

I don’t understand what this article is about.
I also get RSUs at my job. Every “performance review cycle” together with salary increase I am awarded N shares that will vest over some period of time (multiple years). A few times a year those shares are vested, and after they are vested I actually own them and can sell them (or hold them for as long as I want). So they are part of my compensation package. If I get laid off (or quit) I will obviously not receive my unvested shares. The same as I will not receive any salary that my company would pay me if I continued working there.
So I don’t understand how complaining about not receiving unvested shares is different from complaining about not receiving salary that you would get in the future by continuing working for the company…
What makes you think that “European independent payment processor” would not pressure companies to follow similar (or worse) rules for “compliance”?