That's the kind of delay one expects from reading the headline and why it is clickbait. In actually the payouts are already on their way via JP Morgan Chase and will have arrived by Monday for everyone.
It's all circumstantial anyway. I don't think it's fair to call this a case of a "typical startup". Although it's definitely a stereotype of startups.
Especially +/- a whole week.
[0] https://www.thebalancemoney.com/paying-employees-in-a-year-w...
This is literally clickbait. Y’all need to chill. It’s sensationalized and misleading relative to the severity of todays events.
The title is “technically correct” but it sensationalizes it for sure. Reading that title you expect Rippling to be going under or severely impacted. Which it sounds like so far they’re not (again relatively).
I'm also curious what about the headline sensationalizes the story. SVB caused a "ripple" in Rippling's operations, payments were delayed. Where's the sensation?
FedNow instant payments are supposed to go live this spring/summer. Feels like it should have been 10 years ago.
Though in searching for statistics, I found several payroll processing companies advertising that they would use the Faster Payments (instant) system. The business can keep the money for an additional couple of days, which is presumably an advantage if money is tight.
A non-clickbait would say what gp said.
The title is perhaps yes strictly speaking accurate, but it's still clickbait, it deliberately implies trouble pouring on an already flaming fire, when actually this sounds like an extremely minor symptom - some ash in the hair of the stoker.
All that said, Rippling is doing everything they reasonably can and I’m sure they’ll make their workers whole.
Oh? Okay, let's see, it starts with...
>SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts...
And then you said...
>The only delay is because...
So, two sentences later you've confirmed the headline's accuracy yourself.
GP says that Rippling did not delay payouts. In fact, the payouts went out in time - they were delayed in transit, outside of Rippling's control, and Rippling immediately made another payout through a different bank.
The headline suggests that there were issues at Rippling, which meant that the payouts did not go out in time. That is a completely different scenario, so the headline would indeed be inaccurate.
Yes, the issue was caused by their bank and not Rippling themselves, but the purpose of the article is to highlight how a separate company is impacted by the SVB fallout. At the end of the day, it's still an issue Rippling has to deal with.
I mean, that's why the headline goes on to say, "after SVB collapse". It makes clear that Rippling is suffering because of SVB.
The new package, provided the driver doesn't eat it, will arrive delayed. But Amazon didn't delay it, nor do they "have to" delay sending packages.
"SF payroll firm Rippling finds some payouts delayed" would be accurate. "Has to delay" implies that they "had to" make a choice to delay payments, e.g. because they don't have the funds available.
Yes, it's a subtle change in wording, but it's a very different issue.
Yes, they did by their choice if provider. Services are end to end, you don’t get to pass off responsibility for things like that.
And neither did this bank have a history of breaking down.
If your car is on fire and then explodes, nobody would say "jen20 had to detonate their car", because it implies that you pushed a button to make it explode. "Well, they could have known that that brand of cars has a 1 in 1000000000 chance of blowing up, so they did it by choice of car" isn't something you'll hear.
Note I am NOT suggesting that every package must arrive on time, just that when they do not, it is Amazon who must perform the service recovery rather than a delivery company.
That is no different in this case.
Totally. But you wouldn't say that "Amazon chose to delay my package", you'd say "my package got delayed, UPS should really make sure not to use that package-eating driver or Amazon should stop using UPS".
"Amazon delayed my package" = "Amazon intentionally delayed my package so that it doesn't arrive on time". "My Amazon package got delayed" = "The package got delayed, but no intention is implied or expected". In both cases it's on Amazon to get you your package, but in one case Amazon is after you and is intentionally holding back packages instead of shipping them to you.
No, in if Amazon is standing in for Rippling here, you would say that Amazon normally ships with UPS but made a last-minute decision to switch carriers. This requires some last minute logistical adjustments resulting in your delayed package.
However, you are right from a customer's perspective. A third party cock-up is not an excuse - it may not be your fault, but it still is your problem.
The article makes it pretty clear that Rippling felt they "had to" switch banks upon SVB's failure Friday morning. Whether we agree on whether or not they truly had to doesn't change the fact that this was apparently a move they felt they needed to do immediately.
It's like everyone in this thread saying, "They didn't have to," was somehow magically privy to internal Rippling convos.
The headline is "Rippling has to delay payouts after..." though, which is completely different. They haven't delayed payouts. Some payouts are delayed, because they were in flight when the plane crashed. That's not "delaying payouts", that's "payouts are delayed". They'd would be "delaying payouts" if they said "we're only resuming payouts starting on Friday", but that's not what's happening.
It's like Amazon shipping a product. The product gets eaten by the courier. Amazon sends out a new product. Your shipment is delayed, but Amazon isn't delaying it. The eating delayed it, not Amazon.
Just because they "had to" do one thing doesn't mean a headline can claim they "had to" do other things. Like, a similar headline would be "Rippling had to defraud the government after...". Totally inaccurate, they didn't do that. It's not about the "had to", it's about the "did they actually delay payments", which is an active process and requires intent. They didn't, and that makes the headline inaccurate.
You mean like making the big decision to switch banks during a crisis like this knowing that payments would likely be delayed as a part of the process? Huh, would ya look at that.
If you're aware of the fallout that will occur when you make a decision, and you still make that decision, it's your fault. They knew what would, or could, happen and they said, "Do it".
If we really want to compare this to Amazon, the correct analogy would be, "This item ships to you every two weeks. It would normally arrive today, but Amazon chose to switch carriers at the last minute which requires package re-routing, so it will arrive in two days". There wouldn't have been a delay if Amazon (or Rippling) hadn't switched carriers (or banks).
> If you're aware of the fallout that will occur when you make a decision, and you still make that decision, it's your fault. They knew what would happen and they said, "Do it".
No, the delay is because of the failing of the bank they used. Certainly, if they had known that this bank would be taken over and not actually execute the orders and just cease to exist, and they still would have said "do it", then they'd be to blame. But they weren't aware that the bank would stop operating suddenly, just like everyone else (including the bank itself, apparently).
> There wouldn't have been a delay if Amazon (or Rippling) hadn't switched carriers (or banks).
Of course there would be. If they hadn't switched, the payments that were in flight when the bank shut down would still not be completed, and additional payments would also not go through until the situation at the bank is resolved in some way or another.
Like, if one plane crashes, and you want some cargo to arrive somewhere, of course you send a different plane, even though it can't arrive at the same time as the original plane. Not doing so would actually delay the whole thing, and that would've been a choice. But that's simply not what happened.
Accuracy alone is not an ironclad defense against clickbait.
so there are in fact delayed payouts.
> definitely still coming
aka delayed
or in summation
"payouts are delayed"
The point is that was not the best way to phrase it given the actual details of the situation and the surrounding context.
Technically correct is not always the best kind.
Even "SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts by 1 day after Silicon Valley Bank collapse" is infinitely more clear and communicative.
It's CA Labor Code 210 if anyone is interested in looking it up.
And is JP Morgan safe from having similar issues with SVB?