Hacker News Reader

Comment by jowiar | Hacker News Reader

> I like the founders - they are good guys.

No. They're not. You don't get to screw around with other people's lives and continue to possess the title of "good guy". If they were good guys, you would be receiving tens of thousands of dollars for your difficulties, and such would have enough of a runway on that such that you wouldn't need to ask us for advice. Please do us all a favor and let us know who they are beyond "a YC startup" so that none of us find ourselves in your shoes.

As it stands, if you had one of the other offers you were interested in, let them know that the company that you had taken reneged, and that you would love to work with them. Hiring good engineers is hard (and expensive) enough that any decent company won't mind being your second choice.

View on HN

> Please do us all a favor and let us know who they are beyond "a YC startup" so that none of us find ourselves in your shoes.

Two other reasons for considering revealing the name:

1) a casual bystander might see this and conclude that all YC companies behave in this way, which hurts the other companies.

2) PG and other partners at YC read HN, and there's a good chance that action can be taken if they know who is involved.

Even if you take these into consideration, a more appropriate reaction would be to say, "if you are currently in talks with a YC company for employment, or were hired in the last few weeks, drop me a line with the name of the company and I'll reply privately to you with a yes or no."

Same goes for PG or YC Partners, just say, "if you drop me a line saying you want to deal with this, contact me and we can discuss it and I'll see if it makes sense to disclose it."

This is often a good idea regardless. Several years ago, I was in talks with a YC startup to join as a technical cofounder early in the program. I reached out to about 4 other YC founders or early employees who had gone through similar situations - not being a member of the founding team, but joining as a cofounder or employee #1 while the startup was still going through YC. Eventually decided to pass, which turned out to be a good idea in hindsight since the startup imploded in a founder breakup soon after the program ended.

The people I reached out to didn't even know or speak directly about the founders or startup itself. But because they had been in similar situations before, they knew what to look for that might become issues in the future, and then I could cross-reference that with my own personal experience to make a judgment.

"if you are currently in talks with a YC company for employment, or were hired in the last few weeks, drop me a line with the name of the company and I'll reply privately to you with a yes or no."

Yes... and Yes.

This is absurd guys. We have one guy's story, from his perspective. For all we know, the OP sat around and did nothing productive. The founders had a reason to terminate him - be it what others would call a "good reason" or otherwise. Perhaps there were issues the OP is completely unaware of?

What will happen? Will YC yank funding over this? I hope not -- that would set a dangerous precedent and make me, for one, that much less willing to pursue YC funding.

If the founders didn't want the OP before -- they especially aren't going to want him now that all this has occurred and threats about getting YC involved etc.

The bottom line -- you can be terminated for any reason, even if it's the color of your shirt on that particular day. Does that make it "right"? Well, that's a perspective thing.

"For all we know, the OP sat around and did nothing productive."

Working his network to help get a startup's first few customers at large, brand name companies? I'd hardly call that unproductive. In fact, if they iterate product dev on one of these customers, find that perfect product market fit, and scale; well, I'd say he played a roll in their success.

"Perhaps there were issues the OP is completely unaware of?"

The issue is the manner in which the OP was terminated. The company could be totally justified letting him go, just not in the manner in which they did it.

"you can be terminated for any reason... Does that make it "right"? Well, that's a perspective thing."

One, you can't be terminated for any reason.

Two, we are seeing the perspective of public opinion and unfortunately it is reflecting negatively on YC since people don't have a more specific target. Everyone has a 'right' to choose who they work for.

Three, getting terminated is a little more than just perspective. It is an event which can have significant repercussions for a person: mortgage payments, kid's school costs, etc.

> The company could be totally justified letting him go, just not in the manner in which they did it.

How so? They decided he was not a good fit, by his own admission... so they cut him loose. Would you rather they hurt their business by keeping on employees who won't work out?

> One, you can't be terminated for any reason.

Yes you can. California has At-Will Employment. It means they can hire or fire for any reason, with or without notice, even if it's silly like they don't like where you eat lunch. On the same note, you can quit for any reason, without notice, even if it's silly like you don't like where the owners eat lunch.

> > One, you can't be terminated for any reason.

> Yes you can. California has At-Will Employment. It means they can hire or fire for any reason

No, it means that the initial burden is on the person alleging illegal firing or not-hiring to establish a prima facie case that the reason was a prohibited reason, rather than the burden being the hiring/firing party to establish that the reason was a permitted reason.

It does not mean that hiring/firing for any reason is allowed. In fact, there are lots of prohibited reasons for firing in California.

It's just "default allow" when it comes to hiring/firing decisions.

Terminating because the employee was not working out is not a prohibited reason.

Terminating based on say, race or sex, is however. That is very clearly not the case here.

> Terminating because the employee was not working out is not a prohibited reason.

Its not even a reason, its just a semantically empty phrase. But in any case, I didn't say there was a prohibited reason here, I said that the claim that "at-will employment" means you can hire or fire "for any reason" is false.

We're arguing over semantics now... you get the point I was making. The big picture is the founders felt the OP wasn't going to work out -- and made a very appropriate decision to cut him loose now instead of later.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Read the chain. Nobody is arguing the company couldn't let him go. Rather, people are upset the founders didn't make it right for him. Frankly, they are assholes. Decent people would say something like, "Hey, this isn't going to work. We fucked up, and we're sorry. Here's two months of comp (or maybe six weeks) to find a new job, regain leases or find a new apartment, etc. And on the off chance you put this on your resume, we'll serve as a reference."

Make it right? Why do you feel they are obligated to pay him for work he did not do? Severance is optional, and a benefit of working at larger companies (of which a startup is not). Startups pivot quick and often (as it seems they did here), and usually don't have loads of extra cash laying around to do things like severance until they "make it".

Again, we have one side of the story here, and with only one side, people are jumping to conclusions. What if the founders came on and said the OP lied about his qualifications? Letting emotions get in the way of business is a fast way to fail.

Quite frankly, and in your words, the OP "fucked up" by committing to a startup before even having a Visa he pointed out is/was important, and from the sound of it, may not have even been an official hire with contracts signed. He did work, and if he was an official hire, he would have already been paid for said work.

Being told you will be a COO is not the same as actually being the COO. That would be as-if I told a gardener I thought I might hire him, then come home one day and he's cut my yard and demands payment. If i was hired on as a COO with a startup, you bet my contract would have specific terms for which I may be terminated. Why did the OP not have something similar?

The bottom line -- it's nothing personal, it's business.

Startups are not big corps. They aren't going to do big corp things like severance. If that's not acceptable to you -- do not sign on with a startup. In a few months the OP will be in a new job and will look back on this as a learning experience - one that he will be a stronger individual from and perhaps more cautious in the future.

> Why do you feel they are obligated to pay him for work he did not do?

From the account given, he did do work remotely.

> may not have even been an official hire with contracts signed.

A contract generally doesn't need to be signed to be valid (there are specific exceptions to this, but employment contracts generally aren't exceptions), it can be oral, and, accepting the account given by the OP, offer, acceptance, and performance under the contract are all evident.

If the OP did actual work, and was an official hire with either verbal or written contract, then he would have already been compensated for his time. (Otherwise that would be a violation of the law, and I seriously doubt a startup is trying to get away with not paying for work done "on the clock")

If the OP did actual work, and was not an official hire with either verbal or written contract, then he was an eager beaver and jumped-the-gun, which is understandable, but ultimately would be his mistake. (I refer back to my gardener example above).

People seem to be arguing the startup owes him some sort of severance -- which is ridiculous unless it was in his employment agreement.

The OP will look back on this and learn some valuable and long lasting lessons from this ordeal.

> If the OP did actual work, and was an official hire with either verbal or written contract, then he would have already been compensated for his time. (Otherwise that would be a violation of the law, and I seriously doubt a startup is trying to get away with not paying for work done "on the clock")

I think that we agree that the startup would be breaking the law. Where we disagree is that you seem to think that "It would be illegal, and therefore it didn't happen" is a valid line of reasoning.

Why on earth would you automatically assume violation of the law when the OP never even hinted at that. Seriously... enough with the witch hunt. You have no more valid reasons to be upset -- we have discussed and debunked them all.

"Would you rather they hurt their business by keeping on employees who won't work out?"

I don't disagree that letting him go might have been the right decision for both parties, but to not compensate him properly for working his network to help get them some of their first customers, turning down other job offers, and actively working for the company? That's not right. They might have made a mistake in hiring him, but they definitely made a mistake in not adequately compensating him for his effort and explaining to him the reasons for the abrupt termination.

"At-Will Employment"

It doesn't allow termination for 'any reason' as other commenters have pointed out. And if CEOs and founders rely too much on this clause and don't behave ethically we could find ourselves in a position like France, where you can't fire anybody, a situation I hope we can avoid by professional conduct and respecting that it isn't just business, but people's lives.

> It doesn't allow termination for 'any reason'

Actually, it does mean "for any reason" (well, within the law, which would exclude things such as race or gender, but that is clearly not the case here). Furthermore, a reason of "this employee is not a good fit for our company because of reason X" is absolutely allowed. (Unless the OP had signed a contract that had termination terms, etc... doesn't seem like it).

> we could find ourselves in a position like France, where you can't fire anybody

This is what employment contracts are for, some companies will have terms for when a termination is satisfactory, and other times you can negotiate terms as part of your employment agreement.

We only have one side of this story, and a lot of emotions have been stirred because of it. Was the OP actually officially hired (as in he had salary or hourly compensation was was logging hours)? If not, then why was he already performing "work" by hitting up companies and investing his time? (Seems like a "jump-the-gun" mistake).

I'm really sorry this happened to the OP -- but it's not abnormal, and certainly isn't the first time a YC funded startup has had to pivot and cut employees that won't fit.

poof131 - you are absolutely right on all counts.

...getting terminated is a little more than just perspective. It is an event which can have significant repercussions for a person: mortgage payments...

This is the key issue. To be honest, even I am realising the impact this can have, only after it happened to me.

Financial: all plans made carefully, thoughtfully and intentionally are suddenly meaningless.

Personal: lot of awkward discussions :) friends, relatives, business acquaintances (e.g. I did the mistake of updating my LinkedIn - COO one day, and 14 days later deleted the "employment status". As someone pointed out, this is a first world problem - there are much worse things that can happen. I agree. But still, it really annoys me to explain myself to everyone who asks. Some even wonder, if I was "fired" :))

Work: searching for a job is not fun (at least for me), and having found something I love, commit to it (after much consideration) and then being yanked out of it so soon, felt cruel.

"action can be taken"

Come on. They didn't do anything wrong. They withdrew an offer of employment.

1. It could be performance related, and they just don't want to tell OP, 2. They realised quickly -- shock horror, things change quickly in startups -- that actually they don't need X guy they need Y guy. These things happen.

In situations like this you can fire well: give explicit reasons, make sure the person knows you're going to give them a great reference, consider paying them a notice period in excess of what you're obligated to. But really they didn't do anything wrong, and I don't think naming and shaming them is going to solve anything.

> They withdrew an offer of employment.

Doing this without compensation is ABSOLUTELY doing something wrong. Maybe not necessarily tortious, but certainly unethical and indicative of someone who should not be trusted in a business relationship. The YC company made a mistake and is sticking someone else with the bill.

FWIW, There's a certain amount of "foreigners are expendable" mindset that seems to exist in the American tech sphere that might factor into this situation as well...

I had an offer withdrawn the day before I was supposed to get on a plane to move myself cross country. I had quit my job, broken my lease, etc.

The company paid me a 6 week severance, even though I never worked a minute for them, just to compensate me for what I had given up.

That was a very nice company. They were in no way obligated to do any of that. You chose to break your lease on a gamble that things would work out for you... obviously they didn't... that's just how it is.

I'm not a lawyer, but having quit a job, broken a lease, and literally packed up to move the next day, I think promissory estoppel might apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_...

Yes, which is why they paid him 6 weeks. I am sure in the papers there there's a "no lawsuit" clause…

It appears to me you don't have a particularly good grasp of the laws and legal code surrounding these circumstances beyond cursory Wikipedia articles. Often the laws are much much more complex than they appear on the surface.

> certainly unethical and indicative of someone who should not be trusted in a business relationship

Not necessarily. What if a major investor pulled out and they aren't going to have the capital available to hire this guy? What if hiring him meant not paying people who had been promised salaries after working for free? What if they could have hired him but others would have had to be fired?

They certainly made a mistake, but we don't know why they did what they did. It's unlikely to be malicious "Let's just screw this guy", and far more likely to be for reasons that each one of us, if we were in their shoes, would consider to be very good.

They withdrew an offer of employment.

They didn't withdraw an offer, they terminated someone who had accepted and was actively working for the company.

They didn't do anything wrong.

Yes, they did. Is it okay to let the OP go quickly because they made a mistake: no resources to deal with visa issues, wrong domain expertise, etc? Yes. Is it okay to do this without compensation, especially after rescinding other offers, working his personal network, etc? No!

The OP din't just do some code, he worked his professional network and went out on a limb for this startup. They screwed him, probably for the right reasons, but they need to admit the mistake and make the OP right.

he worked his professional network and went out on a limb for this startup.

Some in my network (former consulting clients and business friends) ended up buying the service. So the company benefited in a tangible way (real $'s). I worked as if this was "my company". So yeah, I do feel screwed for the reasons you say and more...

So they got rid of you because you had an equity stake? And by giving up your equity they could keep the money for themselves... yea, you got screwed.

> They didn't withdraw an offer, they terminated someone who had accepted and was actively working for the company.

You're right. It's even worse for OP: he just got canned.

> Yes, they did. Is it okay to let the OP go quickly because they made a mistake: no resources to deal with visa issues, wrong domain expertise, etc? Yes.

Agreed.

> Is it okay to do this without compensation, especially after rescinding other offers, working his personal network, etc? No!

He took a job, and got fired. Every time you take a job you rescind other offers. Every time you get fired you probably look back and think "damn I wish I'd taken one of those other offers". The proximity is the issue here, and the insinuating that they could have known this earlier / not made the hire in the first place.

> The OP din't just do some code, he worked his professional network and went out on a limb for this startup.

He didn't go out on a limb, he had a job there as you point out. He was a salaried employee.

>They withdrew an offer of employment. //

I thought the OP said they hired him and then 1 week in to working he was told he should leave.

If there was any package, like taking on the position would accrue shares and such then he's due that at least along with his weeks pay and his agreed/statutory notice period pay. The rest is probably down to local laws (both localities potentially if the company is operation in both).

Possibility #3 - They took a first look in months at the finantials, and don't want to tell anybody what they saw. If that's the case, they wouldn't pay anything anyway.

It is pretty easy to find the YC company if you just look at his comment history and do a search or two. Which... is why you should aways use a throwaway account if you don't want people to figure this stuff out.

Actually he has no comments outside of this thread that is less than 91 days ago, so it's not so easy at all.

As justguessingbut suggested, you can find a domain name from project he worked on, and thus his real name, and from there a search will lead you to angel list which links everything together with dates that match with the op's story. I was able to do it all in less than 5 minutes without anything but a browser and I'm slow... so I would call that really easy.

Look at his startup idea that's hosted on appspot.com - the route to the YC company is found easily from there, with a couple of creative web searches.

Could he send a private email to PG and partners at YC? Not as a complaint but more like, "hey, just a heads up, this just happened at one of the companies you guys sponsored."

I don't know anything about investing in startups but common sense would suggest that this would raise some red flags.

I would talk to a lawyer before doing this... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

In what way would telling the truth in a private email constitute tortious interference?

Given the US, talking to a lawyer first is pretty much invariably the smarter thing to do. Even without going this far, you can make statements that then negatively impact your bargaining position later on.

The "truth" is only what can be proved in court. Lots of folks have been tripped up by that before... so be careful.

In this specific case the legal is likely very low. It's a startup and it's unlikely they have money to fund a lawsuit. Plus there's that whole "he's from another country" bit which would make collecting on a judgment pretty damn hard.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the OP is in a foreign country and his work arrangement was one of remote work. So how would US tort law be enforced?

(That is not to suggest that talking to a lawyer first in these types of matters is a bad idea, of course.)

I don't see how this applies.

Assuming that the OP has a reasonably standard employment agreement, he may well be breaking it by contacting their investors (there is the tort). Assuming that he doesn't want the job back, why would he contact them other than to disrupt the relationship between YC and his former employer? IANAL, but the basic elements seem like they are there and I wouldn't even consider doing something like this without getting legal advice first.

"why would he contact them other than to disrupt the relationship between YC and his former employer"

He might want YC to instruct other YC-backed companies to avoid this behavior in future, sparing other people this problem.

I assume you are in California.

California has At-Will employment -- so they can hire and fire you for any reason whenever they want. "You weren't a good fit", "You didn't think Big enough", "You didn't produce enough", etc etc etc.

Coming on here and ranting and trying to bring some action against the startup is not a good way to handle this. You feel wronged -- I'm sure the founders feel it was a good business decision.

Sorry this happened to you... but Startups are very volatile. It could have been worse.

> they can hire and fire you for any reason whenever they want

Legally? Sure.

Ethically? No.

> I'm sure the founders feel it was a good business decision.

The next founders who contemplate pulling a cowardly stunt like this shouldn't feel it to be a good business decision.

As it stands, this reflects terribly YC and its startups as a whole.

What would reflect worse on YC is them compelling a startup to keep a bad hire who could ultimately cost the business dearly.

Hiring for first stage startups is critically important -- ie. it can make or break the company.

If the OP wasn't going to work out for any reason, then it was appropriate to cut him loose as soon as possible, instead of dragging it out.

None of this reflects on YC. People on HN have a weird understanding of how much control YC has over portfolio companies --- which, in reality, is practically none whatsoever. YC can't compel startups to do anything. Presumably if they could, they'd compel all the companies to ship earlier.

Control - obviously not. But presumably when they're teaching Business 101 to a bunch of 20-something engineers, "How not to ruin your reputation in ten minutes" should be in the curriculum.

Do many YC companies still fail to ship early?

CA's at-will is a little more complex than that, due to the implied good faith covenant.

One (not primary, but fairly clear) source:

http://www.cslaw.com/our-practice/san-francisco/employment-c...

Googling "california at-will good faith" will unearth much more.

Edit: more detail, including that this isn't specific to explicit employment contracts. Also, I'm in no way saying this case would fall under this, only that at-will isn't absolute in CA, even beyond the normal discrimination boundaries.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Breach+of+an+I...

Why is this comment downvoted? It's the only one in the whole thread that has some proper information in it and not just emotional pitch fork grabbing.

Alupis is absolutely right, startups are volatile and it could have been worse. That this was legal means this was probably the only right option for the founders.

Making hires at an early stage is incredibly important, imagine this startup has only a few 100k in the bank. They can hire maybe two to three persons, and that's hoping they'll hit on more funding later in the year.

Imagine you were a founder of that company, and you had hire this COO, and then something changes, or a pivot comes through just when the COO is flown in. Your investors all say you should discharge him, so they can hire someone that might save the company.

How can you even suggest this is unethical? This guy goes work at a startup in a state where it is legal to fire someone at will.

Yup! And that's why we want to know the company's name (legal) and make everyone aware how they fucked someone's life up (legally).

All legal.

Doing so would reflect poorer on the OP actually.

Maybe this business succeeds, maybe they fail (they are a startup, and most startups don't succeed).

But, the OP will always need a job. And quite frankly, getting upset over a termination and coming online and bringing major flak to the business is a sure-fire way to get the OP rejected out of any HM's stack if they know what they are doing. Why would I want to hire someone who has a history of flaming previous employers? It doesn't matter the reason they flamed the previous employers, it's the fact that they did it at all. That goes double for anyone who is trying to get hired into top executive positions, such as COO.

It's not personal, it's business... and if the OP can't distinguish between the two, then he's not ready for top level executive positions.

I think the YC startup is almost certainly SketchDeck.

It's not too difficult to find the OP's real life identity based on his past work. From that, the information on http://angel.co/ pretty much gives it away.

So, the unfortunate thing now is that if it isn't SketchDeck, they're going to have some nasty PR shit to clean up that is totally undeserved.

If it is, well, they still need to do cleanup. OP, can you confirm/deny?

I think you overestimate the significance of this discussion.

Besides, there advertisement rarely have negative effect.

I wish my startup was mistakenly confused as a place that fired OP.

What's your startup? Might as well link it here. :)

At least the timing and job description sort of match, but it's far from definite so who knows [1,2]:

SketchDeck (YC W14) is hiring its first employee (sketch-deck.com) - 70 days ago

We're now looking for our first employee. (...) You are going to run SketchDeck day-to-day whilst masterminding our scale to become the biggest design agency in the world.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7819953

[2] http://blog.sketch-deck.com/sketchdeck-first-hire/

I had never heard of SketchDeck - I don't want to derail, but I'm genuinely interested in understanding their business model.

Specifically, it looks like a linearly scalable enterprise (consulting-like: they provide custom design on demand).

How is this appealing for an investor? I'm not deeply involved in the mechanics of looking for funding, but I thought investors kind of shunned consulting startups.

I'd say you did the right thing in not saying what the startup was — it isn't wise to look like a bridge-burner when you're looking for work.

> I'd say you did the right thing in not saying what the startup was — it isn't wise to look like a bridge-burner when you're looking for work.

Today I learned that its considered "bridge burning" to communicate a company's terrible ethics in public.

Of course it is, don't be naive. The people he's talking about are in a position to badmouth him right back, end even if they don't he can get a reputation for being a whiner who will turn on people who hire him the moment things don't work out. If you think that publicly criticizing your ex-employers isn't harmful to your future prospects then you're crazy. No one wants to hire someone who might turn around and complain about them to all and sundry if things go poorly.

@ davidw: oh yeah I don't mean that this guy actually is whining, or that he didn't get screwed by jerks. I'm just saying that you can get screwed even harder by handling things like this in the wrong way, no matter what the rights and wrongs of the situation actually are. Reputations are important.

At very conservative estimates for bay area salaries, 2 weeks is probably like $5000. Complaining about that is not "whining" in my book - that's quite a bit of money where I'm from.

That said, there are various things involved with the decision.

$5k for two weeks is a pretty princely sum for employees virtually anywhere but, crucially, employees (particularly professional employees) have the reasonable expectation that they will have longer than two weeks of tenure at a new employer. If you can only reasonably expect two weeks of tenure, then you're much closer to a consultant than an employee. Nothing wrong with being a consultant, but COO-caliber consultants charge a heck of a lot more than employees in SF and everywhere else on the planet. A company which extends people standard employment offers but treats them with the no-fault disposability that governs consulting relationships is doing something which is highly irregular.

Conversely, if you're a consultant, you can get constructively fired like this two weeks into an engagement. Happens all the time. It doesn't even require an awkward conversation where they say "Hey, startup life yo, plans have changed." They neglect to schedule you for more work, you follow up, they continue to neglect to schedule you for more work, you take the hint, and then you get paid $50k+ because that is what COO-level consultants cost for two weeks.

100% agree. I was a consultant for 6 years. The contract, terms of engagement, and expectations are vastly different as a consultant and as an employee. The sum of all different parts of the 'opportunity cost' are much higher as an employee, than as a consultant.

$5000 is peanuts to work two weeks, uproot your life and reject other, more valid job offers, only to get sand kicked in your face for no reason. in fact it's downright insulting, and most importantly, humiliating to an extreme degree. if there's anything in the world that could be classified as being a bitch, that's it.

stop short-changing yourself and technology professionals, you do us all a disservice and it's embarrassing. i am literally embarassed for you by this comment. it doesn't matter where you're from - we're talking about someone who was hired as a chief-level executive with a name brand startup in the first world, funded by billionaires or at least hundred-millionaires, or at the VERY least a bunch of millionaires that manage money for pension funds and endowments i.e. venture capitalists.

a shitty CPA (or lawyer) makes that in a few days of work. a good one can make that in literally 1 minute by signing a few documents. they can do that because they have professional respect, something technology workers sorely lack right now.

a CPA also could not get hired, and let go for no reason, within 2 weeks, without having several avenues of recourse through his professional governing body. a lawyer would file suit immediately, something i would do also even though i lack a law degree.

i would literally not stop reading/learning law except to eat, shit and piss until i learned how to get compensatory damages out of them. then again, i make it my mission in life to not be a bitch. but as it turns out, some people are fine with being a bitch, go figure.

> a CPA also could not get hired, and let go for no reason, within 2 weeks, without having several avenues of recourse through his professional governing body.

What's his professional governing body going to do?

if you can't figure out how a vast, organized dues-paying professional guild full of highly educated, intelligent, like-minded individuals can help you, i kindly suggest that you contemplate the possibilities a while before trying your hand at being a c-level executive because you'll probably be caught in the same position as the o.p.

a professional board is basically a labor union dressed up for white collar people. they'll argue until the end of the earth that they aren't, but let's be real, that's what it is.

also, if you're a vp-level or above, and not a significant owner, negotiate a severence package. ever wonder why they have severence packages? this is why. because if you don't, you're highly likely to become a bitch. in fact it's pretty much guaranteed because the cost of losing you is nothing.

I am going to agree with "JasonFruit" here.

The company has a much rosier picture of themselves than you do (and who is to say which one is right?). Think of possible mitigating circumstances, first duty to investors, what's right for the company, we made a mistake, etc etc and who knows what else.

You don't want to make enemies, have them hit back in public, etc. This is not about what is "just" but what is efficient to get on with finding a job, and telling everyone about it.

So I do think it would be a mistake to make it a public fight and bring up the name of the company.

Right now this company has set a standard such that I will refuse to work for any YC-backed startup without serious contractual protection.

My experience (and this discussion) tells me that you should refuse to work for any company without serious contractual protection. Startup or large. YC or non-YC. Its just sensible.

I have found a new appreciation for things I used to consider bureaucratic at a large company (I am looking at you - HR department at a large company).

In reality it isn't of course. But appearances do matter, and to many people it can look like it was bridge burning, sour grapes, or otherwise vindictive. So it's something that should be considered very cautiously.

I'll just point out the unspoken bias here - it's fine for powerful people to abuse their power, and less powerful people aren't allowed to complain because it might be seen as someone challenging the power balance at a level they shouldn't aspire to.

In other relationships, 'Shut up and know your place' is the textbook definition of victim shaming in abusive situations.

Of course it is. Are you perfect, 100% without any flaws? How certain then are you that the employee you hire isn't going to start airing your dirty laundry at the earliest convenience?

> Are you perfect, 100% without any flaws? How certain then are you that the employee you hire isn't going to start airing your dirty laundry at the earliest convenience?

Not at all. If I hire someone, I'm making a commitment. If I made a mistake, its out of my pocket to make them whole.

Disclaimer: I have made mistakes hiring people, and have paid them for their troubles, even going so far as to be a reference for the other opportunities they had available and telling them it was our mistake.

I really respect this.

Thank you, but you shouldn't respect me for doing the right thing. Its what people should do.

Most just don't bother, well done

If you treat employees with respect, you have little to fear.

If an employee makes a claim that puts you in a bad light, you can then honestly relate what happened. If there's nothing to be ashamed about, you'll come out of the experience fine.

Buffet has a fine definition of ethics:

   The priority is that all of us continue to zealously guard Berkshire's 
   reputation. We can’t be perfect but we can try to be. As I’ve said in these 
   memos for more than 25 years: We can afford to lose money – even a lot of 
   money. But we can’t afford to lose reputation – even a shred of reputation." 
   We must continue to measure every act against not only what is legal but 
   also what we would be happy to have written about on the front page of a 
   national newspaper in an article written by an unfriendly but intelligent 
   reporter.

Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? I'd say that this startup has burnt this bridge pretty well. It would have been perfectly reasonable for him to tell us who they were and for us to avoid them like the plague.

>>Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"?

Because the individual has more to lose. Which is more likely, the public boycott the company or the companies boycott the individual? Especially in the world of tech, even if you're right about a company's bad practice just going off and posting a rant about them online reflects badly on you. It means you probably should have just left the company before you got so angry about them. I personally have some very deeply negative feelings about my time in at&t but now I realize it's my own fault for staying 6 years when I was already fed up in my first 18 months. It just made me bitter.

At the absolute minimum, when they see your name on a resume and immediately associate it with recent memory of a rant on HN or some complex ordeal described in a techcrunch article, they'll think twice about you. Maybe they'll still go forward with you; but their will be a double-think. If someone really wants to post something that's less than positive about a previous employer, that person should do it as objectively as possible. Remove all emotion, only state facts with no sensationalism or leading-questions or anything suggestive and be sure to state the whole thing as just "their very humble opinion". It would also show a sense of responsibility/maturity to state the issues that concerned in in a form of a question. "Who you the reader have done things this way?" And especially to suggest a solution. "The way I would have done it is..."

What happened to the OP here is regrettable and doesn't sound like it's his/her fault. This person handled it professionally by just asking for advice and not mentioning names.

It's on both sides not to "burn the bridge". The problem here is those of us observing from the sidelines have very little access to the facts, so we really have no idea what the truth of the matter is.

All we'll see is bickering and unverifiable (by us) claims, and without the ability to discover who is in the right, it just looks bad to observers.

It's like having a shouting match in the middle of the parking lot. One of you might be entirely in the right and completely justified, but to the rest of us it just looks like a situation to avoid.

Because the individual needs something, and the startup does not. what do they care if he is pissed? He's some unemployed dude they'll never have to deal with again. Meanwhile potentially having them as a resource who will say 'oh yeah Ex Employee was a really great guy, we regret losing him, definitely hire him if you can' is pretty much the only positive he's gonna get from this experience. Complain about them and you don't even get good word of mouth from the, just a ton of wasted time and an angry story to tell.

YCombinator people talk to one another. they go to meetups. San Francisco is an incestuous little town. It's hard to break into and having bad blood with people on the inside can make it harder.

YCombinator people talk to one another.

They should talk to each other about why this was bad behavior. If the OP mentions the name, the company can respond with their reasons in an adult and professional manner, explain why they needed someone else, and how they are going to make this right. Then they look like smart, grounded pros willing to admit a mistake and will get some free marketing.

The start up will need something if he actually says who it is, because they'd be hard press to hire anyone on here if this becomes public knowledge.

"Because the individual needs something, and the startup does not"

Sounds like they do, in fact, need something, and it's a different person.

"Meanwhile potentially having them as a resource who will say 'oh yeah Ex Employee was a really great guy, we regret losing him, definitely hire him if you can' "

He was there 2 weeks, if that. You can't tell if someone was good in that time period. If I got a reference like that about someone who worked at a place for a grab total of 6 days... I'd think something was fishy.

> Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"?

It has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the situation. It is about presenting yourself to the rest of the world. Being a bridge-burner doesn't look good to potential employers.

@angersock yeah, exactly like the next batch of shitbag YC kids hiring a COO. Because apparently that's who he's trying to get employed by. It's weird that you seem to think that this crowd are shallow children and yet somehow don't think that they will retaliate against public criticism.

You replied to the wrong comment.

HN has a time delay for nested comments. That's why angersock's comment didn't have a reply link.

There's a "reply" :/

Reply button is usually hidden for the first 2-5 minutes on deeply nested comments, to prevent angry back-and-forth with no thought. You can reply, but you have to know to click the permalink for the comment.

Oh, like the next round of shitbag YC kids hiring a COO?

C'mon, man.

Think about the next company who considers hiring this guy. Perhaps they'll think "hm, what if he doesn't like being with us - will he derail us in public, too? Perhaps we can find a less risky candidate".

Exactly. These things are ugly and this is a cautionary tale for anyone looking to work for a new startup but it's also really important to keep from looking like a bitter employee who will turn on you and make you look evil if things don't work out.

having been a bridge burner i can say that most employers are not competent enough to discover that you burned a bridge if they care... and if you volunteer the information its a great way to filter bad employers too.

Not ordinarily, no. But I can't think of a circumstance under which it benefits you to disclose your grievances with a former employer to a new or potential employer. There is nothing but downside in doing that.

Just as most companies are too incompetent or uninterested to search out your dirty laundry, most companies are too incompetent or uninterested to sort it. If they see it, they'll just acknowledge its existence, and probably think twice about you because of it. They won't dig deeper, or spend any effort sussing out who was right and who was wrong. They'll just note it as a red flag.

This is why people advise against "bridge burning," even when you have no reason to believe you'll ever cross that bridge again. It's all about perceptions. "Optics," as they say in corporate parlance. Being seen as a malcontent is never good for your employment prospects, even when you're completely justified.

But I can't think of a circumstance under which it benefits you to disclose your grievances with a former employer to a new or potential employer.

I think the circumstance is like @jheriko said, as a filter. If an employer sees treating employees bad as dirty laundry, well maybe it isn't the place you want to work, and you're better off not getting an offer.

I understand that objective in theory, but it seems impractical in the wild. Most employers won't look beyond the surface level of "This person had issues with a previous employer and feels the need to discuss them here." They won't bother to ferret out who was right, who was wrong, and whether your grievances are legitimate -- even if they are. So you're basically raising a flag, and a lot of interviers or hiring managers will treat it as such.

Think about it from their perspective. They don't know you too well. All they know, at a quick glance, is that you have had problems with a previous employer. They get your side of the story, perhaps, but how are they to know if you're telling the full story, or if you're just the kind of person who complains about things and causes morale issues? They don't have the time or the process to sort that out, so they'll default to the conservative position of assuming you are more trouble than you're worth.

I've seen this torpedo people in job interviews. I've seen it sink the candidacies of people who were otherwise in very strong contention. Is that fair? Of course not. But it's something to keep in mind.

In a perfect world, sure, this would serve as a nice filter to determine if employers are worth working for. In the world we actually live in, this filter will, more often than not, filter you out of a lot of job opportunities. Meanwhile, there are more effective and less risky filters you can apply when vetting an employer.

I agree that it may not work very well as a filter and that you have to be extremely cautious with any 'negative' statements when interviewing for a job.

the way to flag this to an employer is simply. not to air the grievance but to inform them of it if it is public knowledge... e.g you left as a result, it was your former employer who will be contacted for a reference, or there was some public exposure etc.

they might already know and its in your best interest to be honest. getting found out after the fact is bad, regardless as to your employer's intentions.

its really quite different from airing the concerns that led to the situation.

in this specific case the problem is that he worked for a short period and was let go very rapidly. having a 2 week blip as your last role on a CV is worth explaining - but not complaining about.

The burden is on the individual not to "burn the bridge" because it suits everyone (rightly or wrongly) to perpetuate the myth that companies cannot be held responsible for screwing up the lives of individuals.

Of course it doesn't suit everyone.

This is a very depressing attitude. A functioning market relies on information flow, and if this information flow is killed because people are scared, the market stops functioning.

You are right. The key is to find a structural solution to this, since this is a common occurrence (i.e. joining startups early stage) - and spread information about the "best practice" way of avoiding situations like the one I went through.

There probably is a business in this, but it looks like TheFunded and GlassDoor are already taking it on.

Anyway, there is a solution to this - it's to develop a personal set of red flags and heuristics that you use to weed out bad founders when you talk to them. I have one, and it disqualifies probably 95% of startups that I talk to. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's any way to build this reliably short of bitter experience. The problem with a general "post your grievances" board is that you don't get both sides of the story. I know at least one person who has posted their grievances publicly on HN where I personally witnessed what actually went down, and their account is nowhere close to what I witnessed.

Companies are complex, they are going to have issues. They are going to make bad hires, have drama, bad product launches, and disfunction. Especially startups. But, when you leave or if you disagree with what happened at the company and you air that laundry. It looks bad on you.

Trust me, I am going to google you before I hire you and if I see you being a mess online that means you could be a huge mess in my company. As a startup, when every hiring decision matters, I am going to pass on you.

A growing number of users think HN is Wendy Williams for Startups. They love gossip, drama, and revenge. Don't bother trying to convert them, "name-and-shame" is a growing new attitude in Startups. Every problem and issue is now being aired out in public because it allows people (completely unrelated to the issue) to opinionate and play hero.

I'd say he'd be doing a public service to other people considering a job at that company. If I were a prospective employee I'd like to know more

Or a prospective customer or prospective investor.

Really? I certainly wouldn't hold it against him for burning a bridge that leads to people like that..

Was Edward Snowden a bridge burner for the NSA?

We need transparency both in government and the corporate world. If a company isn't willing to stand by their actions in public, they shouldn't be doing it. And paying the OP severance, admitting a mistake, and moving on is fine by me.

He probably didn't have the right domain expertise, and an advisor/investor told the founders to switch. As green young kid's they didn't do it properly. They need to learn that you can't fire the whole PM team because you want to. These are other people's lives, people who may have mortages, kids, etc.

>'I'd say you did the right thing in not saying what the startup was — it isn't wise to look like a bridge-burner when you're looking for work.'

So true.

I abhor this, but I certainly understand it.

I think the real danger in bridge burning isn't from the people you leave behind, it's everyone who might see the smoke and flames.

It's the label you'll get.

No matter the actual facts, moving forward in the back of many minds you're a liability, a vigilante arsonist ready to torch a company when things don't work out in your favor.

I'm completely with OP's decision here. You can't unring a bell, folks.

It is indeed in the best interests of nearly everyone to explicitly state the company that is acting in a undesirable manner.

Unfortunately it is not in that companies best interest for him to state it.

And because it is not in any companies best interest to have employees that when let go will put the common good above the good of the company, it is not in his best interest either to publicize the name of the company.

With that in mind, yes please do us the favor.

As someone engaging in a job search, I know it would be appreciated by the general population to receive this information.

Actually, severance is for keeping your mouth shut. If they were interested in op keeping his mouth shut, they would have offered a severance package. They did not so he can say what he will.

Deleted comment

An employee who was acceptable to the company on X and unacceptable on X + 2 weeks is being asked to shoulder risks equivalent to that of an independent contractor or consultant. Many people enjoy shouldering the many risks associated with parachuting into foreign countries for two weeks to execute engagements with no guarantee that there will be work available on week three.

We are customarily compensated for shouldering these risks. It is one reason why consultants quote week rates like $10,000 as opposed to getting only $120k in yearly salary but very predictably actually getting that and its attendant benefits suite.

Half of the low-ball startup monthly salary offer plus no benefits plus no options doesn't even crater the approach to the bridge of the disruption this putative employee suffered to get him to the US.

While acknowledging that the US is largely an employment-at-will country and people can dissolve things for any reason or none at all at virtually any time, writing somebody a $4k check as sole payment for services rendered, after they've joined your company as an employee and been involuntarily terminated 2 weeks in, strikes me as deeply problematic.

+1 thanks,that is the best comment. I have worked as a consultant for about 15 years, and as a (mostly remote) consultant, being told to take a hike after two weeks would be acceptable (I think; it has not happened to me yet) and a minor inconvenience.

It is so very different however with a hired employee.

I agree that it is not in guybrushT's interests to name the company, but he should definitely send them an email referring him to this Ask HN discussion, just in case they have not seen it yet.

You articulated the situation (and my thinking) very well. Any thoughts on what future early employees could do to protect themselves?

If somebody for some reason managed to convince me to come onboard as an employee, and I was asked nicely to leave after two weeks, I would begin the conversation with "That is unfortunate and unexpected, as I was looking forward to working with you guys. We're all businessmen here, so we know that there are certain reasonable expectations which one has with regards to employment offers. I shouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know when I say that this is highly irregular. It would not be irregular if I were, say, a consultant. If you want to retroactively treat our arrangement as a consulting arrangement, I'm amenable to that reclassification, because I like you and wish you to succeed. I will send you a copy of my standard Master Services Agreement and a Statement of Work for two weeks work. You will sign them, as written. I will then invoice you for my standard consulting rate, which is $60,000 for two weeks. You will pay it and we will part ways as friends."

And then I'd see where it took me from there.

This is a reasonable approach. I will try this.

Sidenote: In my last discussion, some of the phrasing was eerily similar - "That is unfortunate and unexpected, as I was looking forward to working with you guys" - "we're businessmen here" - "part ways as friends".. etc. Just that I didn't push for what you are suggesting. Thanks again!

Good luck convincing them to shell out 60K for two weeks. If they could afford it, they'd probably could afford throwing 30K more and keeping him for a year.

In Japan we have a distinction between what we say on the outside and what we think on the inside.

Outside: "You can't afford $60k? Oh, you're smart guys, I'm sure you can figure it out if it is a priority for you."

Inside: "Horsepuckey, YC company, cry me more tears about your inability to find tens of thousands of dollars when you're a mortal lock on a seed round and presumably on the glide path to an A."

They don't have to pay it up front; they can draft an agreement to defer compensation to their next round of funding or to their first $N dollars of revenue, pay him the immediately owed "salary" number today, and pay the delta later.

It seems he was offered compensation for the two weeks he actually worked for them, which I'd take for granted. What the comment above is probably alluding to is termination of contract compensation.

It sounds like he was working for those two weeks he is receiving pay for. Not compensation for any troubles, but rather payment for work done.

"..so that none of us find ourselves in your shoes."

Thank you for this comment. This is a very important discussion to have. And I don't think naming the company is a good answer (it is a point solution - you may not want to join this company but thats it). With this thread getting some attention, I have higher hopes than that. I think we can come up with good strategies, resources, and an agreed upon code of conduct that future early employees can use to protect themselves.

It's a few things. Sure -- I don't want to join this company, or partake in business with them in the future.

But I also want to establish it as standard in this industry that doing what they did to you is unacceptable -- and that any company that contemplates such a thing in the future is going to pay a very heavy cost in future investment, customers, and recruiting.

> I like the founders - they are good guys.

They are very professional.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com