That's not the point. The point is, the corporation presumably has an executive compensation committee that should review and sign off on any award of this magnitude (or frankly, probably awards 10x smaller than this). Those rules are in place for a reason, to keep the company's funds from being used as a private piggy bank.
If Page thought Rubin deserved this bonus, he should have taken it to the compensation committee in advance of making the award. Of course, then there would be the risk that they would say no ...
This is another example of the fallacy where you give all the credit to the famous leader in the news. While leadership is important, it's not like he did it all himself.
People are not freaking out because Page gave away 150M to huge benefactor and innovator, but because "Page gave away $150000000 to a sexual harassment perpetrator!!!". In this light, doesn't it look bad?
My opinion is that Rubin deserves to be awarded (with a proper company policy to prevent misuse of funds, nepotism etc).
But also deserves to be fired and punished for misconduct (if it is proven to have occurred). These two are not mutually exclusive. The rest is all fluff about how the public perceives a company's culture.
I think many thought he should not get anything because the allegations of misconduct against Rubin. I personally think that is irrelevant, he should be fired for the misconduct but the fruits of his labour should not be denied to him. Android has made world a better place and Google along with all the employees a much better company financially.
The potential golden parachutes are pre-negotiated into the contracts for these executives. Google could refuse them or alter them, but than will also probably still face litigation from that departing executive. The lawyers for the investors who are bringing this suit against google have a moral point but I proving any legal wrong doing is going to be hard. At least it brings to light how different compensation works when you are higher up on the ladder.
This isn't that. A golden parachute is in place up-front in an employee contract. This is a spot bonus of $150MM that was awarded by the CEO to an employee under investigation, without following the corporate process.
Golden Parachutes are usually in place for termination without just cause. Companies like Google (and many many others) prefer to have a friendly separation with no litigation so they just have them trigger (or give some other similar package) for the executive to go away. I wish more companies with resources such as Google would take a stand and fight. Even if you lose, for such a wealthy company the extra cost should be minimal.
What does it say to your employees when they know that the higher up the ladder you are, the less accountable you are if you screw up?
What does it say for a company to decline to enforce+defend its values in open court when it's really pressed?
People who are saying Rubin should be rewarded for creating Android ... he was, many times over. He worked at Google for almost a decade, I guarantee that he vested a ton of GSU’s. Also, Google bought his company, Danger, which is how he got there in the first place, so he got a big payday for that.
Here’s more detail on how the whole thing shook out. Basically, he used the $150MM grant as a bargaining chip to settle for $90MM in return for resigning. This award was only given when he was already under investigation for misconduct - if this was really a reward for creating Android, Page could have handed it to him any time in the other 8.5 years that he worked at Google.
Is Page still actively involved in Google? With the walkouts, and anger at Google's top level management for paying hush money to Andy, does he still have credibility with employees? Will they follow this leader? Will they consider him authentic? He is still an example of what great leadership is all about?
People are fallible and sometimes show poor judgement. I get that. Just curious how does one come out of this unscathed. Will Google HR use PR techniques to protect Larry's aura at Google. Normal people usually get fired. Founders it seems are untouchable, especially at Google. Will be fascinating to see how all of this plays out.
I'd guess Page is wisely keeping a low profile, both inside and outside Google. He never sought the spotlight; he's had health problems with his voice that may still make being a regular spokesperson challenging.
And, anyone who's a prominent "mascot" for a tech giant just gets a lot of unnecessarily personalized hate. Why not lie low and pick & choose where to influence things internally, if you have that luxury?
How might Page come out of "this" unscathed? Well, I'm not sure to the board or stockholders, he's done anything wrong here.
Those operating under a sort of "just world" assumption might wish Rubin suffers more for the reported managerial misdeeds. In practice, if he was promised giant compensation for the giant impact his projects have had on Google – and would have received this or larger compensation under the prior working assumption of continued employment – then pulling that back from Rubin could be an impractical battle for Google.
Rubin might be willing to fight the allegations, in court, down to the last detail in a manner that could cost Google even more than this package. Also, Rubin knows all the proprietary details of Google's mobile strategy & forthcoming technologies. He's perhaps the one technologist in the world with the most knowledge and ability to launch an outside threat to Android's dominance.
I think that a system that allows people who have produced (Page, Rubin) to be subject to to the tantrums (legal and otherwise) of those who didn't is a broken system.
[+] [-] kumarm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] URSpider94|7 years ago|reply
If Page thought Rubin deserved this bonus, he should have taken it to the compensation committee in advance of making the award. Of course, then there would be the risk that they would say no ...
[+] [-] skybrian|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway66666|7 years ago|reply
My opinion is that Rubin deserves to be awarded (with a proper company policy to prevent misuse of funds, nepotism etc). But also deserves to be fired and punished for misconduct (if it is proven to have occurred). These two are not mutually exclusive. The rest is all fluff about how the public perceives a company's culture.
[+] [-] KorematsuFred|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drugme|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FreedomToCreate|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] URSpider94|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] entee|7 years ago|reply
What does it say to your employees when they know that the higher up the ladder you are, the less accountable you are if you screw up?
What does it say for a company to decline to enforce+defend its values in open court when it's really pressed?
[+] [-] justicezyx|7 years ago|reply
Then come back to look at this report.
That's how people would then react.
[+] [-] URSpider94|7 years ago|reply
Here’s more detail on how the whole thing shook out. Basically, he used the $150MM grant as a bargaining chip to settle for $90MM in return for resigning. This award was only given when he was already under investigation for misconduct - if this was really a reward for creating Android, Page could have handed it to him any time in the other 8.5 years that he worked at Google.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/tech...
[+] [-] throwaway6497|7 years ago|reply
People are fallible and sometimes show poor judgement. I get that. Just curious how does one come out of this unscathed. Will Google HR use PR techniques to protect Larry's aura at Google. Normal people usually get fired. Founders it seems are untouchable, especially at Google. Will be fascinating to see how all of this plays out.
[+] [-] gojomo|7 years ago|reply
And, anyone who's a prominent "mascot" for a tech giant just gets a lot of unnecessarily personalized hate. Why not lie low and pick & choose where to influence things internally, if you have that luxury?
How might Page come out of "this" unscathed? Well, I'm not sure to the board or stockholders, he's done anything wrong here.
Those operating under a sort of "just world" assumption might wish Rubin suffers more for the reported managerial misdeeds. In practice, if he was promised giant compensation for the giant impact his projects have had on Google – and would have received this or larger compensation under the prior working assumption of continued employment – then pulling that back from Rubin could be an impractical battle for Google.
Rubin might be willing to fight the allegations, in court, down to the last detail in a manner that could cost Google even more than this package. Also, Rubin knows all the proprietary details of Google's mobile strategy & forthcoming technologies. He's perhaps the one technologist in the world with the most knowledge and ability to launch an outside threat to Android's dominance.
[+] [-] NavyNuke|7 years ago|reply
What the fuck does "credibility" have to do with anything? I trade my skill/labor for money...who cares who the CEO/Founder is?
> Will they follow this leader?
He isn't leading a crusade...he's just a dude that founded the company that is my current employer...big deal
> Will they consider him authentic?
Who cares if he is authentic or not? I don't pay my mortgage with my CEO's authenticity...
> He is still an example of what great leadership is all about?
Not sure, don't care...
I think you're dramatizing this whole Larry's aura thing...
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] joeshmoe23|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SquishyPanda23|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mortdeus|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mesozoic|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CalChris|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] save_ferris|7 years ago|reply