[daeken]

Retracting a sign-on bonus when you're laying someone off -- rather than them quitting or being terminated for cause -- is wrong. That's tantamount to wage theft, IMO. Reversing someone's yearly bonus after the fact is just as bad.

[matz1]

Its not wrong unless the contract specifically says being laid off as exception.

[daeken]

Just because something isn't illegal/breach of contract doesn't mean it's right.

[tylersmith]

Then they shouldn't have agreed to it.

[SolaceQuantum]

It shouldn't be wrong to assume that a contracted amount of money will actually be given to you without an added assessment that "if I'm laid off I should still get that money". Contracts cannot be used the same way one can code defensively, because when humans are involved defensive moves are also hostile moves- and the only way keeping the negotiations going is leverage on both sides.

[matz1]

Well, actually It doesn't matter what you think right or wrong, what matter is can u force the other party to follow what you want.

[xeromal]

I think we're arguing what is morally correct while you're arguing what is legally correct. You're right legally, but it still sucks that everything has to be defined to the Planck length and you'll still probably get screwed.

[SolaceQuantum]

The implication is that both sides don't necessarily have leverage, meaning you cannot force fair behavior by yourself. This power disparity is something society at whole tends to recognize, and is thus able to leverage social norms to shame a company into behaving align with societal understandings of fairness.