17 ms·

Big Cuts at Airy Labs, Ex-Employees Blame Management

100 points by dwynings 15y ago

blake8086 15y ago
I have a deep interest in educational games. When I found out about Airy Labs, I applied and interviewed with them in August 2011. I got the impression the engineers were very smart, and very overworked. When we got to discussing numbers, Hsu was interested in a low five-figure salary. I sent him a few emails asking about things like revenue model. I was concerned that IAP corrupts the incentive structure around education. (Just imagine, your incentive is to keep kids playing games and spending money, nowhere does education enter into it). I ultimately went to Google. Andrew seems like a sharp guy, I hope he's successful.
- jessepickard 15y ago
  I'm a co-founder of a profitable 11-person educational gaming company called MindSnacks, so I have a pretty solid perspective on what works in this space. The key to making IAP work in an educational gaming company is keeping things really simple. We give away one lesson for free and then offer the remaining 49 for a one-time $5.00 fee. If you get greedy and try to squeeze payments out of your user at every turn, you might make a tiny bit more money, but you're certain to lose a long-term customer that might buy multiple apps. We pay a lot of attention to our cross-use (users with more than one app) and retention numbers. We've found that the more you try to monetize like a traditional social games company, the more these numbers start to drop.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - fvryan 15y ago
    love mindsnacks! glad to see japanese under dev
- DanielRibeiro 15y ago
  Unfortunately this is unsurprising. Making things is only 1 out of (at least) 12 skills needed on a startup[1]. Not being aware of these is probably one of the reasons that explains the hard transitions for engineers to become founders, and again for founders to become CEOs (as pointed out by Guy Kawasaki[2]). [1] http://swombat.com/2012/1/23/startup-skill-set http://swombat.com/2012/1/23/startup-skill-set [2] http://video.svb.com/video/12-Lessons-Steve-Jobs-Taught-Gu http://video.svb.com/video/12-Lessons-Steve-Jobs-Taught-Gu
latch 15y ago
This speaks to me against Peter Thiel's "20 under 20" program as it all seems to come down to lack of maturity and experience (and inflated ego).
- Alex3917 15y ago
  I think this says more about entrepreneurs in the education space than it does about the program. For whatever reason this space seems to consistently attract shady and/or underqualified people. I think the reason is that education is an area where you can't really contribute anything of value unless you are well versed in the science. Because of this it's really easy to snow virtually everyone, from investors and the media to school administrators and teachers. So you consistently see lots of ideas that have zero chance of producing good results that still get lots of funding and even some initial traction.
  - biggitybones 15y ago
    I think that's a pretty broad and unfair generalization about entrepreneurs in the education space. It's not exactly a common skillset to be well versed in the science of education and technology, so I won't back down from the unqualified statement. That being said, I've yet to meet these "shady" characters you claim are attracted to the space.
    - Drbble 15y ago
      The shadiness comes in whenever a product is sold to government or generally when the person authorizing the payment isn't spending their "own" money, and when it is hard to measure the delivered value of the product. This is common for education and other government-contract work, and also happens in the private sector (for example, corporate bulk IT services shopping)
  - BenSS 15y ago
    I've admittedly seen a lot of 'why' type companies in the education space, but I think it's more the lack of familiarity than an intent to snow people. At KinderTown we do have actual teachers working for us, and even though I've been reading a ton on education topics myself there's an amazing amount of things to learn. It's a much harder space than it looks like at first.
rjdagost 15y ago
Working for a 19 year old would be a very tough sell. You learn so much about real life in your early 20's and answering to someone who hasn't gone through that "seasoning" process would not be something to look forward to. Yes, Zuckerburg pulled it off but he is definitely the exception.
- cellularmitosis 15y ago
  I'm sure it also helped that zuckerburg's parents weren't secretly doubling as the company's senior management. YIKES.
  - ronness 15y ago
    That must have been the most awkward workplace ever. Working for two asian parents...that's probably a recipe for disaster
    - nknight 15y ago
      Perhaps you could take your racist stereotypes elsewhere?
      - hello_moto 15y ago
        I don't condone racist stereotypes but at the same time this isn't the first, second, third, or fourth time something like this had happened specifically with a typical traditional Chinese family-run business. Same patterns, similar "cut the oxygen" strategy, same outcome.
        nknight 15y ago
        This is textbook confirmation bias, you're focusing on the most visible factor that you expect to see. It's a very common way for people to rationalize their racist views.
        15y ago
feralchimp 15y ago
With 20 people riding in a $1.5M raft, you need to know exactly where you're headed and why. Security-wise, you'd almost rather be in an actual raft.
- fleitz 15y ago
  You shouldn't even care where the raft is heading, you know it's inevitably to the bottom of the ocean, you should instead figure out what the value system is in the business and create more value than anyone else so you can get the money off the raft and onto your powerboat.
- joshu 15y ago
  Indeed. That's absurd. My rule of thumb: $1m is ~8 staff in full for one year.
a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
"when you bring up the “team” page of the Airy Labs website, you now get a 404 error message." Because the team is now 404: not found. "employees were told not to speak to anyone who had left the company." Oh, so it's a cult then. Understood.
pg_bot 15y ago
"We thought when we started Y Combinator that the most important quality would be intelligence. That's the myth in the Valley. And certainly you don't want founders to be stupid. But as long as you're over a certain threshold of intelligence, what matters most is determination. You're going to hit a lot of obstacles. You can't be the sort of person who gets demoralized easily."
rachelbythebay 15y ago
"Employees were warned against socializing or discussing their compensation with other members of the team." People working in the US really need to know about the National Labor Relations Act and what it means in terms of discussing salaries. Not having this kind of information out there is a bad thing for employees and lovely for conniving bosses.
- temphn 15y ago
  Oh yeah, the NLRA. As opposed to just quitting and finding a better job? Getting the government (or unions) involved in variably makes a situation like this worse. Just walk away.
  - michael_dorfman 15y ago
    I think you are misunderstanding the point. The NLRA grants you the right to discuss your wages with your co-workers. Companies are not allowed to prohibit this, and more people should be made aware of their rights under the NLRA.
    - derekp7 15y ago
      So if you are making more than you colleague, and he finds out, then your boss has to spend a greater portion of the next pay increase funds to up his pay. Guess who's raise those funds come out of? It doesn't matter what is legal to do, sometimes it is still not a good idea to discuss compensation.
      - Tautologistics 15y ago
        Conversely, if you happened to be the one getting paid less, it would be to your benefit to discuss salary.
      - michael_dorfman 15y ago
        Whether or not it is a good idea to do so is not the point. The point is that it is against the law for the company to prohibit those discussion (as the company in the OP did). Companies that have policies in violation of labor laws are probably not the best places to be working.
JS_startup 15y ago
This sounds like a culture clash. Asian cultures (Korean and Chinese specifically) have a really unique family dynamic which you could describe as boundaryless; I worked for a Korean entrepreneur for a while and he said it's a foregone conclusion that if the business strikes it big his family members get to come share in the success. Hsu should have tried harder to understand the cultural dynamic in the US.
- coryl 15y ago
  Not that I know for a fact, but I'd think he was born in the US.
  - JS_startup 15y ago
    I'm speculating as well. From the article it sounds like he is second generation Korean or Chinese.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  As an Asian, this only half true. When reading the article, the management style did strike me as extremely Chinese, though it should be noted that even in Asia this sort of managerial obsessiveness is still largely frowned upon by employees. Obvious nepotism, excessive involvement from non-employee family members, all of that stuff is just as sketchy in Asia as it is here, though sadly still more common.
bane 15y ago
"They say the Hsus refused to commit anything to writing, and would become angry if anyone complained via email (rather than verbally)." I've seen this before. This is usually so that there isn't any evidence of the communication stored anywhere. A very bad sign of a Machiavellian management style that I've never seen end well. Employees were warned against socializing or discussing their compensation with other members of the team. At the same time, office life was obsessively documented in photos, a practice that extended to people interviewing for jobs. And here is where it gets really weird. You can't have evidence about how the company operates, but they can document you.
- fleitz 15y ago
  It's not weird at all, it's the hallmark of any police state.
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  I got burned on this one before too. If management refuses to communicate in written format, then they are up to no good.
tansey 15y ago
I think it's unfair to jump on the guy as being naive or young. I don't know if people who setup these dysfunctional workplaces ever improve. He probably is just not great at running a business, end of story. If you're a controlling person when it comes to your personal relationships, you won't likely be a great founder. You need to understand that everyone has their own goals, dreams, and desires in life. Your employees are not just things you put money into and productivity out of, they're people who will produce way more than you expect if you treat them well. Maybe I'm biased though. My dad ran four small businesses in his life and the main thing that kept both the employees and customers coming back was that he was well-liked and personable with everyone. Being a recent co-founder of a startup, I am managing a team of 8 contractors and consultants right now. Each one has their benefits and flaws, but I'm happy to work with them and willing to be flexible around schedules, etc. It would never enter my mind to setup such a draconian system and I think anyone who does is probably inherently broken as a founder.
- mgkimsal 15y ago
  take "founder" out of the equation. systems like this (no written communication, no talking to ex-employees, etc) are just not good, full stop. It may be easier to get away with in larger companies because there's already a revenue stream (and presumably profits) in place to continue to fund bringing in new blood, but regardless of a "startup" vs a long-standing company, these are just bad practices.
jfarmer 15y ago
What a vulgar article. I don't know Andrew Hsu and from the sound of it, neither did Anthony Ha or anyone who commented on it (there, or here). Airy Labs may be poorly run. There are dozens of small, well-funded startups that are poorly run. The scale of what Anthony is writing about is so small, but he's done real damage to Andrew's reputation. Was the schadenfreude worth that? Articles like this are one of the worst aspects of startup culture. It's our version of reality TV -- taking smug delight in the bruising (merited or not) of another person. And if you say, no! Honest! This is an important article. Now people know to avoid this awful company. I suppose we'll have to disagree. Anthony wrote this not because it's a public service, but because everyone loves juicy gossip. Especially gossip about a wunderkind getting knocked down a few pegs. I also think the employees are cowards for giving up that gossip, e.g., the x@airylabs.com email address, but remaining anonymous.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  > "The scale of what Anthony is writing about is so small, but he's done real damage to Andrew's reputation." If the claims in the article are true, the company was being run like a police state, worse than most of the Big-Company shops that we love to deride here on HN. A borderline abusive work environment that's policed over by the family patriarch and matriarch... that's "small stuff"?! Damage to one's reputation is only unfair if the claims leveled against you aren't true. I suspect we haven't heard the last salvo fired in this whole brouhaha, but if these claims are on the mark, I'd say reputation hit deserved.
  - jfarmer 15y ago
    Internet-scale vigilantism has an awful side effect: it can never be entirely walked back. The damage has been done and the crowd is happy. They have their circus.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism". We've seen the ugly side of internet vigilantism - anonymous accusations, no chance to respond, personal information posted online, threats and intimidation, the works. But yet, that's not what has happened here - it strikes me as disingenuous to try and color this with a weasel word like "vigilantism" when nothing of the sort has happened. In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism". Unprofessional perhaps, but vigilantism? Get real.
nirvana 15y ago
TL;DR: I have had this experience. Don't try to reason with creepy management. Don't work somewhere that you're not being fairly compensated for (Even if its not cash, it needs to be fair.) They'll never change, and if you let them give you a raw deal, they'll never give you a fair one. I've worked in this situation. No way to know specifically what happened at Airy, but I worked for a company that was almost exactly as Airy is being described. Paranoid management, a creepy family dynamic, micromanagement, lots of promises never honored, loyalty lectures and under pay over worked staff, who bought into the vision and were essentially being exploited. When I realized what was what, I went and found a better job. After I quit, I was talked into coming back to help answer some questions to help the person who I'd handed my work off to (I had reached a good stopping point, the code was shippable and gave them plenty of notice.) When I got there, I got talked into the CEOs office who proceeded to lecture me about how I was disloyal, and demanded I give them several weeks of extra work. I told them that I couldn't do this and made to leave. The CEO physically barred me from leaving, and I was held against my will, until I promised to give them a couple weeks of free work. They didn't hold me long because I quickly agreed to do it....luckily they didn't try to make me sign anything right then and there, and once I got out of there I sent them an email telling them that I'd be happy to do the work, and naming an outrageous price for it. The really sad thing is, I'd showed up for free, to help them, to do the work, and instead of taking the offered help, they tried to manipulate and coerce me into giving them a lot more. This disturbed me for several years until I came to understand the deal. I had been exploited. The person who ran the company knew nothing about technology but was basically a grifter-- a manipulator-- a conman. So, obviously to them, there's no difference between getting uncompensated work when I was an employee, an manipulating me into uncompensated work after I'd decided to leave. The lesson I learned- - and the reason for this long story is this: These people cannot be reasoned with. Just leave. Don't engage them, don't debate them, and don't expect them to be reasonable. They aren't operating by the same rules you are. I've been in the startup scene for two decades-- since well before the first dotcom boom. I've seen a fair number of this stuff, and pretty quickly got to where I could tell when a company was that way during the interview. (In Seattle, in the 1990s there were a lot of ex-microsoft millionaires who'd never worked anywhere else and thought their microsoft experience made them competent to run companies...it was quite a minefield for awhile.) Some key signs: -- Primary thing: If any of the people are super creepy, or come off as hustlers, fratboys or conmen, be careful. If it feels like you're talking to a Winklevoss (as portrayed in the movie anyway) that's a big red flag. -- Ask arbitrary questions that they wouldn't have a pat answer for about employee benefits or having to do with how they treat employees. I used to always ask about parking. If they provided a parking space for me that was a good sign, but most didn't.... when they didn't they'd have all kinds of BS about it. (Downtown seattle there is no good parking, not once did I have a job there with decent parking... I started making a requirement of being hired that they get me a spot in a lot and pay the monthly fee. Its only $160 a month, or so, not a big hit on the salary, but the hard part is acquiring the spot.) A lot of people would BS me about parking, because I was coming from out of Seattle so they'd assume I didn't know the score. -- Ask them if they provide a bus pass. Ask them if they provide cell phones or subsidize employee personal computers. Ask them how often they take employees out for dinner. It doesn't matter whether they do any of these things, it matters how they answer. -- talking to individual employees will often give you the reality. Ask them how often people go to lunch together and if the employees ever associate outside the office. It doesn't matter the answer, but you're looking for employees who are fearful of management, or who have that form of stockholm syndrome that shows up in startups. -- Read the NDA they ask you to sign. IF they ask you to give up rights to your inventions in the interview its a big freaking clue that management is psychotic. (Yes, I have been asked to sign that kind of document before even interviewing. Its normal when you take the job, but not for an interview.) -- If their NDA gives them the right to audit you for two years, including sending investigators to your home and office to search for stolen documents-- and they ask you to sign this before the interview- the company is psychotic. (And yes, this happened to me too.. the HR person was absolutely shocked that I was unwilling to sign it, and thought I was being a prima donna. I asked her if she'd actually read it, and she hadn't, and when I suggested she should, she said "Its just a standard NDA." -- If the receptionist is the kind of person whose Facebook profile would have a duck face, and she acts snooty to you, that's a big clue right there (I can't explain this one, but there's a strong correlation.) -- Always try to talk to the CEO or management. Ask them pesky questions and see how they react. Often I'd be told the company was profitable or that they'd be "filing for an IPO in a couple of years." I'd ask to talk to the CFO (and the CEO afterwards). I'd as the CFO questions like "What's the total number of shares outstanding on a fully diluted basis?" If they don't know, you don't want to work there. If they refuse to tell you, then any offer they make that includes stock options is a meaningless offer. Most people don't ask questions like this, but they are actually reasonable. (Of course if you're interviewing at Facebook, you're not likely to get to talk to the CFO, but I am talking about small companies.) If they were profitable I'd ask the CFO about margins. If they were "going public" I'd ask the CFO what he thought about that and what kind of a valuation he thought they might be able to get. Some questions they can't answer or might want to be careful about making too much commitment.... -- Ask the CEO how he feels about computers (or some piece of technology relevant to the business.) The CEO doesn't have to be a programmer-- but I've had CEOs denigrate technical skills, or pretend like they're just as technical as the technical people even when its obvious they aren't. Its better for a CEO to admit his limitations than to BS you, and even if he's computer illiterate, his attitude is what's important. Is he the kind of guy who will shove technology decisions down the throats of engineers? Ask some questions of the CTO or head of engineering, will he dictate technology decisions? The real question you want to find out is this: Is the CEO or anyone in management a grade a bullshittter conman? Or is he making absurd claims or promises? If he is, then he's not trustworthy, and any job offer from him is meaningless. (Once took a job with a very new company that said they were just starting to set up health insurance... over a year later they hadn't gotten around to it, but it turned out that the executive management was, of course, on a health plan.) Another key- if they're in super fancy digs- temporary or otherwise- its a big warning sign. Sorry this is so long. Sure there are companies that might have one or more of these qualities that are actually legit, good places. This is just some of the stuff I started to look for.
startupcto 15y ago
It's the valley. People learn and move on. Same for Hsu and same for the people working there. Most importantly at what price? In this case it's 1.5M and a whole lot of reflecting.
hongquan 15y ago
I'll probably get flamed/negative karma for this, but here goes. I actually know the folks involved so I won't comment on any of the details. Anthony and Andrew are both doing their jobs. How well they are doing it is up to you to decide. I will say that taking one startup's stumble, or even their eventual demise, as a data-point to slam a whole program is pretty harsh. I'm a Mentor for 20 Under 20 and I certainly don't think the mission is to get kids to drop out of college, but it's easy for the media to push this little sound bite. If you've meet any of the Fellows you would know they're out to change the world and would likely do so with or without Peter's money. Failure is the expected outcome for the vast majority of startups. All you Founders here know that, or will learn it first hand. Most of these kids have never failed at anything in their lives, and will unfortunately face these hard lessons in the public eye. It's really easy to criticize and grab pitchforks online. You can think whatever you want about the situation at Airy Labs and you are entitled to your opinion of Andrew Hsu as well. But to try and lump all the other Fellows into this is unfair to them and quite disappointing.
- ptiaf 15y ago
  if you don't think 20 under 20 is an attack to get kids to drop out of college (and not attend in the first place) you've paid no attention to Thiel over the years. He's viciously anti-university due to his opposition to multiculturalism.
  - andrewem 15y ago
    I had never heard multiculturalism mentioned in reference to Thiel (I'm no expert on him), but apparently he co-wrote a book called "The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford". Looks like there were 1996 and 1998 editions with slightly different titles. [0], [1] [0] http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-Multiculturalism-Politics-Intolerance/dp/0945999429 http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-Multiculturalism-Politi... [1] http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-David-Sacks/dp/0945999763 http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-David-Sacks/dp/09459997...
cycle 15y ago
Good luck to everyone involved. Hope you continue to live your dream. Here is to treating others as you would like to be treated.
bluefun 15y ago
test
bluefun 15y ago
It's almost funny to see the screwed up founder and his family desperately defend themselves, against the whole world. Learn from your mistakes! You ruined the lives of 20 ex-employees!

100 points by dwynings 15y ago

I have a deep interest in educational games. When I found out about Airy Labs, I applied and interviewed with them in August 2011. I got the impression the engineers were very smart, and very overworked. When we got to discussing numbers, Hsu was interested in a low five-figure salary. I sent him a few emails asking about things like revenue model. I was concerned that IAP corrupts the incentive structure around education. (Just imagine, your incentive is to keep kids playing games and spending money, nowhere does education enter into it). I ultimately went to Google. Andrew seems like a sharp guy, I hope he's successful.

jessepickard 15y ago
I'm a co-founder of a profitable 11-person educational gaming company called MindSnacks, so I have a pretty solid perspective on what works in this space. The key to making IAP work in an educational gaming company is keeping things really simple. We give away one lesson for free and then offer the remaining 49 for a one-time $5.00 fee. If you get greedy and try to squeeze payments out of your user at every turn, you might make a tiny bit more money, but you're certain to lose a long-term customer that might buy multiple apps. We pay a lot of attention to our cross-use (users with more than one app) and retention numbers. We've found that the more you try to monetize like a traditional social games company, the more these numbers start to drop.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- fvryan 15y ago
  love mindsnacks! glad to see japanese under dev
DanielRibeiro 15y ago
Unfortunately this is unsurprising. Making things is only 1 out of (at least) 12 skills needed on a startup[1]. Not being aware of these is probably one of the reasons that explains the hard transitions for engineers to become founders, and again for founders to become CEOs (as pointed out by Guy Kawasaki[2]). [1] http://swombat.com/2012/1/23/startup-skill-set http://swombat.com/2012/1/23/startup-skill-set [2] http://video.svb.com/video/12-Lessons-Steve-Jobs-Taught-Gu http://video.svb.com/video/12-Lessons-Steve-Jobs-Taught-Gu

latch 15y ago

This speaks to me against Peter Thiel's "20 under 20" program as it all seems to come down to lack of maturity and experience (and inflated ego).

Alex3917 15y ago
I think this says more about entrepreneurs in the education space than it does about the program. For whatever reason this space seems to consistently attract shady and/or underqualified people. I think the reason is that education is an area where you can't really contribute anything of value unless you are well versed in the science. Because of this it's really easy to snow virtually everyone, from investors and the media to school administrators and teachers. So you consistently see lots of ideas that have zero chance of producing good results that still get lots of funding and even some initial traction.
- biggitybones 15y ago
  I think that's a pretty broad and unfair generalization about entrepreneurs in the education space. It's not exactly a common skillset to be well versed in the science of education and technology, so I won't back down from the unqualified statement. That being said, I've yet to meet these "shady" characters you claim are attracted to the space.
  - Drbble 15y ago
    The shadiness comes in whenever a product is sold to government or generally when the person authorizing the payment isn't spending their "own" money, and when it is hard to measure the delivered value of the product. This is common for education and other government-contract work, and also happens in the private sector (for example, corporate bulk IT services shopping)
- BenSS 15y ago
  I've admittedly seen a lot of 'why' type companies in the education space, but I think it's more the lack of familiarity than an intent to snow people. At KinderTown we do have actual teachers working for us, and even though I've been reading a ton on education topics myself there's an amazing amount of things to learn. It's a much harder space than it looks like at first.

rjdagost 15y ago

Working for a 19 year old would be a very tough sell. You learn so much about real life in your early 20's and answering to someone who hasn't gone through that "seasoning" process would not be something to look forward to. Yes, Zuckerburg pulled it off but he is definitely the exception.

cellularmitosis 15y ago
I'm sure it also helped that zuckerburg's parents weren't secretly doubling as the company's senior management. YIKES.
- ronness 15y ago
  That must have been the most awkward workplace ever. Working for two asian parents...that's probably a recipe for disaster
  - nknight 15y ago
    Perhaps you could take your racist stereotypes elsewhere?
    - hello_moto 15y ago
      I don't condone racist stereotypes but at the same time this isn't the first, second, third, or fourth time something like this had happened specifically with a typical traditional Chinese family-run business. Same patterns, similar "cut the oxygen" strategy, same outcome.
      - nknight 15y ago
        This is textbook confirmation bias, you're focusing on the most visible factor that you expect to see. It's a very common way for people to rationalize their racist views.
        15y ago

feralchimp 15y ago

With 20 people riding in a $1.5M raft, you need to know exactly where you're headed and why. Security-wise, you'd almost rather be in an actual raft.

fleitz 15y ago
You shouldn't even care where the raft is heading, you know it's inevitably to the bottom of the ocean, you should instead figure out what the value system is in the business and create more value than anyone else so you can get the money off the raft and onto your powerboat.
joshu 15y ago
Indeed. That's absurd. My rule of thumb: $1m is ~8 staff in full for one year.

a_a_r_o_n 15y ago

"when you bring up the “team” page of the Airy Labs website, you now get a 404 error message." Because the team is now 404: not found. "employees were told not to speak to anyone who had left the company." Oh, so it's a cult then. Understood.

pg_bot 15y ago

"We thought when we started Y Combinator that the most important quality would be intelligence. That's the myth in the Valley. And certainly you don't want founders to be stupid. But as long as you're over a certain threshold of intelligence, what matters most is determination. You're going to hit a lot of obstacles. You can't be the sort of person who gets demoralized easily."

rachelbythebay 15y ago

"Employees were warned against socializing or discussing their compensation with other members of the team." People working in the US really need to know about the National Labor Relations Act and what it means in terms of discussing salaries. Not having this kind of information out there is a bad thing for employees and lovely for conniving bosses.

temphn 15y ago
Oh yeah, the NLRA. As opposed to just quitting and finding a better job? Getting the government (or unions) involved in variably makes a situation like this worse. Just walk away.
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  I think you are misunderstanding the point. The NLRA grants you the right to discuss your wages with your co-workers. Companies are not allowed to prohibit this, and more people should be made aware of their rights under the NLRA.
  - derekp7 15y ago
    So if you are making more than you colleague, and he finds out, then your boss has to spend a greater portion of the next pay increase funds to up his pay. Guess who's raise those funds come out of? It doesn't matter what is legal to do, sometimes it is still not a good idea to discuss compensation.
    - Tautologistics 15y ago
      Conversely, if you happened to be the one getting paid less, it would be to your benefit to discuss salary.
    - michael_dorfman 15y ago
      Whether or not it is a good idea to do so is not the point. The point is that it is against the law for the company to prohibit those discussion (as the company in the OP did). Companies that have policies in violation of labor laws are probably not the best places to be working.

JS_startup 15y ago

This sounds like a culture clash. Asian cultures (Korean and Chinese specifically) have a really unique family dynamic which you could describe as boundaryless; I worked for a Korean entrepreneur for a while and he said it's a foregone conclusion that if the business strikes it big his family members get to come share in the success. Hsu should have tried harder to understand the cultural dynamic in the US.

coryl 15y ago
Not that I know for a fact, but I'd think he was born in the US.
- JS_startup 15y ago
  I'm speculating as well. From the article it sounds like he is second generation Korean or Chinese.
potatolicious 15y ago
As an Asian, this only half true. When reading the article, the management style did strike me as extremely Chinese, though it should be noted that even in Asia this sort of managerial obsessiveness is still largely frowned upon by employees. Obvious nepotism, excessive involvement from non-employee family members, all of that stuff is just as sketchy in Asia as it is here, though sadly still more common.

bane 15y ago

"They say the Hsus refused to commit anything to writing, and would become angry if anyone complained via email (rather than verbally)." I've seen this before. This is usually so that there isn't any evidence of the communication stored anywhere. A very bad sign of a Machiavellian management style that I've never seen end well. Employees were warned against socializing or discussing their compensation with other members of the team. At the same time, office life was obsessively documented in photos, a practice that extended to people interviewing for jobs. And here is where it gets really weird. You can't have evidence about how the company operates, but they can document you.

fleitz 15y ago
It's not weird at all, it's the hallmark of any police state.
JanezStupar 15y ago
I got burned on this one before too. If management refuses to communicate in written format, then they are up to no good.

tansey 15y ago

I think it's unfair to jump on the guy as being naive or young. I don't know if people who setup these dysfunctional workplaces ever improve. He probably is just not great at running a business, end of story. If you're a controlling person when it comes to your personal relationships, you won't likely be a great founder. You need to understand that everyone has their own goals, dreams, and desires in life. Your employees are not just things you put money into and productivity out of, they're people who will produce way more than you expect if you treat them well. Maybe I'm biased though. My dad ran four small businesses in his life and the main thing that kept both the employees and customers coming back was that he was well-liked and personable with everyone. Being a recent co-founder of a startup, I am managing a team of 8 contractors and consultants right now. Each one has their benefits and flaws, but I'm happy to work with them and willing to be flexible around schedules, etc. It would never enter my mind to setup such a draconian system and I think anyone who does is probably inherently broken as a founder.

mgkimsal 15y ago
take "founder" out of the equation. systems like this (no written communication, no talking to ex-employees, etc) are just not good, full stop. It may be easier to get away with in larger companies because there's already a revenue stream (and presumably profits) in place to continue to fund bringing in new blood, but regardless of a "startup" vs a long-standing company, these are just bad practices.

jfarmer 15y ago

What a vulgar article. I don't know Andrew Hsu and from the sound of it, neither did Anthony Ha or anyone who commented on it (there, or here). Airy Labs may be poorly run. There are dozens of small, well-funded startups that are poorly run. The scale of what Anthony is writing about is so small, but he's done real damage to Andrew's reputation. Was the schadenfreude worth that? Articles like this are one of the worst aspects of startup culture. It's our version of reality TV -- taking smug delight in the bruising (merited or not) of another person. And if you say, no! Honest! This is an important article. Now people know to avoid this awful company. I suppose we'll have to disagree. Anthony wrote this not because it's a public service, but because everyone loves juicy gossip. Especially gossip about a wunderkind getting knocked down a few pegs. I also think the employees are cowards for giving up that gossip, e.g., the x@airylabs.com email address, but remaining anonymous.

potatolicious 15y ago
> "The scale of what Anthony is writing about is so small, but he's done real damage to Andrew's reputation." If the claims in the article are true, the company was being run like a police state, worse than most of the Big-Company shops that we love to deride here on HN. A borderline abusive work environment that's policed over by the family patriarch and matriarch... that's "small stuff"?! Damage to one's reputation is only unfair if the claims leveled against you aren't true. I suspect we haven't heard the last salvo fired in this whole brouhaha, but if these claims are on the mark, I'd say reputation hit deserved.
- jfarmer 15y ago
  Internet-scale vigilantism has an awful side effect: it can never be entirely walked back. The damage has been done and the crowd is happy. They have their circus.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism". We've seen the ugly side of internet vigilantism - anonymous accusations, no chance to respond, personal information posted online, threats and intimidation, the works. But yet, that's not what has happened here - it strikes me as disingenuous to try and color this with a weasel word like "vigilantism" when nothing of the sort has happened. In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism". Unprofessional perhaps, but vigilantism? Get real.

nirvana 15y ago

TL;DR: I have had this experience. Don't try to reason with creepy management. Don't work somewhere that you're not being fairly compensated for (Even if its not cash, it needs to be fair.) They'll never change, and if you let them give you a raw deal, they'll never give you a fair one. I've worked in this situation. No way to know specifically what happened at Airy, but I worked for a company that was almost exactly as Airy is being described. Paranoid management, a creepy family dynamic, micromanagement, lots of promises never honored, loyalty lectures and under pay over worked staff, who bought into the vision and were essentially being exploited. When I realized what was what, I went and found a better job. After I quit, I was talked into coming back to help answer some questions to help the person who I'd handed my work off to (I had reached a good stopping point, the code was shippable and gave them plenty of notice.) When I got there, I got talked into the CEOs office who proceeded to lecture me about how I was disloyal, and demanded I give them several weeks of extra work. I told them that I couldn't do this and made to leave. The CEO physically barred me from leaving, and I was held against my will, until I promised to give them a couple weeks of free work. They didn't hold me long because I quickly agreed to do it....luckily they didn't try to make me sign anything right then and there, and once I got out of there I sent them an email telling them that I'd be happy to do the work, and naming an outrageous price for it. The really sad thing is, I'd showed up for free, to help them, to do the work, and instead of taking the offered help, they tried to manipulate and coerce me into giving them a lot more. This disturbed me for several years until I came to understand the deal. I had been exploited. The person who ran the company knew nothing about technology but was basically a grifter-- a manipulator-- a conman. So, obviously to them, there's no difference between getting uncompensated work when I was an employee, an manipulating me into uncompensated work after I'd decided to leave. The lesson I learned- - and the reason for this long story is this: These people cannot be reasoned with. Just leave. Don't engage them, don't debate them, and don't expect them to be reasonable. They aren't operating by the same rules you are. I've been in the startup scene for two decades-- since well before the first dotcom boom. I've seen a fair number of this stuff, and pretty quickly got to where I could tell when a company was that way during the interview. (In Seattle, in the 1990s there were a lot of ex-microsoft millionaires who'd never worked anywhere else and thought their microsoft experience made them competent to run companies...it was quite a minefield for awhile.) Some key signs: -- Primary thing: If any of the people are super creepy, or come off as hustlers, fratboys or conmen, be careful. If it feels like you're talking to a Winklevoss (as portrayed in the movie anyway) that's a big red flag. -- Ask arbitrary questions that they wouldn't have a pat answer for about employee benefits or having to do with how they treat employees. I used to always ask about parking. If they provided a parking space for me that was a good sign, but most didn't.... when they didn't they'd have all kinds of BS about it. (Downtown seattle there is no good parking, not once did I have a job there with decent parking... I started making a requirement of being hired that they get me a spot in a lot and pay the monthly fee. Its only $160 a month, or so, not a big hit on the salary, but the hard part is acquiring the spot.) A lot of people would BS me about parking, because I was coming from out of Seattle so they'd assume I didn't know the score. -- Ask them if they provide a bus pass. Ask them if they provide cell phones or subsidize employee personal computers. Ask them how often they take employees out for dinner. It doesn't matter whether they do any of these things, it matters how they answer. -- talking to individual employees will often give you the reality. Ask them how often people go to lunch together and if the employees ever associate outside the office. It doesn't matter the answer, but you're looking for employees who are fearful of management, or who have that form of stockholm syndrome that shows up in startups. -- Read the NDA they ask you to sign. IF they ask you to give up rights to your inventions in the interview its a big freaking clue that management is psychotic. (Yes, I have been asked to sign that kind of document before even interviewing. Its normal when you take the job, but not for an interview.) -- If their NDA gives them the right to audit you for two years, including sending investigators to your home and office to search for stolen documents-- and they ask you to sign this before the interview- the company is psychotic. (And yes, this happened to me too.. the HR person was absolutely shocked that I was unwilling to sign it, and thought I was being a prima donna. I asked her if she'd actually read it, and she hadn't, and when I suggested she should, she said "Its just a standard NDA." -- If the receptionist is the kind of person whose Facebook profile would have a duck face, and she acts snooty to you, that's a big clue right there (I can't explain this one, but there's a strong correlation.) -- Always try to talk to the CEO or management. Ask them pesky questions and see how they react. Often I'd be told the company was profitable or that they'd be "filing for an IPO in a couple of years." I'd ask to talk to the CFO (and the CEO afterwards). I'd as the CFO questions like "What's the total number of shares outstanding on a fully diluted basis?" If they don't know, you don't want to work there. If they refuse to tell you, then any offer they make that includes stock options is a meaningless offer. Most people don't ask questions like this, but they are actually reasonable. (Of course if you're interviewing at Facebook, you're not likely to get to talk to the CFO, but I am talking about small companies.) If they were profitable I'd ask the CFO about margins. If they were "going public" I'd ask the CFO what he thought about that and what kind of a valuation he thought they might be able to get. Some questions they can't answer or might want to be careful about making too much commitment.... -- Ask the CEO how he feels about computers (or some piece of technology relevant to the business.) The CEO doesn't have to be a programmer-- but I've had CEOs denigrate technical skills, or pretend like they're just as technical as the technical people even when its obvious they aren't. Its better for a CEO to admit his limitations than to BS you, and even if he's computer illiterate, his attitude is what's important. Is he the kind of guy who will shove technology decisions down the throats of engineers? Ask some questions of the CTO or head of engineering, will he dictate technology decisions? The real question you want to find out is this: Is the CEO or anyone in management a grade a bullshittter conman? Or is he making absurd claims or promises? If he is, then he's not trustworthy, and any job offer from him is meaningless. (Once took a job with a very new company that said they were just starting to set up health insurance... over a year later they hadn't gotten around to it, but it turned out that the executive management was, of course, on a health plan.) Another key- if they're in super fancy digs- temporary or otherwise- its a big warning sign. Sorry this is so long. Sure there are companies that might have one or more of these qualities that are actually legit, good places. This is just some of the stuff I started to look for.

startupcto 15y ago

It's the valley. People learn and move on. Same for Hsu and same for the people working there. Most importantly at what price? In this case it's 1.5M and a whole lot of reflecting.

hongquan 15y ago

I'll probably get flamed/negative karma for this, but here goes. I actually know the folks involved so I won't comment on any of the details. Anthony and Andrew are both doing their jobs. How well they are doing it is up to you to decide. I will say that taking one startup's stumble, or even their eventual demise, as a data-point to slam a whole program is pretty harsh. I'm a Mentor for 20 Under 20 and I certainly don't think the mission is to get kids to drop out of college, but it's easy for the media to push this little sound bite. If you've meet any of the Fellows you would know they're out to change the world and would likely do so with or without Peter's money. Failure is the expected outcome for the vast majority of startups. All you Founders here know that, or will learn it first hand. Most of these kids have never failed at anything in their lives, and will unfortunately face these hard lessons in the public eye. It's really easy to criticize and grab pitchforks online. You can think whatever you want about the situation at Airy Labs and you are entitled to your opinion of Andrew Hsu as well. But to try and lump all the other Fellows into this is unfair to them and quite disappointing.

ptiaf 15y ago
if you don't think 20 under 20 is an attack to get kids to drop out of college (and not attend in the first place) you've paid no attention to Thiel over the years. He's viciously anti-university due to his opposition to multiculturalism.
- andrewem 15y ago
  I had never heard multiculturalism mentioned in reference to Thiel (I'm no expert on him), but apparently he co-wrote a book called "The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford". Looks like there were 1996 and 1998 editions with slightly different titles. [0], [1] [0] http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-Multiculturalism-Politics-Intolerance/dp/0945999429 http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-Multiculturalism-Politi... [1] http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-David-Sacks/dp/0945999763 http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-David-Sacks/dp/09459997...

cycle 15y ago

Good luck to everyone involved. Hope you continue to live your dream. Here is to treating others as you would like to be treated.

bluefun 15y ago

test

bluefun 15y ago

It's almost funny to see the screwed up founder and his family desperately defend themselves, against the whole world. Learn from your mistakes! You ruined the lives of 20 ex-employees!