I think that's a reasonable position in response from an employee trying to "activate a clause written into their contract to allow them to immediately get all their stock if the company began “implementing monetization initiatives” without their consent" .
Now whether or not he was in the right to demand it, when actually doing so I doubt anyone expected to have a working relationship after that.
In a vacuum, perhaps, but I think there's more to it than that.
Another account yesterday mentioned plans to put Kevin Systrom under a different manager that would have given him "less access to Zuckerberg." Earlier accounts described them as friendly, always seen together, etc.
It seems like Facebook is a company where access to the CEO is so tightly controlled that it's basically used as a political weapon.
> access to the CEO is so tightly controlled that it's basically used as a political weapon
This is true at almost any organization of scale. Access to top decision makers must be restricted. The people who make decisions about the restrictions, therefore, gain influence through that process. The power can be used properly or improperly. In this case, it appears to have been used properly: there was no further discussion on the matter, and the employee had shown themselves to be out of line with the CEO's strategy.
But it was Mark & Co that went predatory and started implementing monetization initiatives, right? It still paints Mark in bad light, it's not like Koum & Co weren't entitled to that part of the contract and instead were the primary violators?
People change; perhaps they had previously discovered terms in which monetization would be agreeable. Then when that monetization happened, the other party had a change of heart and no longer consented. If done in bad faith I could see that annoying someone.
> perhaps they had previously discovered terms in which monetization would be agreeable.
If that was the case, I doubt it would have been explicitly and legally formalized in the contract as disallowed without a payout.
If two parties decide that a clause of a contract doesn't need to be enforced, you rewrite the contract. Anything else is just stupid, as it allows the person likely to gain to say "well, I didn't really mean that...".
If you've formalized something in a legally binding contract, be prepared to follow through on it. Full stop.
But he must have signed of on the contract, so he would know it could happen? Why act all offended by it? Especially since Facebook's agenda seem pretty clear-cut: put ads into WhatsApp
That's brutal and manichean, you can organize a soft transition, you can organize a change of role at the same company, you can try to convince the person to do something else than resigning, you can even discuss with the person what they want to do after they are gone and see if you can help.
Engaging instead of sending the thugs to empty the cubicle.
Now whether or not he was in the right to demand it, when actually doing so I doubt anyone expected to have a working relationship after that.