4 ms·

Sure, if you couldn't care less about your job, then why care about anyone else screwing you over in your job? But let's see if the inverse is true as well. If

Sure, if you couldn't care less about your job, then why care about anyone else screwing you over in your job? But let's see if the inverse is true as well. If you deeply deeply deeply cared about your job (eg: it's your startup and you have exactly 12 months of runway, but it takes 4 months to source, vet, hire and onboard someone), would it matter to you that someone cheated you out of a third of your runway? The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. That should answer why someone who is likely to reasonable care about their job and would likely experience a serious setback in their work would be really upset about the OP's actions.

mynameisvlad 4y ago
I doubt that anyone, even someone as extreme as your example, would care enough about it a decade after it happened. More egregious things would have happened in the meantime.
- hn_neverguess 4y ago
  Extending a job offer to someone means you met with them on multiple occasions, remotely and in person. I know I am not going to forget their face in 10 years. Would I feel a bit less wronged about them after 10 years? Of course. Would I lie in a backchannel reference? No.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    I doubt your memory and vengeance is nearly as crazy a decade since any event (however wronged by it you may perceive yourself to be) -- let alone something as incredibly benign as someone rescinding an offer. In short, while you say that now, I highly doubt it actually would be the case were this hypothetical a reality. You'd have to be incredibly thin-skinned and vengeful to carry this much weight to something so minor.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    How does a founder with twenty years of experience bear such grudges against a single errant hire that got away? Either this whole hypothetical is talking about an employee number one type situation, or you must have been blessed with having never met anyone underhanded in all of your business dealings. "Feeling a bit less wronged" is one thing, "making sure that everyone knows how I feel about you" is quite another.
    - hn_neverguess 4y ago
      There's also a lot of middle ground: - a friend is looking to take a bet on this guy in his company. - we're looking for new members for our camp and this guy shows up. - a female friend meets him on a dating app and tells me about him. - this guy is being considered for a lateral move within his next company, and the hiring manager is a friend of mine. - we're on the fence about keeping this guy or letting him go. - etc, etc.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Sure, but your initial post did not express that sensible middle ground, but rather invoked decade-long grudges using hyperbolic petulance, as if being a founder grants the power to hellban someone from society.
        hn_neverguess 4y ago
        It goes both ways. If anything, I would argue that employees have way more cancel power than founders, and it's far more common for employees to get their founders in trouble than the other way around. No VC will ever do an equity round without doing some research. Not to mention the open letters to founders that have gotten so many fired. Honestly, it's also how it should be - I've seen more founders misbehave than employees. Some founders really think that just because someone gave them a check, they are somehow untouchable. But regardless if founder or employee, I don't see why we should lie about people misbehaving. If I know someone is a bad apple, I am not going to lie about it - especially if I can prevent someone I care about going through the same ordeal. I also don't know why I should change my mind about someone just because some time has passed. People don't change. It's frankly pretty appalling that I have to spell this out to you. I suppose you didn't think much of the Me Too movement? While clearly not on the same scale, the fundamental societal mechanics that justify outing perpetrators of sexual harassment are the same ones that justify outing people who break contracts. The society would be a much better place if people knew that karma is real.
ipaddr 4y ago
You can blame other people for your failed gambles and slow processes. If it takes 4 months to hire and onboard.. fix that. If you were betting on this person to save the company make sure you offer enough so they can't refuse. Offer them half your company if that's what it takes. It is 100% up to you.. make it happen.. you are cheating yourself and investors by blaming a new hire that never was.
- hn_neverguess 4y ago
  > If it takes 4 months to hire and onboard.. fix that It takes an average of 58 days to hire an engineer in the US. [0] Add to that another two months to onboard them. [1] > Offer them half your company if that's what it takes. Wait - so someone accepts a job, implying that the comp was fair. And then quits a week before a start date without any notice (OP's story). Were you recommending that founders should pre-emptively give away half of the company on top of the original offer just to prevent the possibility of any one random person acting dishonestly? [0] https://resources.workable.com/tutorial/recruiting-kpis https://resources.workable.com/tutorial/recruiting-kpis [1] https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-to-onboard-a-software-developer https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-to-onboard-a-sof...
  - eropple 4y ago
    > Wait - so someone accepts a job, implying that the comp was fair. And if circumstances change, so does that implication.
    - hn_neverguess 4y ago
      When Coinbase's circumstances changed, they offered a 4 month severance - even for people who never worked there a single day. I am not implying that there are no good reasons why someone should bail out after accepting. But you should have a very good reason for doing so. Someone else's offer that's $5k higher is not one of them. Conversely, your company should also not fire you just because someone else showed up who is willing to do your job for $5k less. There's a certain amount of common decency that can be expected from both sides - if not for ethical reasons, then at least for practical reasons of not destroying your reputation.

mynameisvlad 4y ago

I doubt that anyone, even someone as extreme as your example, would care enough about it a decade after it happened. More egregious things would have happened in the meantime.

hn_neverguess 4y ago
Extending a job offer to someone means you met with them on multiple occasions, remotely and in person. I know I am not going to forget their face in 10 years. Would I feel a bit less wronged about them after 10 years? Of course. Would I lie in a backchannel reference? No.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  I doubt your memory and vengeance is nearly as crazy a decade since any event (however wronged by it you may perceive yourself to be) -- let alone something as incredibly benign as someone rescinding an offer. In short, while you say that now, I highly doubt it actually would be the case were this hypothetical a reality. You'd have to be incredibly thin-skinned and vengeful to carry this much weight to something so minor.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  How does a founder with twenty years of experience bear such grudges against a single errant hire that got away? Either this whole hypothetical is talking about an employee number one type situation, or you must have been blessed with having never met anyone underhanded in all of your business dealings. "Feeling a bit less wronged" is one thing, "making sure that everyone knows how I feel about you" is quite another.
  - hn_neverguess 4y ago
    There's also a lot of middle ground: - a friend is looking to take a bet on this guy in his company. - we're looking for new members for our camp and this guy shows up. - a female friend meets him on a dating app and tells me about him. - this guy is being considered for a lateral move within his next company, and the hiring manager is a friend of mine. - we're on the fence about keeping this guy or letting him go. - etc, etc.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Sure, but your initial post did not express that sensible middle ground, but rather invoked decade-long grudges using hyperbolic petulance, as if being a founder grants the power to hellban someone from society.
      - hn_neverguess 4y ago
        It goes both ways. If anything, I would argue that employees have way more cancel power than founders, and it's far more common for employees to get their founders in trouble than the other way around. No VC will ever do an equity round without doing some research. Not to mention the open letters to founders that have gotten so many fired. Honestly, it's also how it should be - I've seen more founders misbehave than employees. Some founders really think that just because someone gave them a check, they are somehow untouchable. But regardless if founder or employee, I don't see why we should lie about people misbehaving. If I know someone is a bad apple, I am not going to lie about it - especially if I can prevent someone I care about going through the same ordeal. I also don't know why I should change my mind about someone just because some time has passed. People don't change. It's frankly pretty appalling that I have to spell this out to you. I suppose you didn't think much of the Me Too movement? While clearly not on the same scale, the fundamental societal mechanics that justify outing perpetrators of sexual harassment are the same ones that justify outing people who break contracts. The society would be a much better place if people knew that karma is real.

ipaddr 4y ago

You can blame other people for your failed gambles and slow processes. If it takes 4 months to hire and onboard.. fix that. If you were betting on this person to save the company make sure you offer enough so they can't refuse. Offer them half your company if that's what it takes. It is 100% up to you.. make it happen.. you are cheating yourself and investors by blaming a new hire that never was.

hn_neverguess 4y ago
> If it takes 4 months to hire and onboard.. fix that It takes an average of 58 days to hire an engineer in the US. [0] Add to that another two months to onboard them. [1] > Offer them half your company if that's what it takes. Wait - so someone accepts a job, implying that the comp was fair. And then quits a week before a start date without any notice (OP's story). Were you recommending that founders should pre-emptively give away half of the company on top of the original offer just to prevent the possibility of any one random person acting dishonestly? [0] https://resources.workable.com/tutorial/recruiting-kpis https://resources.workable.com/tutorial/recruiting-kpis [1] https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-to-onboard-a-software-developer https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-to-onboard-a-sof...
- eropple 4y ago
  > Wait - so someone accepts a job, implying that the comp was fair. And if circumstances change, so does that implication.
  - hn_neverguess 4y ago
    When Coinbase's circumstances changed, they offered a 4 month severance - even for people who never worked there a single day. I am not implying that there are no good reasons why someone should bail out after accepting. But you should have a very good reason for doing so. Someone else's offer that's $5k higher is not one of them. Conversely, your company should also not fire you just because someone else showed up who is willing to do your job for $5k less. There's a certain amount of common decency that can be expected from both sides - if not for ethical reasons, then at least for practical reasons of not destroying your reputation.