7 ms·

> If they can do this, they can pay salaries another month If leadership decides to use the remaining funds on salaries rather than severance - then they shoul

> If they can do this, they can pay salaries another month If leadership decides to use the remaining funds on salaries rather than severance - then they should be judged on that! What good is buying one extra month for a doomed company? That month is more valuable to individual employees who can use it to look for new jobs

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> What good is buying one extra month for a doomed company? You don't know it's doomed. Plenty of companies have turned around while running on fumes. This is fundamental to start-ups. > month is more valuable to individual employees who can use it to look for new jobs Everyone who lost their jobs at Convoy is eligible for unemployment. The same unemployment most workers get when they're fired. Perhaps the discussion should be around improving this benefit for everyone?
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > You don't know it's doomed. It's swell when people gamble with employees well-being on the miniscule odds of a miracle. And even better idea is to offer severance, and those employees with the same appetite for risk can get additional options from the folks who leave. That'd be a win/win, except for the leadership who would rather gamble using other peoples chips but keep most of the winnings. > Everyone who lost their jobs at Convoy is eligible for unemployment Unemployment benefits don't come anywhere close to tech salaries! They take time to process. > Perhaps the discussion should be around improving this benefit for everyone? We can multitask. What is in my power to control is to avoid working with anyone associated with this decision and encourage everyone else to do the same - board-members and the entire C-Suite. We have a - let's call it poor culture fit
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > It's swell when people gamble with employees well-being on the miniscule odds of a miracle You don't know the odds ex ante! Again, they would have been roundly criticized if they'd prioritized severance (which means more for the highly paid) and preferred stockholders over their rank-and-file common holders. > Unemployment benefits don't come anywhere close to tech salaries! They take time to process You're arguing for special treatment of well-paid tech workers over e.g. truck drivers [1]. > What is in my power to control is to avoid working with anyone associated with this decision and encourage everyone else to do the same The solution is to not work for a start-up. That, or gain empathy for the tens of millions of Americans who work for a restaurant or with variable hours or on contracts that provide them with zero heads up when business conditions change or their employer goes under. [1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/08/09/51c3-a09.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/08/09/51c3-a09.html
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > You don't know the odds ex ante! No, you can simply choose your cut off time for a hail-mary at 2 months of runway, rather than 0 months of runway. Leaders don't have to rundown the clock (and bank balance) to 0 - they may choose to, like they did in this instance. > You're arguing for special treatment of well-paid tech workers over e.g. truck drivers Again, no. I'm arguing against your suggestion that the Convoy folks without severance are going to be alright because they have unemployment. I hope none of them are on H-1B visas as they just lost all control to when their clock starts ticking. > The solution is to not work for a start-up This is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of startups led by people who do right by their employees; I have worked with some before of them, and I will not hesitate to work with them again in the future because I trust them not to screw me over like this.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > you simply choosing your cut off time for a hail-mary at 2 months of runway I'm saying it isn't that simple to project runway in some businesses. > arguing against your suggestion that the employees without severance are going to be alright because they have severance Sorry, we agree on this. This will suck for everyone involved. If it was preventable, that's on management. > plenty if startups led by people who do right by their employees When push comes to shove, constraints apply. Shutting down a start-up with cash in the bank isn't something that happens without a fight. There will be lawyers, possibly lawsuits, and delays. Convoy had $100+ million in debt; the employees would have had to fight claims of wrongful conveyance. Put another another way: the CEO paid employees another few months' salary instead of handing that cash to its lenders.
    - ditonal 3y ago
      So tired of companies that raise hundreds of millions from some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world trying to pull the “we’re a startup” card. You’re not two dudes eating ramen in a garage and you don’t get to use that image to excuse your shitty behavior. Also tired of the “other people in poverty are exploited even worse! You asking for basic labor protections shows your lack of empathy for them!” I’m seriously having a hard time imagining any of this was written in good faith. The real solution is, and always will be, collective bargaining. These VCs aren’t going to make sure you have healthcare. They could give it to you directly, or they could use their wealth and power to make sure the government gives it to you. People ask “what can a union do? My office already has free kombucha”. Imagine if all the SWEs at all these VCs backed companies went on strike unless the laid off Convoy employees got six months of healthcare (it would have been in the initial employment contract). The money for this stuff would magically materialize. It doesn’t materialize because there’s no organization to advocate for it, it’s that simple.
  - bhhaskin 3y ago
    That is the risk of working at a startup as an employee though. If you aren't willing to take that risk don't work at a startup.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Don’t join a fucking startup if you can’t handle it shutting down at any given moment. If you want employment stability join a profitable company or the federal government. > That'd be a win/win, except for the leadership who would rather gamble using other peoples chips but keep most of the winnings. It’s a startup! You’re there to try to make the options work out as an employee as well. I would 100% rather ride to the end with any chance that it will take off. They failed to get a loan in time, it’s not like they knew it was a fantasy that could never work out. They had a viable business and got caught in counter-party risk.
- webdood90 3y ago
  > Perhaps the discussion should be around improving this benefit for everyone? Red herring You're participating in mental gymnastics to validate what is essentially poor leadership. Why?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > to validate what is essentially poor leadership We don't have enough information to know if it was reckless leadership. If the CEO had an email from a reputable lender saying we'll have funds in your bank account in two weeks, it would have been irresponsible for him to shut down the company to pay off creditors, preferred shareholders and severances. I'm not advocating for the CEO. Just against condemning him while in the maelstrom. More fundamentally, there is a thread through this discussion which essentially holds that tech workers--we're highly paid!--should have post-termination benefits others don't.
    - hluska 3y ago
      You responded to that with even more mental gymnastics - this time a ‘reputable lender’ who will jump in with an emergency loan then run off. Then you’ve thrown in another red herring claiming this thread argues that tech workers should have more options. Nobody said anything close. Rather, the argument is that letting your company run down to zero is irresponsible.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        If the hypothetical of terms on the table for a loan is a red herring, so is the supposition that management had months of visibility into their demise. Convoy wasn't a pure software business. It didn't operate on massive gross margins; it was operationally (and financially) levered. Decades-old trucking companies are going down unexpectedly; I'm not sure why HN's armchair executives figure they could have called this cleaner.
        FireBeyond 3y ago
        At least two ex-Convoy employees have posted in this thread saying they are "extremely unsurprised" that this happened, and could see it coming. Handwaving away things like you have doesn't add value - many of us have worked at startups, and the warning signs are common and repeated. A handwaving dismissal along the lines of "plenty of companies have turned things around at the last moment, running on fumes, so it would have been irresponsible for Convoy to do anything but run it to zero!" is disingenuous, fatuous or both.
- eru 3y ago
  > Everyone who lost their jobs at Convoy is eligible for unemployment. The same unemployment most workers get when they're fired. Perhaps the discussion should be around improving this benefit for everyone? I think you can take out private unemployment insurance, if you are worried about that? (Or just have savings.)
addicted 3y ago
Weren’t they trying to get a cash infusion through an acquisition? Seems like they failed and ran out of money.
stuaxo 3y ago
This is why you need laws. In other countries they would have to pay the salaries.
- yellow_postit 3y ago
  We have laws. There’s a trade off between more vibrant economies (easier to start, fail, start again) and more stagnant ones (harder to start but more safety nets). There’s no perfect set point and the trade offs will always have downsides. Given the risks of working for a company in the stage Convoy was in I’m not exactly sure this is a bad outcome.
vidarh 3y ago
The problem is you don't always know it's doomed. A company I co-founded got to within 5 days of insolvency before we secured the next $5m round. The company never got a big exit, but it did sell a few years later, and the product still exists 22 years after. I think the big question is how well communicated the risks are. In our case I believe everyone knew, and there'd have been no hard feelings if people had chosen to look for new jobs once funds got tight.
- rdl 3y ago
  FedEx famously got to within days of running out of money early on, and there is a story Fred Smith made payroll by taking the remaining cash to Las Vegas and gambling.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> What good is buying one extra month for a doomed company? You don't know it's doomed. Plenty of companies have turned around while running on fumes. This is fundamental to start-ups. > month is more valuable to individual employees who can use it to look for new jobs Everyone who lost their jobs at Convoy is eligible for unemployment. The same unemployment most workers get when they're fired. Perhaps the discussion should be around improving this benefit for everyone?

sangnoir 3y ago
> You don't know it's doomed. It's swell when people gamble with employees well-being on the miniscule odds of a miracle. And even better idea is to offer severance, and those employees with the same appetite for risk can get additional options from the folks who leave. That'd be a win/win, except for the leadership who would rather gamble using other peoples chips but keep most of the winnings. > Everyone who lost their jobs at Convoy is eligible for unemployment Unemployment benefits don't come anywhere close to tech salaries! They take time to process. > Perhaps the discussion should be around improving this benefit for everyone? We can multitask. What is in my power to control is to avoid working with anyone associated with this decision and encourage everyone else to do the same - board-members and the entire C-Suite. We have a - let's call it poor culture fit
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > It's swell when people gamble with employees well-being on the miniscule odds of a miracle You don't know the odds ex ante! Again, they would have been roundly criticized if they'd prioritized severance (which means more for the highly paid) and preferred stockholders over their rank-and-file common holders. > Unemployment benefits don't come anywhere close to tech salaries! They take time to process You're arguing for special treatment of well-paid tech workers over e.g. truck drivers [1]. > What is in my power to control is to avoid working with anyone associated with this decision and encourage everyone else to do the same The solution is to not work for a start-up. That, or gain empathy for the tens of millions of Americans who work for a restaurant or with variable hours or on contracts that provide them with zero heads up when business conditions change or their employer goes under. [1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/08/09/51c3-a09.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/08/09/51c3-a09.html
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > You don't know the odds ex ante! No, you can simply choose your cut off time for a hail-mary at 2 months of runway, rather than 0 months of runway. Leaders don't have to rundown the clock (and bank balance) to 0 - they may choose to, like they did in this instance. > You're arguing for special treatment of well-paid tech workers over e.g. truck drivers Again, no. I'm arguing against your suggestion that the Convoy folks without severance are going to be alright because they have unemployment. I hope none of them are on H-1B visas as they just lost all control to when their clock starts ticking. > The solution is to not work for a start-up This is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of startups led by people who do right by their employees; I have worked with some before of them, and I will not hesitate to work with them again in the future because I trust them not to screw me over like this.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > you simply choosing your cut off time for a hail-mary at 2 months of runway I'm saying it isn't that simple to project runway in some businesses. > arguing against your suggestion that the employees without severance are going to be alright because they have severance Sorry, we agree on this. This will suck for everyone involved. If it was preventable, that's on management. > plenty if startups led by people who do right by their employees When push comes to shove, constraints apply. Shutting down a start-up with cash in the bank isn't something that happens without a fight. There will be lawyers, possibly lawsuits, and delays. Convoy had $100+ million in debt; the employees would have had to fight claims of wrongful conveyance. Put another another way: the CEO paid employees another few months' salary instead of handing that cash to its lenders.
  - ditonal 3y ago
    So tired of companies that raise hundreds of millions from some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world trying to pull the “we’re a startup” card. You’re not two dudes eating ramen in a garage and you don’t get to use that image to excuse your shitty behavior. Also tired of the “other people in poverty are exploited even worse! You asking for basic labor protections shows your lack of empathy for them!” I’m seriously having a hard time imagining any of this was written in good faith. The real solution is, and always will be, collective bargaining. These VCs aren’t going to make sure you have healthcare. They could give it to you directly, or they could use their wealth and power to make sure the government gives it to you. People ask “what can a union do? My office already has free kombucha”. Imagine if all the SWEs at all these VCs backed companies went on strike unless the laid off Convoy employees got six months of healthcare (it would have been in the initial employment contract). The money for this stuff would magically materialize. It doesn’t materialize because there’s no organization to advocate for it, it’s that simple.
- bhhaskin 3y ago
  That is the risk of working at a startup as an employee though. If you aren't willing to take that risk don't work at a startup.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Don’t join a fucking startup if you can’t handle it shutting down at any given moment. If you want employment stability join a profitable company or the federal government. > That'd be a win/win, except for the leadership who would rather gamble using other peoples chips but keep most of the winnings. It’s a startup! You’re there to try to make the options work out as an employee as well. I would 100% rather ride to the end with any chance that it will take off. They failed to get a loan in time, it’s not like they knew it was a fantasy that could never work out. They had a viable business and got caught in counter-party risk.
webdood90 3y ago
> Perhaps the discussion should be around improving this benefit for everyone? Red herring You're participating in mental gymnastics to validate what is essentially poor leadership. Why?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > to validate what is essentially poor leadership We don't have enough information to know if it was reckless leadership. If the CEO had an email from a reputable lender saying we'll have funds in your bank account in two weeks, it would have been irresponsible for him to shut down the company to pay off creditors, preferred shareholders and severances. I'm not advocating for the CEO. Just against condemning him while in the maelstrom. More fundamentally, there is a thread through this discussion which essentially holds that tech workers--we're highly paid!--should have post-termination benefits others don't.
  - hluska 3y ago
    You responded to that with even more mental gymnastics - this time a ‘reputable lender’ who will jump in with an emergency loan then run off. Then you’ve thrown in another red herring claiming this thread argues that tech workers should have more options. Nobody said anything close. Rather, the argument is that letting your company run down to zero is irresponsible.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      If the hypothetical of terms on the table for a loan is a red herring, so is the supposition that management had months of visibility into their demise. Convoy wasn't a pure software business. It didn't operate on massive gross margins; it was operationally (and financially) levered. Decades-old trucking companies are going down unexpectedly; I'm not sure why HN's armchair executives figure they could have called this cleaner.
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        At least two ex-Convoy employees have posted in this thread saying they are "extremely unsurprised" that this happened, and could see it coming. Handwaving away things like you have doesn't add value - many of us have worked at startups, and the warning signs are common and repeated. A handwaving dismissal along the lines of "plenty of companies have turned things around at the last moment, running on fumes, so it would have been irresponsible for Convoy to do anything but run it to zero!" is disingenuous, fatuous or both.
eru 3y ago
> Everyone who lost their jobs at Convoy is eligible for unemployment. The same unemployment most workers get when they're fired. Perhaps the discussion should be around improving this benefit for everyone? I think you can take out private unemployment insurance, if you are worried about that? (Or just have savings.)

addicted 3y ago

Weren’t they trying to get a cash infusion through an acquisition? Seems like they failed and ran out of money.

stuaxo 3y ago

This is why you need laws. In other countries they would have to pay the salaries.

yellow_postit 3y ago
We have laws. There’s a trade off between more vibrant economies (easier to start, fail, start again) and more stagnant ones (harder to start but more safety nets). There’s no perfect set point and the trade offs will always have downsides. Given the risks of working for a company in the stage Convoy was in I’m not exactly sure this is a bad outcome.

vidarh 3y ago

The problem is you don't always know it's doomed. A company I co-founded got to within 5 days of insolvency before we secured the next $5m round. The company never got a big exit, but it did sell a few years later, and the product still exists 22 years after. I think the big question is how well communicated the risks are. In our case I believe everyone knew, and there'd have been no hard feelings if people had chosen to look for new jobs once funds got tight.

rdl 3y ago
FedEx famously got to within days of running out of money early on, and there is a story Fred Smith made payroll by taking the remaining cash to Las Vegas and gambling.