Ok I will switch to the format of my other reply on the other thread which seems to finally have gotten into your head since you haven't even replied to it yet.
I said this
No employment contract in the US can force anyone to show up to the office and do work. Slavery is not legal anymore.
An "employment contract" that forces people to show up at work and actually do work against their wishes(under threat of arrest, criminal charges or physical punishment) is what slavery is. Q1 Agreed?
The thread came out like this.
I effectively said "Employment is at the will of the employee. MS cannot force him to work if he does not want to."
You came out with: "First, at-will employment only applies when there is no contract:"
Second, you do understand that top level executives often sign contracts which companies can dictate terms like term of employment. Often the exec and the employer agree on when they can leave; however, it can get contentious if there is no agreement. In this case, it points more that the exit was unexpected but MS let him go.
Did MS even have an option to not let him go? You bring up non-compete, but they're not enforceable in many states. Look at Steven Sinofsky's agreement where they had to pay him a ton to keep him out of competitors' hands. http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/3/4491560/steven-sinofsky-microsoft-retirement-agreement-deal-shares-nda
Why would they waste so much money if noncompete agreements were workable? Microsoft's lawyers known way more than you about this stuff. Q2 Agree?
I effectively said "No contract can force people to work against their will since slavery is no longer legal. The only way out is monetary punishment which Zynga likely bought out."
And guess what? I was right.
Also what does non-compete agreements have to do with anything in this topic at all? It's another irrelevant topic that you brought up.
No, you bought this up by saying this upthread:
Or better yet, have Mattrick stay until the re-org is announced in a few days.
I brought up contracts etc. to counter that point
And now you argue against yourself and agree with me and don't even remember that you started this line of argument. Nice 360.
Also, another quote from you:
What the hell? You are the only that keeps insisting that this was all a part of the re-org yet "plans change". That makes absolutely no sense.
From a news report the next day http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/microsoft-ceo-said-to-give-bates-mergers-role-in-revamp.html
The restructuring isn’t finalized and Ballmer may still shuffle roles around up until it’s officially announced, the people said. Xbox head Don Mattrick had been a contender for the hardware post before left the company to become CEO of Zynga Inc. (ZNGA), a move announced July 1.
See how it makes sense? Q4 Agree?
Look, I understand you're not a MS watcher and you probably follow a lot of iNews, and that's good for you and I don't think that's a bad thing in itself at all. People have different interests and they should. But you come off trying to argue from a position of ignorance trying to show MS in bad light with flimsy and broken logic while lacking real information that is out there if you really wanted to grab it instead of trying to score brownie points by nitpicking on people who have done their homework.
If you read through this thread, I am quoting information and giving references. You are like the first AC, trying to inject baseless arguments that essentially boil doing "Ballmer is an unknowing fool that bumbled up the Mattrick exit, i know better, also MS sux and this is baaaaad news for MS". I am tired of being the only one doing the research here while you take irrelevant potshots at me.
If you want to argue from a position of strength, first watch the last 10 episodes of "Windows Weekly". Then read the last 50 articles on allaboutmicrosoft.com and Winsupersite. Those are not even opinion or speculation, Paul and Mary have known good sources *inside* MS and have repeatedly delivered, and also they're very critical of MS on many points. Arguing from ignorance and calling my posts speculation on the level of random Slashdot comments like yours is not called for. Q5 Agree?