4 ms·

The comment I replied to said OP should take the loss if they think the failure is “in good faith”. This implies that OP should give up what they’re owed to tak

The comment I replied to said OP should take the loss if they think the failure is “in good faith”. This implies that OP should give up what they’re owed to take pity on the failed business’ owners. That would be giving the owners a pass on the risk that should be inherent in starting a business venture at the expense of OP’s already-delivered labor. I stand by my tone. That kind of risk shuffling is cancer to the whole realm of private ventures and contributes to general distrust of business as a means of organizing and motivating collective human action.

maerF0x0 3y ago
One thing to consider is that Startups, Tech, the bay area, and life in general is a very small world. You'd be surprised how some good faith spread around becomes a nepotistic interview invite a few years later.
- true_religion 3y ago
  Regardless the founders should pay their employees. As a founder, I would never feel good about not paying staff. Taking care of “your people” has to be a primary responsibility or else you are spitting on their loyalty and sacrifice. However the extent to which they should take this case is pretty wide. At least the guy should ask for his wages. Maybe he should insist on them if he needs it. Should they sue the founders and get an lien on their houses? I don’t know. The first two shouldn’t remove good faith or good feeling. The third means bridges burned.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Presumably the founders that cannot pay their employees in this “good faith hypothetical” do not feel good at all about not being able to pay out. I would imagine they feel defeated and embarrassed.
    - elefanten 3y ago
      In retrospect, you were correct my tone and rhetoric were out of line. I think siblings to my original comment (written by cogitoergofutuo and itsthecourrier) did a better job by more directly problematizing the "good faith hypothetical" itself. Mismanaging your way to missing payroll twice with no satisfactory communication about it and no promises to make it up is hard to classify as "good faith", even if bad luck was involved. But I also concede that, in some cases, the cost of recouping might not be worth it.
yamtaddle 3y ago
[flagged]

maerF0x0 3y ago

One thing to consider is that Startups, Tech, the bay area, and life in general is a very small world. You'd be surprised how some good faith spread around becomes a nepotistic interview invite a few years later.

true_religion 3y ago
Regardless the founders should pay their employees. As a founder, I would never feel good about not paying staff. Taking care of “your people” has to be a primary responsibility or else you are spitting on their loyalty and sacrifice. However the extent to which they should take this case is pretty wide. At least the guy should ask for his wages. Maybe he should insist on them if he needs it. Should they sue the founders and get an lien on their houses? I don’t know. The first two shouldn’t remove good faith or good feeling. The third means bridges burned.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Presumably the founders that cannot pay their employees in this “good faith hypothetical” do not feel good at all about not being able to pay out. I would imagine they feel defeated and embarrassed.
  - elefanten 3y ago
    In retrospect, you were correct my tone and rhetoric were out of line. I think siblings to my original comment (written by cogitoergofutuo and itsthecourrier) did a better job by more directly problematizing the "good faith hypothetical" itself. Mismanaging your way to missing payroll twice with no satisfactory communication about it and no promises to make it up is hard to classify as "good faith", even if bad luck was involved. But I also concede that, in some cases, the cost of recouping might not be worth it.

yamtaddle 3y ago

[flagged]