Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by anamax 1574 days ago
> At the risk of deflating this highly-charged discussion, I think the reason for the "executive staff" carve-out might be a little more ho-hum: they are often employed via the same contract as the executive they support.

Huh? The VP of Engineering has a hefty stock plan, a guaranteed bonus, and a three-year contract. Do you really think that her secretary has anything comparable? Heck, her secretary doesn't even have a three-year contract.
3 comments
JohnTHaller 1573 days ago
Among my friends I have talked to about this previously, they do not.
link
filmgirlcw 1574 days ago
It depends on the executive contract. Some of them will offer a guaranteed number of support staff of the executive’s choice (now whether the admin has to negotiate a separate contract with the exec, I don’t know) and you’ll often see admins move along with the exec from job to job.

But I don’t know if that is why the carve-out is there or not. I doubt it, but some exec contracts absolutely allow for a guaranteed support staff of the exec’s choosing.

link
anamax 1574 days ago
An exec's guarantee of support staff, even the support staff of her choosing, doesn't guarantee the support staff anything.
link
ineptech 1572 days ago
I said "employed via the same contract," not "a comparable contract." Meaning, the VP's hiring contract says "you get $X/yr to hire some staff".
link
anamax 1571 days ago
The VP's contract is irrelevant when we're talking about staff.

The VP's contract reasonably protects the VP from the consequences of a non-compete. The VP's staff has no such protection.

link
ineptech 1571 days ago
> The VP's contract is irrelevant when we're talking about staff.

No it's not. If the VP's contract says "The company will hire an assistant for you" then the assistant negotiates with HR for their salary like a regular employee. If the VP's contract says "You get $100K/yr to hire an assistant" then the assistant can't get a raise until the VP's contract changes.

> The VP's contract reasonably protects the VP from the consequences of a non-compete.

It might, or it might not. Contracts do whatever they say they do. If the contract says "You and your staff can't work for any of our competitors unless it's a leap year and you say Pretty Please" then that's what it says.

More generally, above a certain level, executives are more like a small agency than a single person. If you hire Tim Cook to be the next CEO of your startup, he's going to bring his current assistant(s) with him, he's not just going to inherit whoever the old CEO's assistant was.

link