Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: M. Charles Swope who wrote (52208)	4/28/2001 4:12:27 PM
From: Adam Nash	Respond to of 77400

I'd agree with this interpretation, although I can vouch for the fact that many offer letters do not include any language mentioning the at-will nature of the employment (I have seen my share of letters this year...) As is pointed out, you could easily lay off the person the first day, whether or not they sign the contracts provided as those can be terms of employment. I think we are all circling on the same thing: legally, Cisco likely did not have to do anything, however, it is the right thing to do and good policy. Also, like layoff packages, the cost of litigation ends up increasing the expected value of avoiding any litigation, which could be a factor here as well. Intel, for example, has been rumored this year to have allowed students to keep signing bonuses if they do not start work. An interesting year to be graduating, for sure.

To: M. Charles Swope who wrote (52208)	4/29/2001 11:43:46 PM
From: Robert O	Respond to of 77400

M. Swope: thank you for taking the time to cite cases and vindicate both prongs of my initial position. Your point that 'The difference seems to depend on the definiteness of the terms. E.g., for a contract to be created the duration of the employment must be definite; the contract must be for say, three years not just left open' is well taken and that is precisely why employers rarely use definitive time frames for offers. In fact, I would dare say the ONLY time employers in effect guarantee a definite term of employment is in a bona fide employment contract viz. the intention of both parties is clearly to enter into a contract for employment with time period terms, rate of pay terms, perhaps non compete terms, etc. Now, in the sprit of cooperation with you both I also agree that BUSINESS decisions should be based on business reasons not always simply on what can or cannot be done based on current case law and propensity for losing a suit. Therefore, if based on a cost benefit analysis Cisco’s course of action seems prudent, by all means I join you in applause. Thanks again for your efforts, M. G'day. RO