Hacker News Reader

Comment by Scuttles | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

"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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com