Vidoop Is Dead, Employees Getting Computers In Lieu Of Wages | Hacker News Reader

Vidoop Is Dead, Employees Getting Computers In Lieu Of Wages

techcrunch.com

24 pointspeter12327 comments

"The company’s liability to you would be reduced by $1000, and you would have a laptop for $38.25."

That's one way to look at it. The other way would be you're not getting paid $1000 for work you already did, but instead getting a laptop worth $250. Guess it's better than nothing...

This was actually common during the last bubble. I've read accounts of people who were grateful they at least got to keep the laptop -- it let them continue freelancing.

On the other hand, laptops in the year 2000/2001 cost a lot more than they do now, and many people had desktop PCs at home.

I think that's the point. You're not getting paid, here's a way for you to benefit from that.

I'm wondering what will happen to all the open ID's that were created including mine and all the accounts they were used on. There's no info on their site.

That's a good reason to use OpenID delegation. As long as you remain in control of your domain name your OpenID can never become invalid, even if the provider you delegate to goes out of business.

https://myvidoop.com/help/what-is-delegation

Of course that's only a good solution for relatively technical people like us. Perhaps someone should create a service that automates this process for the average internet user: pick a domain name and OpenID provider, pay your $10 (per year), and you're done.

>> "Perhaps someone should create a service that automates this process for the average internet user:"

Sorry, but the average internet user will never want or understand OpenID IMHO.

Whats with all the tracking codes in the URL's querystring ?

'awesm': 'tcrn.ch_2t3', 'utm_campaign': 'techcrunch', 'utm_content': 'techcrunch-autopost', 'utm_medium': 'tcrn.ch-twitter', 'utm_source': 'direct-tcrn.ch'

Looks like some sort of google analytics tagging/tracking:

http://www.epikone.com/blog/2006/11/10/google-analytics-camp...

Doesn't the company have a contractual obligation to pay you your wages even if it has to go into debt to do so? I don't see how they could get away with that.

Yes, that is my understanding. The officers of the company are personally liable for the cash if there is no other source of funding.

If it was an llc, they would not be responsible for the wages except in extenuating circumstances I believe.

If it was an LLC, any form of Corporation (like the C Corp it almost certainly is), or an LLP, there is no liability. The "LL" in "LLC" sets LLC's apart from Companies that are not formally Corporations.

The officers of the company are astronomically unlikely to personally bear any contractual liability at all, that being the one of the points of incorporating in the first place.

Actually, you are quite wrong about that... many states have exactly those provisions, e.g. Colorado

http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/compensation-sala...

20 seconds of google would have shown you that ...

(BTW if your claim of shielding from liability were absolute, then directors and officers wouldn't need D&O insurance now, would they? )

No. Your article is from 2002 and, at the end, refers to a case then before the Colorado Supreme Court. Here's the outcome (2003):

"After finding a lack of precedent from the Colorado Supreme Court construing individual officer liability under the Wage Claim Act, we certified the following determinative questions...

1. Are officers of a now-bankrupt corporation individually liable for the wages of the corporation's former employees under the Colorado Wage Claim Act? ...

2. If so, are all officers individually liable due to mere status as officers or must the officers have been high ranking or active decision-makers? ...

The Colorado Supreme Court then answered the first reframed question, holding "under Colorado's Wage Claim Act, the officers and agents of a corporation are not jointly and severally liable for payment of employee wages and other compensation the corporation owes to its employees under the employment contract and the Colorado Wage Claim Act." Id. (emphasis added). This response clearly answers the first question certified by this court and moots our second question. We REVERSE the district court's summary judgment order..."

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2003/02/00-1324.htm

More specifically:

Citing general treatises and texts on corporate law, the majority sets out general precepts like “insulation from individual liability is an inherent purpose of incorporation; only extraordinary circumstances justify disregarding the corporate entity to impose personal liability . . . a corporate officer is not the employer responsible for creating the contractual employment relationship and is not personally responsible for a breach of that relationship . . .” Id. The court rejected the employees' argument, viewing it as making every corporate officer a surety (guarantor) for the corporate obligations. Thus, the court found, that under general principles of corporate law, the officers of Nations Way were insulated from liability by the general principles of corporate and agency law.

Thanks for the update. I lived in CO in the late 1990s and actually had an employer take a while to pay me, which is why I incorrectly assumed that the law was the same, when it has in fact changed.

It is actually more difficult than I thought it would be to locate an accurate list of which states have which positions in this matter.

It seems that courts in many states are starting to lean against officers being responsible for unpaid wages.

What's the state where you think officers are responsible for the contractual obligations of the corporations that employ them?

You are mis-interpreting my point: it is not officers being responsible for contractual obligations in general, it is (or at least was) an exception carved out for wages owed employees.

There seems to be a lot of debate over when/if an officer can become an "employer" as defined in the law.

Here are some URLs that cover what I am talking about:

WA: http://www.turnaround.org/Publications/Articles.aspx?objectI...

PDF with more discussion of the issue, includes discussion of the Federal FLSA and the case of CA: http://web.omm.com/files/upload/D&O%20Liability-WARN%20A...

NY (10 largest shareholders of non-public company held liable): http://www.eminutesonline.com/why-in-the-world-would-anyone-...

Federal law (FLSA): http://www.klehr.com/?t=11&la=690&format=xml

Since the company that is not paying is often headed for bankruptcy, these situations often spill over to bankruptcy court, where the judge has a great amount of leeway to determine who gets paid and when.

I read your first example (CA), which states:

In Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal. 4th 1075 (2005), the California Supreme Court observed that, “[U]nder the common law, corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency are not personally liable for the corporate employer‟s failure to pay its employees‟ wages.” Id. at 1087.

Now I'm finished reading, and, hopefully, talking about this. Like I said, it's extremely unlikely that the owners, investors, or officers of a VC-funded company would be on the hook for salaries after the company went bankrupt. That's a good thing. Surprisingly few things need to go wrong for a company to BK. Who'd start a company if that event meant they'd lose their house?

Corporations shield agents from contract liability, not tort liability. Insurance mitigates tort liability.

My understanding is that the choice is completely optional.

While Vidoop is legally responsible for paying them, I can see how some employees would rather have valuable merchandise now than wait what could potentially be a very long time for their wages in cash.

Owed wages have very high precedence when all creditors line up for whatever's left... but if there's no cash and no one to loan/invest more money, employees may not be made whole.

You can only "go into debt" if people are willing to extend you credit.

These guys can get paid from the state of Oregon which will in turn pursue the company.

http://www.boli.state.or.us/BOLI/WHD/W_Whhowinf.shtml

A program where where the state pays before collecting from the company would be pretty amazing, so I read your link and the related form.

I found no evidence the state pays before collection; in fact they warn that "collection depends upon your employer’s financial ability to pay, business closure, bankruptcy filing or location of money and assets". It might still be a good program to help assert an employee's claim with the weight of the state agency, but there are other caveats which might make many Vidoop employees ineligible for even that sort of assistance, such as a total unpaid amount more than $10K or "having a direct financial interest" in the company, which many startup employees might have.

Read it as "Voodoo is dead, employees getting computers in lieu of wages" Was all, "Sweeeeet!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com