Hacker News Reader

Comment by kull | Hacker News Reader

As a founder of a startup, reading posts like that make me sad. In the imaginary world I live in , tough times a company is going through are triggering employees to give up their benefits and work harder to help the company recover.

Before my entrepreneurial journey I was working for a startup as a developer , I sticked there around for 5 years. For the last 3 years of the company existence I voluntarily gave up 20% of my salary and worked my ass off, simply because of being loyal and caring for the organization.

I work hard to create a sense of commitment and loyalty in my current start up, and during the recruiting process we pay a super attention to don't hire people who are looking for just money and are easy to abandon a ship during a crisis.

View on HN

> I work hard to create a sense of commitment and loyalty in my current start up

I work hard to feed my family. I can't give my baby a bottle of loyalty before she goes to bed.

How loyal are you to your employees? If they come to you and say, "sorry, I can only work four days a week from now on, but I want you to keep paying me the same" - would you willingly give up 20% of your employees' time simply because of being loyal and caring for the organization?

If you really value people not abandoning ship during a crisis, do you know what you do? Have them sign a contract for a specific length of time so they are no longer at-will employees, and compensate them accordingly, because that loyalty to your company has an opportunity cost to them.

If loyalty during a crisis is valuable to your business but you do not intend to compensate people for that loyalty, do you know what that's called? Exploitation.

If you really don't feel like loyalty is something to be bought or sold, then you'd better make sure that whatever voluntary loyalty you expect from your employees is reciprocated by you, the employer. Like, assurances that layoffs are off the table, etc. But even that's not ideal, because it could put you in a position where you have to sacrifice the business rather than go back on your word.

If you love working at a company so much that "giving up 20% of your salary and working your ass off" for years is really what you want to do, then I guess that's your call.

But I don't really understand it. There are so many good places to work, being paid what I'm worth at a different place seems like a better deal.

I would never give up promised benefits because the company is struggeling. Because I know exactly what happens to my salary when the company is successfull again: nothing.

As an employee of a company, I'm paid salary for my time.

I'll take a pay cut for more equity if I want it, not for nothing.

If I take risk, I get rewarded with ownership, but if I'm paid cash, why do I honestly care what happens to a company.

This isn't some fairytale, we're all here to get paid, and employees aren't your buffer for bad cash flow management, that's the responsibility of owners and management.

Blaming management make it sound like you have never owned a company.

When cash is getting low two choices. Paycuts or firings. Pros and cons to both.

In the OP sounds like they arent that drastic yet. Just no raises. Seems not that dire all things considered.

Not holding management responsible makes me think you might have owned a company.

Let me spell out the compact that undergirds capitalism: employees don't take risks and are paid a constant stream of cash, owner's do take risk, and it is up to them to ensure there is enough capital buffer to meet their constant stream obligations. Employees do the work, management/owners ensure they get paid.

From what I read, throwaway-sc is being paid 100% of salary. They're just not being paid 103.5% of salary after a raise that's been deferred.

While there are certainly things to worry about, this is not a case of employees not being paid.

Funny thing is that salary changes with a raise, so technically they'd be < 100% of their promised benefits after July, and past that, who knows?

Ok so you are argued that OP or one of his coworkers should be fired, so OP can get his 3% raise. And on top of that, his workload now went up 10%, as there are less people to do the work.

Got it. Sounds like good decision making.

A vast, vast majority of companies do not think twice of getting rid of their loyal workers when it's beneficial to the company. Anyone who's been laid off will know this.

If the owners explain things clearly, lay out the options and make me a significant shareholder (over 5%), then I would think about it, but otherwise this is a strange idea in my opinion. Why would you suffer if, when there is upside, you 'only' get the salary you were (contractually) entitled to all along? If someone wants me to work for free/less and there is a risk of the company going under before any gain, I would like to see significant compensation in shares (like 10* a market-conform salary minus the salary I get); what is the point otherwise. If you are a (co-)founder or owner then I would say it's something completely different; you believe in it so buckle up. But I know many who do not agree with that either.

I'm a founder too and had a story similar to yours. There's much more to working at a company than cash and equity: Learning fast, good people around you, climbing up the career ladder much faster, freedom and autonomy.

It's just when you've got neither of these perks that you should start searching - because if you don't have that side either, you could as well go to a high paying corporate job. And then I'm on the side of the employees: Loyalty is important, but it's not a one-way street.

Why should non-owners give a shit about the organization? Only because you pay them to. If you can't pay them competitively anymore, guess what?

As an employee, reading posts like yours makes me sad. In the very real world that I live in, people get paid by their employers a rate they negotiate before employment begins, and use that money and the benefits provided to support themselves and their families.

Loyalty always seems to flow upwards in companies like you describe, where employees are expected to sacrifice during the hard times, but the company doesn't reciprocate during the good times.

I work hard in my job to fulfill the requirements I agreed to during the negotiation, but if the company can't or won't hold up it's end of the bargain, expecting me to continue to do so without compensation is just predatory behavior.

This is the business world, and the employer-employee relationship is a business relationship. Anyone who tells you otherwise is usually trying to take advantage of you.

It's unfortunate that you're being downvoted. Not because I agree with you, I don't in the least.

However, understanding the mindset of startup CEOs is interesting. Particularly the mindset of the minority of CEOs who are able to raise money (again, not saying I agree, but VCs select for particular personality types).

But, I doubt the majority of the workforce (even the really good motivated people) out there agree with you. The level of commitment you're talking about isn't what I'd expect form an employee. It's more what I'd expect from a cofounder.

99% of the startups are not loyal to their employees. Why would employees be loyal to the startups?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com