3 ms·

This is rough. I'm sorry you've experienced this. I had a similar experience a few months ago interviewing with a profitable YC company with a multi-billion dol

by anoojb 4y ago

This is rough. I'm sorry you've experienced this. I had a similar experience a few months ago interviewing with a profitable YC company with a multi-billion dollar valuation. I would encourage you to think of the YC investment (or any investor's "stamp of approval") as an indication of a potentially successful return of capital for investors. Not a good company for you as an employee to achieve your goals. Inherently, labor and capital are in conflict with each other. The things which make a company successful for the investors are usually not aligned to what makes it a great experience and outcome for the employee. I did a retrospective on my journey interviewing at this YC company and my key insight was to evaluate the leadership, not the investors. The hiring manager was great. But after retrospectively vetting the CEO and leadership team, I came to the conclusion that they were really struggling with building a healthy business in a really competitive space. As part of my retrospective I tried to take an analytical view of the competitive dynamics. It's pretty clear in the near term that the LowCode space I was looking at is going to face pressure from incumbents amidst a general re-pricing — https://blog.devnos.com/posts/2022-12-20-lowcode/ https://blog.devnos.com/posts/2022-12-20-lowcode/

WalterBright 4y ago
> The things which make a company successful for the investors are usually not aligned to what makes it a great experience and outcome for the employee. This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability. The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as adversarial, which is a huge mistake.
- CPLX 4y ago
  It's not unions that have created an adversarial relationship between capital and labor. It's automation.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    There's too much nuance in this discussion to toss out generalities. In some sectors, automation has played a huge role. Certainly not all. In some parts of tech the availability of abundant labor has played a role. Nuance is important.
    - CPLX 4y ago
      I like nuance as much as the next guy. But the relationship between labor and capital is kind of like predator and prey. Yes, sure, in the broad sense they're all part of the same ecosystem and if that ecosystem does well it can get to a happy stable state where each community prospers. That's certainly true. But also on a day to day level one of the parties is literally trying to consume the other one.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > the relationship between labor and capital is kind of like predator and prey. That is not inherent. Businesses have mutually beneficial relationships with suppliers and customers. Transactions are win-win. There's nothing fundamentally different between a business and its employees, and no reason why the relationship cannot be win-win. But unions frame their negotiations in terms of win-lose. This is a sad state of affairs.
        anoojb 4y ago
        This point reminds me of Costco's Mission Statement and Code of Ethics. It's so simple and easy, but for reason it's really hard for companies to copy/paste into their organizations. https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/829/~/what-is-costcos-mission-statement-and-code-of-ethics%3F https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8... I inherently agree that this is a good Code of Ethics. It comes down to whether the people at these organizations conduct themselves in a way that embodies these principles. In the OP and my specific cases it was not the case. My position is that these principles are difficult and not particularly well adopted.
        greenyoda 4y ago
        > no reason why the relationship cannot be win-win Although it can be win-win in theory, it frequently isn't in practice. A well-known example of companies working against their own employees is the "anti-poaching" policy illegally agreed to by Google, Apple and others a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... There was no union here trying to create an adversarial situation. It was simply corporate greed (on the part of some of the most profitable companies in the world).
- akiselev 4y ago
  > This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability. That probably explains why most VC-funded businesses these days aren't profitable, even after they IPO :-) Liquidation preference does not make for happy employees.
- akhmatova 4y ago
  Having happy employees is very good for business profitability. It's what these companies pretend to believe, at least. Whether they actually, in reality, act in a way that make their employees happy -- or in a manner that is even fair or rational, by any detached observation -- is an entirely different matter.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Keep in mind that one cannot make everyone happy, ever.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  > This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability. If it was true, then you'd think more companies would care about their employees. Amazon treats their warehouse and delivery people as disposable. > The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as adversarial, which is a huge mistake. If employers were treating their employees well, they wouldn't need a union.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Starbucks treats their employees well. https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benefits-and-perks/ https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benef...
    - csomar 4y ago
      In my opinion, the Barista makes or breaks the coffee place. It never made sense to me how some coffeeshops mis-hire for baristas/servers. Starbucks got this right, and they have (most times) highly qualified staff even in foreign countries. This is not the same for Amazon. What you care about is delivery time and choice and they are doing well in that front.
      - trimethylpurine 4y ago
        To each his own. I'd rank Starbucks at the bottom, and I've never heard different in any country outside the US. I've also noticed that their foreign shops are strictly in American tourist traps, which seems like a very good strategy for expanding into countries that generally frown on their coffee, and their atmosphere.
- csomar 4y ago
  YC companies are in the business of raising the next funding round. It creates different incentives and management styles.

by anoojb 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago

> The things which make a company successful for the investors are usually not aligned to what makes it a great experience and outcome for the employee. This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability. The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as adversarial, which is a huge mistake.

CPLX 4y ago
It's not unions that have created an adversarial relationship between capital and labor. It's automation.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  There's too much nuance in this discussion to toss out generalities. In some sectors, automation has played a huge role. Certainly not all. In some parts of tech the availability of abundant labor has played a role. Nuance is important.
  - CPLX 4y ago
    I like nuance as much as the next guy. But the relationship between labor and capital is kind of like predator and prey. Yes, sure, in the broad sense they're all part of the same ecosystem and if that ecosystem does well it can get to a happy stable state where each community prospers. That's certainly true. But also on a day to day level one of the parties is literally trying to consume the other one.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > the relationship between labor and capital is kind of like predator and prey. That is not inherent. Businesses have mutually beneficial relationships with suppliers and customers. Transactions are win-win. There's nothing fundamentally different between a business and its employees, and no reason why the relationship cannot be win-win. But unions frame their negotiations in terms of win-lose. This is a sad state of affairs.
      - anoojb 4y ago
        This point reminds me of Costco's Mission Statement and Code of Ethics. It's so simple and easy, but for reason it's really hard for companies to copy/paste into their organizations. https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/829/~/what-is-costcos-mission-statement-and-code-of-ethics%3F https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8... I inherently agree that this is a good Code of Ethics. It comes down to whether the people at these organizations conduct themselves in a way that embodies these principles. In the OP and my specific cases it was not the case. My position is that these principles are difficult and not particularly well adopted.
      - greenyoda 4y ago
        > no reason why the relationship cannot be win-win Although it can be win-win in theory, it frequently isn't in practice. A well-known example of companies working against their own employees is the "anti-poaching" policy illegally agreed to by Google, Apple and others a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... There was no union here trying to create an adversarial situation. It was simply corporate greed (on the part of some of the most profitable companies in the world).
akiselev 4y ago
> This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability. That probably explains why most VC-funded businesses these days aren't profitable, even after they IPO :-) Liquidation preference does not make for happy employees.
akhmatova 4y ago
Having happy employees is very good for business profitability. It's what these companies pretend to believe, at least. Whether they actually, in reality, act in a way that make their employees happy -- or in a manner that is even fair or rational, by any detached observation -- is an entirely different matter.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Keep in mind that one cannot make everyone happy, ever.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
> This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability. If it was true, then you'd think more companies would care about their employees. Amazon treats their warehouse and delivery people as disposable. > The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as adversarial, which is a huge mistake. If employers were treating their employees well, they wouldn't need a union.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Starbucks treats their employees well. https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benefits-and-perks/ https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benef...
  - csomar 4y ago
    In my opinion, the Barista makes or breaks the coffee place. It never made sense to me how some coffeeshops mis-hire for baristas/servers. Starbucks got this right, and they have (most times) highly qualified staff even in foreign countries. This is not the same for Amazon. What you care about is delivery time and choice and they are doing well in that front.
    - trimethylpurine 4y ago
      To each his own. I'd rank Starbucks at the bottom, and I've never heard different in any country outside the US. I've also noticed that their foreign shops are strictly in American tourist traps, which seems like a very good strategy for expanding into countries that generally frown on their coffee, and their atmosphere.
csomar 4y ago
YC companies are in the business of raising the next funding round. It creates different incentives and management styles.