4 ms·

Ahh, so I assume not something a typical employee could do. Thanks!

vinceguidry 10y ago
The way you handle this as a typical employee is to not work for dicks. That way when they see you being successful they cheer you on rather than try to bring you down. Also, you don't always have no leverage to negotiate contract terms. When I separated from my last job, my severance agreement as given to me included a 2 year gag clause keeping me from talking about it to anyone. I negotiated it down to six months, using the time-honored tactic of bitching until I got my way. Bitching is a useful tool in the kind of low-stakes environment that most employee negotiations happen in. Legal action is the equivalent of nuclear warfare, if you're willing to bitch about something, the company, so long as you're not working for a bunch of dicks, is going to eventually open up about what they need to get out of a particular contract clause. This paves the way for a gentleman's agreement whereby you agree to not fuck their shit up, and they agree to not fuck yours up. In my case, what they wanted was for me to not lead an employee charge for better perks / compensation, and I just wanted to be able to yak about it on Hacker News. So I agreed to keep my mouth shut to my fellow employees about the agreement, and they agreed to reduce the length of the gag clause. But again, you can't be working for a bunch of dicks. You need to maintain good relationships with your bosses and company leadership and your work output and ethic should never be in question. You are, in other words, loyal to each other. It's great to be ambitious and to want more out of life, but you shouldn't stomp all over the people who are helping you to get there. Every time I've ever seen one of these "former employer fucked with me after I moved on" stories, the employee in question was clearly working for a bunch of dicks. Your intuition is your most valuable asset as a little guy. Your chances of getting stepped on can range from 0% all the way up to 100% if you're working in the entertainment biz where stepping on little guys is just the culture. You don't have to bury your head in the sand and ignore the risk.
- ap22213 10y ago
  Just be careful. A company and its board isn't a person - it's a legal entity. The company exists solely to make profit. That's it. And, the company will do everything in its legal power to do so. It doesn't matter what the intent of the founders were, nor how nice your boss or even the current owners are. They are not the company. Plus, I've seen way too many nice people turn into 'dicks' when it came down to money. This is the primary reason why it's a bad idea to go into business with friends or relatives.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    I'd argue that the primary reason you don't go into business with friends or relatives because 99% of the time, they're not looking to do any real work or take on any real risk. Hire friends and relatives after the business is de-risked, not before.
  - bjelkeman-again 10y ago
    Which is one of the reasons my last effort is a not for profit. All open source.
  - john_other_john 10y ago
    Indeed. Anyone forming a company in England & Wales, also, might benefit from a chat with someone with long experience as a company director, or professional secretary, or even better a insolvency practitioner. If none are to hand, the staff at Companies House are unable to provide opinions, but I found they are ready to give well rounded observations which might make anyone think twice as to the value of relying on Companies Act, to protect their rights. At least the Act, alone. I've even enjoyed a very candid conversation at some length with the Registrar Of Companies, when the last major Act came into force, and she was incredibly helpful and illuminating, explaining the nuances of her statutory role and its offices. For guidance as to effect of Articles or Association, please do ask their Compliance office. Articles or Table A are the bylaws of a company, and many sharp operators will try to get Companies House to accept heavily modified articles, which contradict or attempt to restrict, statutory rights, roles or obligations. There was once a inactive registered company, names Silverstone blah blah management, about the time of a rumoured bid for control of the motor racing circuit. I pulled the Table A, and none to my surprise, almost every page of it was marked in the margin, alongside almost every paragraph, with a dot or a code, indicating Compliance was highly suspect of this document, as to its legality. But, as Compa ies House began to intone by reflex, I remember the information becoming a mantra when inquiring about almost anything, they are only a records office, not enforcers. The Registrar told me in addition, that that year sh had budget and allowance (I got the sense as if she felt it was a deliberately token allowance, arbitrarily set somehow and not under her budgetary power, to prosecute four directors each month, for technical breaches of the law. I had presented her office with a single director, for whom records tallied literally hundreds of summary offences. Larger but less scrupulous or less publicly reported companies, flout the law routinely, a trivial cost of doing business. Small fly by nights and sham "business partners" you may encounter, may roll right over you, in a instant. You might be a director and have majority equity in common shares, but another director may (quite unlawfully, but see further) de-register you as a director, call a company meeting, if one is even required, dilute you to nothing, seek shareholder approval for consolidating fraudulent actions, like divesting working capital via special dividend, and banks will almost in every single case, do as they are told if the right forms are provided. You will sure have recourse under the Act, and many summary (not tried but assessed on the facts by a judge) offenses are criminal and even punishable by imprisonment, but you would be lost without a proper management contract and ideally a law firm of repute contracted as Company Secretary and that contract specifying detailed additional procedures, even clerical checks and notifications help here, and ultimately if thus sort of thing happens, you are in real trouble with little real recourse and no immediate remedy. That's a mere taste of the fun which can be English Limited Companies! From memory, and it's long since I undertook any comparative study, only Sweden has laws which truly make a manager / managing director, responsible for their behaviour, under real penalty. Obviously, don't take my word for it, but I was seeking answer to just this: "So where can I risk turning my back one second, on a limited company I invest in?", and Sweden was the only jurisdiction which I felt satisfied me.

The way you handle this as a typical employee is to not work for dicks. That way when they see you being successful they cheer you on rather than try to bring you down. Also, you don't always have no leverage to negotiate contract terms. When I separated from my last job, my severance agreement as given to me included a 2 year gag clause keeping me from talking about it to anyone. I negotiated it down to six months, using the time-honored tactic of bitching until I got my way. Bitching is a useful tool in the kind of low-stakes environment that most employee negotiations happen in. Legal action is the equivalent of nuclear warfare, if you're willing to bitch about something, the company, so long as you're not working for a bunch of dicks, is going to eventually open up about what they need to get out of a particular contract clause. This paves the way for a gentleman's agreement whereby you agree to not fuck their shit up, and they agree to not fuck yours up. In my case, what they wanted was for me to not lead an employee charge for better perks / compensation, and I just wanted to be able to yak about it on Hacker News. So I agreed to keep my mouth shut to my fellow employees about the agreement, and they agreed to reduce the length of the gag clause. But again, you can't be working for a bunch of dicks. You need to maintain good relationships with your bosses and company leadership and your work output and ethic should never be in question. You are, in other words, loyal to each other. It's great to be ambitious and to want more out of life, but you shouldn't stomp all over the people who are helping you to get there. Every time I've ever seen one of these "former employer fucked with me after I moved on" stories, the employee in question was clearly working for a bunch of dicks. Your intuition is your most valuable asset as a little guy. Your chances of getting stepped on can range from 0% all the way up to 100% if you're working in the entertainment biz where stepping on little guys is just the culture. You don't have to bury your head in the sand and ignore the risk.

ap22213 10y ago
Just be careful. A company and its board isn't a person - it's a legal entity. The company exists solely to make profit. That's it. And, the company will do everything in its legal power to do so. It doesn't matter what the intent of the founders were, nor how nice your boss or even the current owners are. They are not the company. Plus, I've seen way too many nice people turn into 'dicks' when it came down to money. This is the primary reason why it's a bad idea to go into business with friends or relatives.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  I'd argue that the primary reason you don't go into business with friends or relatives because 99% of the time, they're not looking to do any real work or take on any real risk. Hire friends and relatives after the business is de-risked, not before.
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  Which is one of the reasons my last effort is a not for profit. All open source.
- john_other_john 10y ago
  Indeed. Anyone forming a company in England & Wales, also, might benefit from a chat with someone with long experience as a company director, or professional secretary, or even better a insolvency practitioner. If none are to hand, the staff at Companies House are unable to provide opinions, but I found they are ready to give well rounded observations which might make anyone think twice as to the value of relying on Companies Act, to protect their rights. At least the Act, alone. I've even enjoyed a very candid conversation at some length with the Registrar Of Companies, when the last major Act came into force, and she was incredibly helpful and illuminating, explaining the nuances of her statutory role and its offices. For guidance as to effect of Articles or Association, please do ask their Compliance office. Articles or Table A are the bylaws of a company, and many sharp operators will try to get Companies House to accept heavily modified articles, which contradict or attempt to restrict, statutory rights, roles or obligations. There was once a inactive registered company, names Silverstone blah blah management, about the time of a rumoured bid for control of the motor racing circuit. I pulled the Table A, and none to my surprise, almost every page of it was marked in the margin, alongside almost every paragraph, with a dot or a code, indicating Compliance was highly suspect of this document, as to its legality. But, as Compa ies House began to intone by reflex, I remember the information becoming a mantra when inquiring about almost anything, they are only a records office, not enforcers. The Registrar told me in addition, that that year sh had budget and allowance (I got the sense as if she felt it was a deliberately token allowance, arbitrarily set somehow and not under her budgetary power, to prosecute four directors each month, for technical breaches of the law. I had presented her office with a single director, for whom records tallied literally hundreds of summary offences. Larger but less scrupulous or less publicly reported companies, flout the law routinely, a trivial cost of doing business. Small fly by nights and sham "business partners" you may encounter, may roll right over you, in a instant. You might be a director and have majority equity in common shares, but another director may (quite unlawfully, but see further) de-register you as a director, call a company meeting, if one is even required, dilute you to nothing, seek shareholder approval for consolidating fraudulent actions, like divesting working capital via special dividend, and banks will almost in every single case, do as they are told if the right forms are provided. You will sure have recourse under the Act, and many summary (not tried but assessed on the facts by a judge) offenses are criminal and even punishable by imprisonment, but you would be lost without a proper management contract and ideally a law firm of repute contracted as Company Secretary and that contract specifying detailed additional procedures, even clerical checks and notifications help here, and ultimately if thus sort of thing happens, you are in real trouble with little real recourse and no immediate remedy. That's a mere taste of the fun which can be English Limited Companies! From memory, and it's long since I undertook any comparative study, only Sweden has laws which truly make a manager / managing director, responsible for their behaviour, under real penalty. Obviously, don't take my word for it, but I was seeking answer to just this: "So where can I risk turning my back one second, on a limited company I invest in?", and Sweden was the only jurisdiction which I felt satisfied me.