Investment comes with risk - that's why you can make money at it. I think it's fair to say if this business is struggling it'd be more equitable to share the excess compensation with rank and file employees that are being deprived of their livelihood but unfortunately they likely have no "right" to that compensation with how various employee contracts are structured. It's usually the case in situations like this that the CEO getting a golden parachute is less expensive to the company than trying to get out of paying them. Companies, of course, would prefer a world in which no one had to be paid so all this thread is sort of a socialist pipedream where the havenots might actually get treated fairly since if the money wasn't going to the CEO it'd likely end up straight back in the pockets of investors.
All these people had salaries in excess of $180k I presume + stock compensation. Sorry, but they do not fall in the category of people that were exploited.
I firmly believe in at will employment.
In this case, the CEO exploited the investors, whether it is VC firms, institutional or private investors by making an error in the judgement of hiring needs. Of course there is a risk in investment, but when CEO's make major mistakes while paying themselves $800M in compensation; investors should seek relief.
> All these people had salaries in excess of $180k I presume + stock compensation. Sorry, but they do not fall in the category of people that were exploited.
I am making the argument that they were not in a cage at all and that they were justly compensated for the risk of joining a rapidly expanding startup.
