Reply to post: Re: different rules

If you saw a Google ad recently, know that it helped pay off one of its 'sex pest' execs $90m

jmch Silver badge

Re: different rules

"The $90 millions was just the payment required to make him leave quietly without the $150 millions he had expected to receive over the next few years."

For the 'rank-and-file' of any company, any type of gross misconduct will result in immediate dismissal. Gross incompetence also usually results in eventual dismissal. In either case if there's a notice period I guess it's legally required to be paid, but surely any bonuses are out of the question.

It's absolutely baffling that executives get away with that sort of golden parachute when dismissed. What type of dirt does he have on Google that would justify Google paying him $90Mil to quietly walk away instead of having security escort him from the premises carrying a cardboard box with his belongings? Or are Google's lawyers so incompetent that they can't draw up a contract that protects Google from the excesses of its' top executives? Or is this behaviour so par-for-the-course for top executives that golden parachute payments for being caught are already negotiated up front?

The mind boggles

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021