If they were promised equity, a bonus, or some other extra compensation that was not subsequently delivered then not paying that out would be unethical. But agreeing to a lowball amount and then complaining about it being a lowball amount isn't ethics related. It's just sour grapes.
It's the same in the opposite direction. If a contractor charges a company 10x his normal rate and a company accepts those terms, there's no ethics involved either.
Nobody has a proverbial gun to their head to accept a deal either way. If they do then sure there's ethical issues but I haven't seen that in this situation. Just very poor negotiations on the part of the original dev team.
The point people are trying to make is that the people who quit said they were treated unethically. By disputing that it was unethical behavior, you're calling those people liars. Being "more right leaning" doesn't make you an asshole, but calling people liars without evidence does.
None of the comments I've replied to describe anything like that. They simply refer to the (paltry) amount. I'm not disputing there's more to the story, I was simply commenting on the bit that's actually in front of me.
> The point people are trying to make is that the people who quit said they were treated unethically. By disputing that it was unethical behavior, you're calling those people liars. Being "more right leaning" doesn't make you an asshole, but calling people liars without evidence does.
I never said they were liars. I said that the $200/month doesn't on its own make the agreement unethical.
Apparently that distinction is beyond the grasp of today's commenters.
If you haven't informed yourself on those details outside of this thread, then I guess to your perspective, that's on you.
