashier at McDonalds. That bit was unexpected for me. Why would the board want to let its CEO quit without notice at any time?

mvkel 14y ago
This is standard for pretty much any company. It protects the company against frivolous wrongful termination lawsuits.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- SkyMarshal 14y ago
  If you don't mean to be snide then don't be. It's not that hard. Just skip the snark and explain what OP is missing. If you have some knowledge of employment contracts to share, OP and all the rest of us would appreciate it.
  - wh-uws 14y ago
    Not a lawyer or anything of that sort. Law is sort of small hobby for me: I read every word of anything I sign and I paid a decent amount of attention in a business law class I took in college. A great introductory book on the subject you could probably get cheaply used at a college book store is "Fundamentals of Business Law" It goes over just about anything a small business and/or startup person would want to know (short of options, equity, and the like ) anymore you would definitely want to go with professional council on . At will employment is a pretty standard practice is the US. That language is in just about any offer for employment that a person would read in the states. It basically just means "you can quit at anytime and we can get rid of you at anytime" generally except for anything that violates the employment contract or any applicable laws. Its to help with liability and rights on both ends
    - dangrossman 14y ago
      At-will is a description of the absence of an contract term restricting either party's right to end employment. It's not a law and it's not a restriction. What's surprising is that neither party wanted any kind of term; she didn't want a guarantee she'd be employed even a single year, and they didn't want a guarantee she wouldn't up and quit with no notice. They could've had one. Having to buy out the contract of a high-ranking person to replace them early is kind of the norm I've come to expect.
      - wh-uws 14y ago
        As gojimo said in an ealier comment "In practice, still, most exits would still have some notice." Companies just like to have the option. You could say it was confidence on her part. Now we could have another discussion about whether or not that was foolish but that could be the reason
mnutt 14y ago
This leaves them more options, and they incentivize the CEO to stay through stock grant vesting.
cloudwalking 14y ago
California is an at-will employment state. In California, you can quit or be fired at any time.
- dangrossman 14y ago
  There's no such thing as an "at-will employment state". No state prohibits employment contracts with length of employment or notice of termination terms. Rather than repeat it, refer to my other comments in the thread.
- alpb 14y ago
  Same in Washington.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Lukeas14 14y ago
At-will employment is the law in California and several other states meaning either side can end the relationship for any reason other than discrimination against a protected class. So it's not Yahoo's choice, their just stating the law.
- dangrossman 14y ago
  You're misinformed. At-will employment is not a law, it's a legal doctrine, a description of a legal status: the absence of an employment term restricting the right to end the employment relationship at any time. At-will employment is the default state of employment relationships in every state; they are not stating anything unique to California. In fact, California was the first state to rule a termination in an at-will relationship illegal when it was in violation of public policy. What was surprising was not that they made the at-will relationship explicit, it's that they chose to have it that way at all. There is nothing stopping them from requiring notice before she quits, or her from requiring they hire her for at least some minimum term. You hear about having to buy-out contracts of executives all the time.
  - kenjackson 14y ago
    Montana is generally not considered an At-Will state (after the probationary period). Unless it has changed recently.
gojomo 14y ago
Why? Because the alternative would be even worse. If a CEO desperately wants out with no notice/transition, you would not want to obligate them to stay an extra day as a contractual prisoner. (In practice, still, most exits would still have some notice. But it'd be mediated by mutual reputational concerns, not contract terms.)
- ericd 14y ago
  You would definitely want them to stay until you had a replacement lined up, even if they were unhappy.
  - scotty79 14y ago
    Not really. Organisation can function a long time without CEO. People at the very top are completely irrelevant to day to day operations.
    - dangrossman 14y ago
      Shareholders don't often see it that way.
      - PakG1 14y ago
        I'd be curious about this. I can't believe it's true. Besides that, it's very easy to very quickly appoint an interim CEO from within. Look how quickly Scott Thompson was replaced by Ross Levinsohn.
        dangrossman 14y ago
        When the CEOs of RIM stepped down last year, their share rice fell 9.1% on the announcement. When Best Buy's CEO resigned in April, their share price dropped 5.87% that day. When Akamai CEO Paul Sagan announced his intent to step down two months ago, shares fell 6% in after-hours trading. It's pretty much guaranteed that a sudden change in leadership will lead to selloffs. Why can't you believe it?

mvkel 14y ago

This is standard for pretty much any company. It protects the company against frivolous wrongful termination lawsuits.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

SkyMarshal 14y ago
If you don't mean to be snide then don't be. It's not that hard. Just skip the snark and explain what OP is missing. If you have some knowledge of employment contracts to share, OP and all the rest of us would appreciate it.
- wh-uws 14y ago
  Not a lawyer or anything of that sort. Law is sort of small hobby for me: I read every word of anything I sign and I paid a decent amount of attention in a business law class I took in college. A great introductory book on the subject you could probably get cheaply used at a college book store is "Fundamentals of Business Law" It goes over just about anything a small business and/or startup person would want to know (short of options, equity, and the like ) anymore you would definitely want to go with professional council on . At will employment is a pretty standard practice is the US. That language is in just about any offer for employment that a person would read in the states. It basically just means "you can quit at anytime and we can get rid of you at anytime" generally except for anything that violates the employment contract or any applicable laws. Its to help with liability and rights on both ends
  - dangrossman 14y ago
    At-will is a description of the absence of an contract term restricting either party's right to end employment. It's not a law and it's not a restriction. What's surprising is that neither party wanted any kind of term; she didn't want a guarantee she'd be employed even a single year, and they didn't want a guarantee she wouldn't up and quit with no notice. They could've had one. Having to buy out the contract of a high-ranking person to replace them early is kind of the norm I've come to expect.
    - wh-uws 14y ago
      As gojimo said in an ealier comment "In practice, still, most exits would still have some notice." Companies just like to have the option. You could say it was confidence on her part. Now we could have another discussion about whether or not that was foolish but that could be the reason

mnutt 14y ago

This leaves them more options, and they incentivize the CEO to stay through stock grant vesting.

cloudwalking 14y ago

California is an at-will employment state. In California, you can quit or be fired at any time.

dangrossman 14y ago
There's no such thing as an "at-will employment state". No state prohibits employment contracts with length of employment or notice of termination terms. Rather than repeat it, refer to my other comments in the thread.
alpb 14y ago
Same in Washington.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

Lukeas14 14y ago

At-will employment is the law in California and several other states meaning either side can end the relationship for any reason other than discrimination against a protected class. So it's not Yahoo's choice, their just stating the law.

dangrossman 14y ago
You're misinformed. At-will employment is not a law, it's a legal doctrine, a description of a legal status: the absence of an employment term restricting the right to end the employment relationship at any time. At-will employment is the default state of employment relationships in every state; they are not stating anything unique to California. In fact, California was the first state to rule a termination in an at-will relationship illegal when it was in violation of public policy. What was surprising was not that they made the at-will relationship explicit, it's that they chose to have it that way at all. There is nothing stopping them from requiring notice before she quits, or her from requiring they hire her for at least some minimum term. You hear about having to buy-out contracts of executives all the time.
- kenjackson 14y ago
  Montana is generally not considered an At-Will state (after the probationary period). Unless it has changed recently.

gojomo 14y ago

Why? Because the alternative would be even worse. If a CEO desperately wants out with no notice/transition, you would not want to obligate them to stay an extra day as a contractual prisoner. (In practice, still, most exits would still have some notice. But it'd be mediated by mutual reputational concerns, not contract terms.)

ericd 14y ago
You would definitely want them to stay until you had a replacement lined up, even if they were unhappy.
- scotty79 14y ago
  Not really. Organisation can function a long time without CEO. People at the very top are completely irrelevant to day to day operations.
  - dangrossman 14y ago
    Shareholders don't often see it that way.
    - PakG1 14y ago
      I'd be curious about this. I can't believe it's true. Besides that, it's very easy to very quickly appoint an interim CEO from within. Look how quickly Scott Thompson was replaced by Ross Levinsohn.
      - dangrossman 14y ago
        When the CEOs of RIM stepped down last year, their share rice fell 9.1% on the announcement. When Best Buy's CEO resigned in April, their share price dropped 5.87% that day. When Akamai CEO Paul Sagan announced his intent to step down two months ago, shares fell 6% in after-hours trading. It's pretty much guaranteed that a sudden change in leadership will lead to selloffs. Why can't you believe it?