If you created Android which runs on the overwhelming majority of phones today, you probably should get a very good exit package deal.
Imagine how much wealth Android has generated for Google.
Imagine how much wealth Android has generated for Google.
This assumes that, for example, when he became an SVP, he was still on any sort of standard employee agreement.
That is highly unlikely.
Almost all execs at that level in that large a company would have a specially negotiated agreement. Most still end up with something even if terminated for cause.
Almost all their exits would be specifically negotiated mutual separation agreements.
(I'm not defending the above, obviously, just explaining what i expect is the case based on experience)
Also worth pointing out: don't know when he was made SVP/etc, but it probably predates any pushes to change any of this in tech. :(
> Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms.
However I don't know if that's just opinion or based on some set of facts about his situation.
My wife works in HR (not at Google, but in tech and other industries), and has handled things like executive compensation/retention/etc. She has done many of these types of situations over the years.
She was doubtful they would have been able to pay him nothing.
I've also seen a bunch fly by on the legal side over the years, and most (but not all) that i've seen would have paid out something in a case like this.
Best guess as to the 90 million was that it was not about this, but stock payout in exchange for not competing with google for a while or something.
You know more about the market in the Valley than I do, but I am surprised to hear the suggestion that anyone at the SVP level would have negotiated severance on for-cause termination.
(The point you made subsequently, about him maybe having locked in some amount of comp in exchange for non-compete, makes more sense.)
Again you know this stuff way more than I do. I'm just sort of probing here.
The causes in for-cause termination generally have to be listed.
Here's a sample clause: http://www.elinfonet.com/prov/14
You will see that for example, these sample clauses (which are not uncommon) say nothing about morals except conviction of a crime of moral turpitude.
Sometimes they say stuff about code of conduct violations, etc. But that's a fuzzier area (particularly since most companies revise their codes of conduct constantly).
But Rubin probably wasn't terminated for cause, but nudged to resign.
> The $90 million was for Google to keep the story quiet and to keep Rubin from working for a competitor.
The $90 million was probably to prevent a protracted legal battle Google wasn't guaranteed to win; senior executives typically have fairly strong exit guarantees in individual contracts; people talk about it being hard to fire people under union contracts, but doing so under executive contracts (without paying the pre-negotiated severance and adhering to the likely-present mutual non-disparagement clause) is at least as difficult.
I disagree. It all depends on what the cause is. Regarding sexual harassment which today means any woman can accuse you of that and no questions is asked and you'll get sacked is not a valid reason for not getting any money imo.
This is kind of like figuring out that coal provides good energy output and then someone saying you "created the industrial revolution".