This is such an American idea, I don't think it happens anywhere else: if you have something like shares, or a pension, and you get fired, how can you stop being entitled to those things?
Not that I am saying that it was the case, but hypothetically:
If you are grossly negligent or even fraudulent in your behaviour, do you think you are entitled to shares?
Supposedly, C-level positions are highly-rewarded because they are high-risk. Ignoring the political background, if any company had the same development, I would find it only natural that it has repercussions on the CEO, and I wouldn't consider losing all shares completely out of order.
Superficially, I think that if someone owns shares in a company, those are private property. However, there are schemes where it's not a share in the traditional sense of the word (like trade on the open stock market), but a private stock. I was part of a scheme at my previous employer (not the US) where I could buy 'certificates', a bit like stock but it was not publicly traded, it did not give you any voting rights, the price would be set once a year (based on annual results), and it would be bought back (at the last known rate) after your employment. It paid dividends though, and the value appreciated greatly over the span of a few years.
Re: pensions, where I live, pensions and pension funds are completely different entities from the company you work for. You own your pension, your employer pays contributions to it. Since it's not part of your employer, if you get sacked you don't lose your pension. I think that's how it should be tbh.
I don't think they are as high-risk as you suggest. Many c-level positions have golden parachutes so even when executives to terrible jobs, they still get well compensated.
No. But if someone already earned years on their pension, or earned their shares, they should keep them. If they didn't do what was needed to earn them, they don't get them.
It's the removal of something I do not understand ("X fired, loses pension" is what I see a lot).
I don't think it's possible to strip a person of their shares outside of court.
I think this person hadn't vested the shares yet, or didn't qualify for exercising their options, etc. There surely is a very detailed contract, it's not something that could be done ad hoc.
The article says it's unusual. I gather this must not be a public company yet for it to even be possible.
In the US, by the way, pensions for around 97 percent of people have been replaced by 401k's, a kind of brokerage account for investing pre-tax income that your employer can contribute to also. It certainly does not get stripped if you leave, though you may need to stay a year before the company will contribute. It is a wholly separate kind of compensation from your stocks.
There's a saying that "possession is 9/10ths of the law", which means that, in property disputes, courts tend to uphold the status quo. Taking something away from someone by a ruling is seen as much harder to justify than letting someone retain possession, which is presumed to have some measure of justification.
It is? When was the last time a grossly incompetent or even downright criminal American CEO lost equity or suffered a substantial financial or legal penalty? Jeffrey Skilling in 2006?
Yeah. And if you mean to ask how is it ethical to put those clauses in the contract... if the executive does something so damaging to the business to get fired, the others need to recoup their losses by reclaiming shares and pension.
Yeah I guess the execs are a little different, but my point is that the same thing would happen to any white collar employee (lose all their shares, etc).
White collar workers can unionize if they want to.
This had nothing to do with that. There was a clause (presumably) in his agreements that triggered this. He signed it and most likely also had something to do with it's creation. Don't sign what you don't like. Many employment options as a white collar worker.
When the Parler debacle started I was curious about the founder so I went on YouTube and found a podcast / interview he did with a Chinese girl he knew from college about the COVID-19 about-to-be pandemic.
The video was titled:
China vs. United States COVID-19 with Ping Ping and John Matze
And to be honest I was expecting Steve Bannon's War Room like ranting and conspiracy theories coupled with some off the charts nationalism.
However it was nothing like it. He came across as well-reasoned and genuinely curious on what was happening.
Parler is being taken over by monied alt-right people and the founder is being dragged through the dirt and then spit out. Probably a fascinating story there.
Clawbacks of vested shares are rare, but happen when the firing is "with cause" or due to criminal activity/conviction etc. Not sure what the situation is here, but it might be headed to court.
At one point it seemed like the birth of conservative social media companies could provide an amazing catalyst to the growing tech industry in conservative states and enable more talented people to participate. Unfortunately it seems like the conservative management mentality of treating tech as a replaceable cog in a machine and as a cost center will be a barrier for the time being.
