Laying off employees and expecting them to sign non-competes for a month of severance (since they are required by WARN to provide 3 of the 4 months) feels very miserly and in bad faith. Why the non-compete?
I think if you are a worker, it makes more sense to be at a big tech company. I've been in Silicon Valley a while now, and I feel like something has changed where the benefits have tilted away from startups. Greed is out of control, there is too much money and I'm afraid it's not being invested wisely or spent wisely.
I think Neumann's package, especially the $185 million "consulting fee", was particularly disgusting and outrageous.<p>That said, I think 4 months of severance is quite generous, so not sure what these folks are complaining about.
How exactly is it that no one seems to have a legal case against Neumann? I have a hard time to believe that one can mess with investor's money so blatantly and get away with one of if not the largest payout ever.
I wish I could be surprised by stuff like this. Feels like this stuff is the norm, not the exception. Unfortunately, I don't see how this is going to change anytime soon.
When you join a startup as a normal employee, the vast majority of the upside goes not to you but to the founders and investors. Assume they make at least 100x what you will, or more like 1000x. So if you get a $100k payout in a very good exit as a normal employee in a startup, likely the founders made at least $10mil.<p>So none of this is surprising except the startup crashed so spectacularly.
Tl;Dr 4 months severance<p>But we are supposed to be mad that the largest and founding equity holder got money for his equity commiserate with the market value that another equity holder requires so they dont get bonesawed by their own limited partners