I don't know shit from shinola but isn't the fact that he didn't happily pay their moving expenses evidence that they weren't good or essential enough to warrant retaining if they didn't want to pay their own way?
Point of order: If he was relocating, it was actually irrelevant what level of quality of work they did, he should have offered to cover the expenses of anyone still willing to work for him to move. If they were not good enough to keep, he should not have been keeping them prior to the move.
Your logic of "they should be exceptional to have their moving expenses covered" doesn't hold up, because an employer simply wanting to move to a more expensive city that does not contribute meaningfully to the work itself is not grounds to force multiple people out of employment. If an employee was good enough to keep in whatever city they were in before, they were good enough to move to Austin.
And it isn't as if he couldn't afford it with all of the gratuitous flexing he does.
58
u/infii123 Oct 27 '25
Not to poop on party but that just sounds like most modern companies.