3 ms·

Responding not to throw truisms at you; checking that I'm not crazy. > I have to say for me, this is a great ad for this employer being a safe and employee-val

by mjolk 10y ago

Responding not to throw truisms at you; checking that I'm not crazy. > I have to say for me, this is a great ad for this employer being a safe and employee-valuing place to work. The employer is meant to shield his employees from this kind of stuff. i.e. this is a "normal" employer. Even if the clients don't pay the employer, the employer pays its employees -- that's the arrangement and the risk taken when you own the business (alternatively stated, as an non-exec employee, you trade a premium on salary to not deal with risk).

mpnagle 10y ago
Oh, yeah, I think that's true that part of the employer-employee contract is guaranteeing employees payment. I guess I mean something a little different then. That it's really heartwarming to see an employer 'go to bat' for his team's work and his company. I was resonating with the experience of directly having freelanced with a client feeling 'out of control.' I was really caught off-guard by it and it felt (in hindsight a mistake) easy to give an inch and give another inch. There's something here -- maybe I can't put my finger on it -- in this blog post that makes me thing the author would be an incredible asset in putting down hard limits and boundaries when they need to be put down.
- mjolk 10y ago
  > That it's really heartwarming to see an employer 'go to bat' for his team's work and his company He "went to bat" in court as to not risk a default judgment or additional monetary loss. Talking about how your consulting company went far out of scope and criticizing/belittling an ex-client in a blog post is kind of strange, in my opinion. > I was resonating with the experience of directly having freelanced with a client feeling 'out of control.' I was really caught off-guard by it and it felt (in hindsight a mistake) easy to give an inch and give another inch Yeah, that's really common. Sometimes it's a simple situation of communicating the time demand or cost of client asks and other times, it's employing a firm "no" or calculating if it's worth firing the client (never fun). > There's something here -- maybe I can't put my finger on it -- in this blog post that makes me thing the author would be an incredible asset in putting down hard limits and boundaries when they need to be put down. I made another post in the thread about this if you're interested[0], but it appears as if this was an issue because of the exact opposite -- contractual scope of work was not enforced and substantial additional work was performed. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348353

by mjolk 10y ago

mpnagle 10y ago

Oh, yeah, I think that's true that part of the employer-employee contract is guaranteeing employees payment. I guess I mean something a little different then. That it's really heartwarming to see an employer 'go to bat' for his team's work and his company. I was resonating with the experience of directly having freelanced with a client feeling 'out of control.' I was really caught off-guard by it and it felt (in hindsight a mistake) easy to give an inch and give another inch. There's something here -- maybe I can't put my finger on it -- in this blog post that makes me thing the author would be an incredible asset in putting down hard limits and boundaries when they need to be put down.

mjolk 10y ago
> That it's really heartwarming to see an employer 'go to bat' for his team's work and his company He "went to bat" in court as to not risk a default judgment or additional monetary loss. Talking about how your consulting company went far out of scope and criticizing/belittling an ex-client in a blog post is kind of strange, in my opinion. > I was resonating with the experience of directly having freelanced with a client feeling 'out of control.' I was really caught off-guard by it and it felt (in hindsight a mistake) easy to give an inch and give another inch Yeah, that's really common. Sometimes it's a simple situation of communicating the time demand or cost of client asks and other times, it's employing a firm "no" or calculating if it's worth firing the client (never fun). > There's something here -- maybe I can't put my finger on it -- in this blog post that makes me thing the author would be an incredible asset in putting down hard limits and boundaries when they need to be put down. I made another post in the thread about this if you're interested[0], but it appears as if this was an issue because of the exact opposite -- contractual scope of work was not enforced and substantial additional work was performed. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348353