
Google's Page Allegedly Gave Rubin $150M Stock Award - smacktoward
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-11/google-s-page-approved-150-million-rubin-payout-lawsuit-says
======
kumarm
Android Probably added 100-200B to GOOG Market Cap. I would say thats peanuts.

~~~
skybrian
This is another example of the fallacy where you give all the credit to the
famous leader in the news. While leadership is important, it's not like he did
it all himself.

~~~
bitL
Think about the alternative - somebody does a measurably great job, growing
you a new multi-billion business from zero, even making you a dominant player.
Later, that person ends up as a _suspect of an unrelated crime_ , so you deny
them any reward. Why would anyone with great potential want to work for you?
From outside, it could all look like there is some possibility you
orchestrated the whole problem to avoid paying, e.g. by analyzing that
person's weaknesses, then paying somebody else to be a bait etc. There are
indeed a few cases where co-founders were baited by VCs into illegal acts like
buying drugs or hiring escorts and later coerced to "do the right thing" or
else...

That's probably not a signal you'd like to send.

~~~
entee
1.) If a founder got baited into illegal acts by a VC, they should be fired
immediately. Not sure how you fire a VC, but that sort of thing should end
that VC's career as well.

2.) It's irrelevant that he built a billion dollar business. He was well
compensated throughout his time at Google, he knew the terms of his
compensation package and presumably was fine with it given that he didn't
leave voluntarily. This is a case where he was given an enormous compensation
package AFTER a crime was discovered that is directly related to his job
function. If you lead a team, your function is to lead it well. Hitting on
your subordinates and worse is NOT leading it well, regardless of the success
of that team.

He should have been fired, for cause, with zero severance. Google should have
accepted the inevitable lawsuit. Stand up for your values even if you lose in
court, otherwise they're meaningless.

I'm tired of assholes being rewarded and worshipped in the valley. It is
possible to not be a horrible person and still accomplish great things. And if
it's not, then it's probably not worth the great things if you lose your
ethics in the process.

~~~
erklik
> This is a case where he was given an enormous compensation package AFTER a
> crime was discovered that is directly related to his job function.

Was it proven that the crime was actually committed? or simply alleged?

------
FreedomToCreate
The potential golden parachutes are pre-negotiated into the contracts for
these executives. Google could refuse them or alter them, but than will also
probably still face litigation from that departing executive. The lawyers for
the investors who are bringing this suit against google have a moral point but
I proving any legal wrong doing is going to be hard. At least it brings to
light how different compensation works when you are higher up on the ladder.

~~~
entee
Golden Parachutes are usually in place for termination without just cause.
Companies like Google (and many many others) prefer to have a friendly
separation with no litigation so they just have them trigger (or give some
other similar package) for the executive to go away. I wish more companies
with resources such as Google would take a stand and fight. Even if you lose,
for such a wealthy company the extra cost should be minimal.

What does it say to your employees when they know that the higher up the
ladder you are, the less accountable you are if you screw up?

What does it say for a company to decline to enforce+defend its values in open
court when it's really pressed?

~~~
wp381640
> I wish more companies with resources such as Google would take a stand and
> fight.

I believe it has less to do with being well resourced and more to do with
keeping internal politics and corporate secrets out of public court records

~~~
MFLoon
As well as lubricating the wheels of executive recruitment, because what exec
is going to want to work for a place known to fight outgoing execs over their
severance.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
How many female (or any gender) execs want to work at a place giving $150
million to sex coercers on the way out?

~~~
NavyNuke
Probably a lot because at that level they are making more than enough
money...plus at a certain point, I'm sure they stop giving a shit about the
rank-and-file employees...

------
URSpider94
People who are saying Rubin should be rewarded for creating Android ... he
was, many times over. He worked at Google for almost a decade, I guarantee
that he vested a ton of GSU’s. Also, Google bought his company, Danger, which
is how he got there in the first place, so he got a big payday for that.

Here’s more detail on how the whole thing shook out. Basically, he used the
$150MM grant as a bargaining chip to settle for $90MM in return for resigning.
This award was only given when he was already under investigation for
misconduct - if this was really a reward for creating Android, Page could have
handed it to him any time in the other 8.5 years that he worked at Google.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/tech...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/technology/google-
misconduct-exit-package.amp.html)

------
throwaway6497
Is Page still actively involved in Google? With the walkouts, and anger at
Google's top level management for paying hush money to Andy, does he still
have credibility with employees? Will they follow this leader? Will they
consider him authentic? He is still an example of what great leadership is all
about?

People are fallible and sometimes show poor judgement. I get that. Just
curious how does one come out of this unscathed. Will Google HR use PR
techniques to protect Larry's aura at Google. Normal people usually get fired.
Founders it seems are untouchable, especially at Google. Will be fascinating
to see how all of this plays out.

~~~
gojomo
I'd guess Page is wisely keeping a low profile, both inside and outside
Google. He never sought the spotlight; he's had health problems with his voice
that may still make being a regular spokesperson challenging.

And, anyone who's a prominent "mascot" for a tech giant just gets a lot of
unnecessarily personalized hate. Why not lie low and pick & choose where to
influence things internally, if you have that luxury?

How might Page come out of "this" unscathed? Well, I'm not sure to the board
or stockholders, he's done anything wrong here.

Those operating under a sort of "just world" assumption might wish Rubin
suffers more for the reported managerial misdeeds. In practice, if he was
promised giant compensation for the giant impact his projects have had on
Google – and would have received this or larger compensation under the prior
working assumption of continued employment – then pulling that back from Rubin
could be an impractical battle for Google.

Rubin might be willing to fight the allegations, in court, down to the last
detail in a manner that could cost Google even more than this package. Also,
Rubin knows all the proprietary details of Google's mobile strategy &
forthcoming technologies. He's perhaps the one technologist in the world with
the most knowledge and ability to launch an outside threat to Android's
dominance.

------
joeshmoe23
I think that a system that allows people who have produced (Page, Rubin) to be
subject to to the tantrums (legal and otherwise) of those who didn't is a
broken system.

~~~
SquishyPanda23
I'm curious to hear your solution to this perceived problem.

------
mesozoic
Good to see innovation appropriately rewarded to non executives.

~~~
CalChris
I think you misspelled senior vice president of mobile and digital content.

~~~
khazhou
I think his point is that the $150m (even $90m) is an outsized award for the
team lead, compared to what the rest of the team received.

