[rpy]

The employees made decisions about their employment based on promises made by the company, in the form of statements by their managers. It’s not their fault the company was then sold to a colossal prick with a penchant for not paying people contractually owed. They deserve to be compensated.

[Levitz]

Sure it's not their fault. It's not the current management's fault either, that's the problem.

They were promised that someone else would reward them. That someone else disagrees. That looks like a problem coming from the first employer.

Assuming this is all true, of course.

[Volundr]

> Sure it's not their fault. It's not the current management's fault either, that's the problem.

It is the current managements "fault". They bought the company, all it's assets, all it's liabilities. They don't get to conveniently decide they get the company, but none of it's debts.

> They were promised that someone else would reward them.

They were promised Twitter would reward them, by people with the authority to make binding promises on behalf of Twitter.

> That looks like a problem coming from the first employer.

There is no first/second employer here. They were employed by Twitter before the acquisition, they were still employed by Twitter afterwards.

[n2d4]

> It's not the current management's fault either, that's the problem.

Of course it is! Elon bought Twitter and all that came with it, including all the contracts set up by the previous management.

You could have an argument that if Twitter intentionally nuked their entire company between signing the deal and the acquisition date, the old management probably committed some kind of fraud, but that's not the case here; these bonuses seem pretty reasonable for a company like Twitter before Elon took over, to ensure the transition goes well.

[rpy]

The current management waived all rights to due diligence in the deal. They can’t complain now to learn facts they refused to engage with earlier.

[rsynnott]

There seems to be some fundamental failure to grasp this. The employer hasn’t changed. Its ownership has, but that’s irrelevant. If changed ownership was a get-out-of-jail-free for liabilities, no public company would ever owe anything.

[rescbr]

> That looks like a problem coming from the first employer.

It's the same employer, just the ownership that changed hands.

[gcr]

If we lived in this world, companies could just change hands whenever they wish to disgorge their debts. “We’re owned by a different shell holding company now, it’s not our problem.”

See the issue?

Here’s another way of framing this point: when selling a company, which liabilities do you feel should follow through to new ownership and which shouldn’t? Tax obligations? Real estate mortgages? Employee compensation?

Selling a company shouldn’t be a one-way risk valve. You punch the ticket, you take the ride.

[inglor_cz]

But in that case, the former managers should carry some responsibility too, at least that is what would feel right to me.

[ChatGTP]

It doesn't seem like there is any relevant "former management" though?

The guy who is spearheading the case worked there during the time the promise was made and then for sometime after. So he either didn't mention it to the new owners on purpose (unlikely), or more likely, he has evidence the deal was acknowledged or at least known about by new management and still was not paid.

The lawsuit was filed in June by Mark Schobinger, the company's former head of compensation, on behalf of himself and thousands of other current and former employees.

He left in May, the promises were made sometime before he left and the case was established in June.

Sounds like the information was available but someone didn't do their due diligence and ask enough about the compensation structure before finalizing the acquisition ?