3 ms·

I do completely empathise with the parent, but you also have to consider it from the other perspective. If those type of employers could get "named and shamed"

I do completely empathise with the parent, but you also have to consider it from the other perspective. If those type of employers could get "named and shamed" based on someones verbal only, then it would be a dangerous society we live in. On the other hand, if it was written down, there would have been no problem in the first place.

s73v3r_ 9y ago
I believe that naming and shaming unscrupulous founders who fuck over people like this would encourage more to codify these agreements in writing from the get-go. The company is the one that made the verbal agreement, which they could have written down at any time. The company is the one that abused it's power, and most importantly, the trust of the employee. To me, that is an incredibly heinous act, which should come with draconian punishments.
- laythea 9y ago
  In this case, maybe. But I am talking in general. In general we don't know who to believe, founder or employee. I would imagine there would be just as many unjustifiable disgruntled employees than there are unscrupulous founders. Therefore we must maintain the resumption of innocence until proven guilty. I.e In writing. The moral of this story is that you don't invest money or time in words, and the parent will likely have learnt a costly lesson.
- Trundle 9y ago
  The fact that you're saying "the company is the one..." and that they should suffer draconian punishments after reading an anonymous internet comment is exactly why we shouldn't treat verbal contracts seriously. You don't know if the company did anything.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    A company that's on the up and up will make sure the contracts are in place. One that is not will rely on people forgetting their verbal contracts. And my draconian punishment remark was directed at founders who fuck over their employees in general. Violating that trust should carry extremely heavy penalties, to the point where you are much worse off than if you didn't.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

I believe that naming and shaming unscrupulous founders who fuck over people like this would encourage more to codify these agreements in writing from the get-go. The company is the one that made the verbal agreement, which they could have written down at any time. The company is the one that abused it's power, and most importantly, the trust of the employee. To me, that is an incredibly heinous act, which should come with draconian punishments.

laythea 9y ago
In this case, maybe. But I am talking in general. In general we don't know who to believe, founder or employee. I would imagine there would be just as many unjustifiable disgruntled employees than there are unscrupulous founders. Therefore we must maintain the resumption of innocence until proven guilty. I.e In writing. The moral of this story is that you don't invest money or time in words, and the parent will likely have learnt a costly lesson.
Trundle 9y ago
The fact that you're saying "the company is the one..." and that they should suffer draconian punishments after reading an anonymous internet comment is exactly why we shouldn't treat verbal contracts seriously. You don't know if the company did anything.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  A company that's on the up and up will make sure the contracts are in place. One that is not will rely on people forgetting their verbal contracts. And my draconian punishment remark was directed at founders who fuck over their employees in general. Violating that trust should carry extremely heavy penalties, to the point where you are much worse off than if you didn't.