3 ms·

I don't think you would have anything to be ashamed about for leaving the company, even if it blows up the deal. Of course, that doesn't mean that it won't make

by scott00 12y ago

I don't think you would have anything to be ashamed about for leaving the company, even if it blows up the deal. Of course, that doesn't mean that it won't make your bosses/coworkers angry or disappointed, and there is some value in having good relations with ex-coworkers. If more compensation or a different role at the new company would change your mind, it's definitely worth having that conversation. In the event that you can't reach a deal that makes you enthusiastic about going along with the acqui-hire, making some small sacrifices to help the deal go through is probably worth it to preserve relationships (like trcollinson did by quitting the day after the close instead of the day before). If you decide to shoot for the bare minimum, make sure you know what it will take to make everybody at the current company happy. You wouldn't want to stay an extra month in order to quit the day after the deal closes only to discover that the owners don't get their payday unless you stay on for two years after the close and they end up pissed at you anyway.

trcollinson 12y ago
I just want to point out an important distinctions between a pre and post acquisition deal. Previous to an acquisition being complete it is entirely possible and very common for the acquirer to stipulate that a certain employee or set of employees must stay with the company throughout the acquisition. Before money, stock, and assets have changed hands almost anything can go. Both sides can (and often do) back out of the agreement for any number of reasons. The reason many companies have a "Quiet Period" during an acquisition is so that employees don't panic and leave, ruining the deal. Frankly, this company probably shouldn't have shared the acquisition with the OP is at all possible. However, it is very uncommon to stipulate payment (or vestment) on a particular employee or a group of employees staying AFTER the acquisition is complete, at least in the US. This is because of anti-coercion laws. There are a number of laws that protect a worker from being held captive (via liability) to a company. If I were a previous owner who's previous employee left a new company one day after the sale and the new owner said "Well, you don't get paid now," it would be an easy argument to say "They have the right to leave and it was you who lost them, the liability is on you." If the laws did not protect from such then you would see an amazing level of scam which could go something like this. The acquiring company would stipulate that the price of the purchase of the acquired company was based on an employee being retained. The acquiring company would then tell that employee to quietly (under the table, without anyone knowing) leave a few days after acquisition. The acquiring company would then say, "See! That employee didn't stay so you don't get paid (as much|anything) anymore!" That being said, this is why so many lawyers are involved with contracting the sale of businesses. I have seen buyers attempting to stipulate payment on some really crazy things. I have seen sellers pull the plug for some other really silly stipulations. It's usually quite the circus to watch.

by scott00 12y ago

trcollinson 12y ago

I just want to point out an important distinctions between a pre and post acquisition deal. Previous to an acquisition being complete it is entirely possible and very common for the acquirer to stipulate that a certain employee or set of employees must stay with the company throughout the acquisition. Before money, stock, and assets have changed hands almost anything can go. Both sides can (and often do) back out of the agreement for any number of reasons. The reason many companies have a "Quiet Period" during an acquisition is so that employees don't panic and leave, ruining the deal. Frankly, this company probably shouldn't have shared the acquisition with the OP is at all possible. However, it is very uncommon to stipulate payment (or vestment) on a particular employee or a group of employees staying AFTER the acquisition is complete, at least in the US. This is because of anti-coercion laws. There are a number of laws that protect a worker from being held captive (via liability) to a company. If I were a previous owner who's previous employee left a new company one day after the sale and the new owner said "Well, you don't get paid now," it would be an easy argument to say "They have the right to leave and it was you who lost them, the liability is on you." If the laws did not protect from such then you would see an amazing level of scam which could go something like this. The acquiring company would stipulate that the price of the purchase of the acquired company was based on an employee being retained. The acquiring company would then tell that employee to quietly (under the table, without anyone knowing) leave a few days after acquisition. The acquiring company would then say, "See! That employee didn't stay so you don't get paid (as much|anything) anymore!" That being said, this is why so many lawyers are involved with contracting the sale of businesses. I have seen buyers attempting to stipulate payment on some really crazy things. I have seen sellers pull the plug for some other really silly stipulations. It's usually quite the circus to watch.