Hacker News Reader

Comment by javawizard | Hacker News Reader

That was painful to read.

I had a very similar experience at Google about a year ago, and the worst part of it was that they did it 2 weeks before I was set to receive a 6-figure retention bonus for sticking around for 2 years after an acquisition.

Several other members of my team got the boot at the same time. All of us had come in via that acquisition and were set to receive that bonus, and because of the layoffs, none of us did. Folks I talked to on the inside stopped just short of saying that was why we were chosen.

It was especially galling because years before at the company that eventually got acquired by Google, I survived a round of layoffs, and leadership issued stay bonuses for everyone who was left. Those bonuses explicitly stated that they were still valid in the event that we were laid off before their time period was up.

Big companies are soulless.

View on HN

You should consult a lawyer about this. You might be SOL but if this happened to several people, you might be able to show the company didn't act in good faith because there's a pattern of people about to receive their bonus being laid off. Layoffs aren't meant to work that way.

Generally layoffs involve someone who doesn't know who you are picking names almost at random from a spreadsheet. Management may fight for certain people to stay. Then legal and HR get involved and look through the layoff list to see if the chosen employees are problematic. For example, if the layoffs include too many people from protected classes, which opens them up to being sued. For example, if your company is 20% women but the layoffs are 50% women, that's going to be an issue.

Avoiding paying substantial retention bonuses can work the same way, if a pattern can be shown.

A simple letter from a lawyer probably won't do anything. Large companies are prepared for that.

For anyone who does come across this, here's my best advice: if you are acquired and your new employment contract includes a retention bonus, you want that contract to say that the retention bonus is payable unless:

1. You leave voluntarily within that period; or

2. You are terminated with cause within that period.

Otherwise, you should get it.

>2. You are terminated with cause within that period.

Are layoffs considered to be with cause?

Yes as a person who had such a retention bonus before (from Google even) to me this seems rather cut and dry. Usually such bonuses are a mix of cash and RSUs, and set over a 3-4 year period. And are often also based on a perception of what the employees existing options were in the startup that they came from.

IMHO they should absolutely be paid out the whole amount of the remaining retention bonus at layoff. On the principle of things alone. Can't speak to the legality of it.

It might be too late now, but I've successfully negotiated (before signing) retention deals like this to be pro-rated in the event of non-voluntary termination. It's perfectly reasonable for exactly this reason, and companies have no legitimate reason to deny it.

Agreed, this is/should always be the deal basically - "here's a bonus so you stay while we transition" is the only reason many folks stay post aquisition. It should not be revokable, especially last minute.

To me its a massive red flag that Google would promise a cash bonus 2 years in the future, they could have given stock with an appropriate vesting schedule for retention. All the retention deals I have seen were done like this, only for the very short term (less than 6 months) a cash bonus makes sense.

Might be worth talking to a lawyer. Sorry to hear that, absolutely maddening

That's awful and the most amazing thing you could do now is get together with those ex-coworkers or similar people and compete with Google in whatever business domain it was that made them acquire your former employer.

Because, having been through the acquisition process at Google myself, my general cynical take is: Google acquires companies to get rid of them, to stop them from competing and not to "add your uniqueness to their collective."

Keeping employees on retention bonuses is a way, in aggregate, of stopping them from going off and inventing something that eats their bottom line.

You should look into legal action. And failing that, compete with them.

You guys should have a consultation with a lawyer. It's a little cheaper if you guys just use one lawyer to go after Google for the retention bonus if there is a case ;)

The only retention bonuses I ever seen were to be paid in immediately, in full on involuntary termination. There was a "for cause" clause where bonuses don't get paid for termination with a cause, but the causes were listed in writing.

Awful experience.

What is interesting is our denial, as (ex-)corporate employees, that the corporation is NOT FAMILY...even though we may feel it is.

> Big companies are soulless.

"And God created the C Corporation" -nowhere in the Bible / Koran / Hinduism / Buddhism / Torah

I feel this lesson keeps being re-learned by us people / workers ...

Did you sue? Because that's bullshit. The retention agreement should have included that clause anyway.

Agreed. If companies could do this, then they'd never pay out a retention rider.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com