Originally Posted by gloopy

This is what happens when we have a handful of well meaning guys negotiating against a shark tank army of lawyers. This has "we didn't think they'd do that" written all over it.

My point is we can't give it a chance, because that chance will be as positive as they can possibly make it in order to get it made permanent. We won't see their full intent during the trial period.

Its also not bad faith to negotiate a pull down clause and then pull it down. That is part of what was negotiated. We can pull it down for any reason at any time we want to. That was the deal.

Even if we wanted to accept the job losses from this as permanent, it would require airtight language so voluminous it would end up being a contract within a contract. We'd have to outthink every flank and every contingency imaginable to make sure the eventual reality wouldn't be worse than the trial period our decision to codify it would be based on. We would need to prevent every single loophole; they would need to find just one.

VB's are a concession. This was apparently such a big deal that all sides knew that the pull down clause had to be included for this not to become a poison pill issue. IMO we can't fairly judge these based on a trial period. They cost jobs, they will be used to their maximum potential at some point beyond the trial period, and they therefore need to be pulled down.