5 ms·

"slaved".. were they not compensated?

marcamillion 16y ago
Perhaps, but as far as I understand it...they are compensated at a pittance with the hope that after 3 - 5 years they can leave with a nice payout and move on to 'bigger' and better. I guess my point is, this is why you should be careful who you commit to slave for (e.g. a boss that expressly says that they expect you to work like a slave) because at the end of the day - if the business ever turns down you are just a number. It's unfair to ask salaried employees to give the same as the founder, because the founders won't be first in line to be cut when revenues turn down.
- robryan 16y ago
  What do you suggest then? They carry the employees even though it is no longer economically viable?
  - marcamillion 16y ago
    Not in the least. I think Jason did the fiscally prudent thing. He has a fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders to respond in the way he did. Very tough call, but no doubt the necessary call to make, if he wants to turn Mahalo into a going concern. I suggest that he doesn't go around bragging about how he only wants 'winners' and he expects everybody to give 80 hour weeks and all that non-sense. Giving someone free food, and a 'free chef', doesn't make up for demanding 80-hour weeks no matter what they tell you. I think he should just shut up, and set an example through deeds - because at the end of the day, 10% of the staff can (and should) get cut when revenue tanks. Acting like it won't happen and they will have a big payday if the company gets bought or goes public is disingenuous at best, and deceitful/fraudulent at worst. That being said, I don't think he should discourage people from working that long - on the occasion when they have a deadline to hit or something. But just be more responsible with the rhetoric, is all I am saying. These are people with families that are likely depending on their livelihood.
    - throwit3211 16y ago
      And a lot of them are probably Gen Y people who, had this been a different company, upon applying to Mahalo would be discriminated against. Left their job in a year? Oh they were laid off? Well, in Calacanis' book they were the laziest, most selfish 10% of employees - they deserved it! Hopefully too many other businesses don't buy into that nonsense.

Perhaps, but as far as I understand it...they are compensated at a pittance with the hope that after 3 - 5 years they can leave with a nice payout and move on to 'bigger' and better. I guess my point is, this is why you should be careful who you commit to slave for (e.g. a boss that expressly says that they expect you to work like a slave) because at the end of the day - if the business ever turns down you are just a number. It's unfair to ask salaried employees to give the same as the founder, because the founders won't be first in line to be cut when revenues turn down.

robryan 16y ago
What do you suggest then? They carry the employees even though it is no longer economically viable?
- marcamillion 16y ago
  Not in the least. I think Jason did the fiscally prudent thing. He has a fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders to respond in the way he did. Very tough call, but no doubt the necessary call to make, if he wants to turn Mahalo into a going concern. I suggest that he doesn't go around bragging about how he only wants 'winners' and he expects everybody to give 80 hour weeks and all that non-sense. Giving someone free food, and a 'free chef', doesn't make up for demanding 80-hour weeks no matter what they tell you. I think he should just shut up, and set an example through deeds - because at the end of the day, 10% of the staff can (and should) get cut when revenue tanks. Acting like it won't happen and they will have a big payday if the company gets bought or goes public is disingenuous at best, and deceitful/fraudulent at worst. That being said, I don't think he should discourage people from working that long - on the occasion when they have a deadline to hit or something. But just be more responsible with the rhetoric, is all I am saying. These are people with families that are likely depending on their livelihood.
  - throwit3211 16y ago
    And a lot of them are probably Gen Y people who, had this been a different company, upon applying to Mahalo would be discriminated against. Left their job in a year? Oh they were laid off? Well, in Calacanis' book they were the laziest, most selfish 10% of employees - they deserved it! Hopefully too many other businesses don't buy into that nonsense.