[devsda]

I know cisco doesn't do yearly vesting but at the companies that follow yearly vesting, losing job a week or a month or even 6 months before next vesting date is absolutely wage theft unless they do a full or pro-rated vesting of shares in the upcoming tranche.

[senordevnyc]

It's not wage theft, by any legal definition. The terms you agree to when you take the job are extremely clear. Wild to think that you're entitled to whatever you want, despite agreeing to the terms.

[fc417fc802]

The practices that consumer protection laws guard against often historically took the form of contracts so I'm not sure you've got much of an argument there. IMO the much stronger position is to argue the intent behind the common practice but cisco vesting monthly seems like a decent counterpoint.

[senordevnyc]

My argument is that it’s not wage theft by any legal definition.

And yes, obviously a contract can be declared void, but have consumer protection agencies started going after companies for not vesting immediately after a layoff? If not, then I don’t see how that’s relevant.

[absolutewinner]

Cisco absolutely does yearly vesting.

[eudamoniac]

No they don't. I worked there until recently. They do bimonthly vesting I believe, or something close to it; I had somewhere between 5 and 10 vesting events per year. There is a 1 year cliff sometimes, but that's not the same thing.