71–76 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's extremely uncommon to have to pay back compensation when one is fired. The board has the option of denying the severance entirely if they think that he did not deliver the requested services.
> It's extremely uncommon to have to pay back compensation when one is fired. I'd imagine it's extremely uncommon to incur $18B in fines, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's extremely uncommon to have to pay back compensation when one is fired. The board has the option of denying the severance entirely if they think that he did not deliver the requested services.
I'm sure legally he's entitled to the money. That does not imply he did his job properly.
That would not be surprising given that he was fired.
Unless you're suggesting that an employee who is fired should have to pay back all the compensation they were paid, I honestly don't see what you're trying to argue here.
The real problem here is that companies mistakenly place such an incredible amount of confidence in their CEOs and therefore offer them extraordinary leverage in the negotiations. They become convinced that they've found the one person in the world who can lead their company into the future, and once that belief has settled they're willing to pay almost anything to keep that person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure legally he's entitled to the money. That does not imply he did his job properly.
> That does not imply he did his job properly. That would not be surprising given that he was fired. Unless you're suggesting that an employee who is fired should have to pay back all the compensation they were paid, I honestly don't see what you're trying to argue here. The real problem here is that companies mistakenly place such an incredible amount of confidence in their CEOs and therefore offer them extraordinar…
At a certain point of literally not doing what you were paid to do, on purpose, at the very least all bonuses should be revoked. Signing bonuses should require a certain amount of honest effort before they lock in, and exit bonuses should require the same or more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That does not imply he did his job properly. That would not be surprising given that he was fired. Unless you're suggesting that an employee who is fired should have to pay back all the compensation they were paid, I honestly don't see what you're trying to argue here. The real problem here is that companies mistakenly place such an incredible amount of confidence in their CEOs and therefore offer them extraordinar…
In an extreme case, let's say an employee was a total fraud, filling out timesheets and never coming to work. It would make sense to take all compensation back. At a certain point of literally not doing what you were paid to do, on purpose, at the very least all bonuses should be revoked. Signing bonuses should require a certain amount of honest effort before they lock in, and exit bonuses should require the same or…
I'm surprised that in the US their sales didn't take nosedive, I take that to indicate their customer base has a very enthusiastic and fundamental core... Which is good for them. If this does not shake their confidence, then nothing will, and if this is the case worldwide, VW will survive this scandal largely unscathed, relative to the size of this scandal. For a while it seemed like their viability was very much in…
Fundamentally, I don't really care that they tried to cheat emissions tests. At least when it comes to a purchase decision. The regulators did a bad job at making the testing procedure giving manufacturers a pretty strong motivations to cheat. I expect others to get caught doing similar things. I'd buy another VW because the one I have has done a good job of getting the little things right in ways other cars I've own…
So far, it would seem people are forgiving them, but that may or may not change depending on findings regarding other cheaters, if any, but, in the least, this has the potential to change consumer preference in fuels, given one is not as undirty as originally claimed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an extreme case, let's say an employee was a total fraud, filling out timesheets and never coming to work. It would make sense to take all compensation back. At a certain point of literally not doing what you were paid to do, on purpose, at the very least all bonuses should be revoked. Signing bonuses should require a certain amount of honest effort before they lock in, and exit bonuses should require the same or…
I agree when we're talking about that extreme, but I don't think we have evidence that their CEO was a total fraud. He was just the figurehead of a scandal that may or may not have involved him, and if it did involve him that doesn't necessarily mean he held sole responsibility. In fact, this notion that he wasn't performing his agreed upon duties might be spectacularly false if the whole executive team was in on it.…
If he has even moderate responsibility, I don't think he deserves any bonuses or similar he got. It doesn't take 'full' responsibility.
But maybe he had almost none, and it's fine.