5 ms·

Utter crap. Rewriting history after you get called out is just pathetic. They owed him money and either through mistake or malice didn't pay him. When he conta

Utter crap. Rewriting history after you get called out is just pathetic. They owed him money and either through mistake or malice didn't pay him. When he contacted them to correct it they tried to legalize their way out of it. If I wouldn't have anything to do with them before, I'm doubly unimpressed now.

weixiyen 14y ago
They are also legally bound to pay the referral bonus, unless they can provide evidence that they informed Joshua before he referred his buddy that there were any exceptions to the rule.
xyzzyb 14y ago
Agreed. There's a big difference between being sorry and being sorry you got caught. Miso management is sure coming off like the latter.
rdl 14y ago
They paid him. They admitted they were wrong and apologized. They clarified their policy so people won't dispute it in the future. I'm not sure exactly what more you'd expect them to do. I'm sure they wish they'd handled this differently, but once he posted it, they seem to have handled things reasonably well. Plus, of course, you've only seen one side of the story. Even if the company has other facts, they can't present them publicly, because then they'd potentially be open to a lawsuit. Similar reasons why people don't give honest feedback after interviews, or referrals other than "yes, he worked at this company on those dates".
- jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
  When they thought they had all the power, they saw no reason to pay him. Once it was clear that the power wasn't imbalanced, they went for damage control. That reads pretty transparently to anyone who's been around the block a few times. The loudest expression of your morals is what you do when you have all the power. If you act poorly, later rationalizations do little to convince anyone otherwise.
  - mturmon 14y ago
    Usually attributed to Lincoln: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      If this is attributed to Lincoln, that kind of phrase does not play to his own advantage. (hint: read "The Real Lincoln" if you are interested).
      - ralfd 14y ago
        Hm, this book has also lot of criticism.
      - jbooth 14y ago
        Holy shit that book looks bad. From the inside cover: "DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized?as the Founding Fathers intended?to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade." No mention of, you know, slavery? Or the fact that southern states seceded before he was even inaugurated? I'd like to see a Venn Diagram of people who like this book and people who own confederate flags.
        mturmon 14y ago
        We are clearly getting way off track, but anyone who has entertained the (false) idea that the South seceded from the union because of some States Rights principle would benefit from reading the original secession proclamation from the state of South Carolina. The document is available online; here is one source: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/12/the-south-has-risen.html http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/12/the-south-has-risen.ht... The first section in the linked page is a preface written on a state website, summarizing that the secession document was totally concerned with slavery. It is then followed by the document in its entirety so that you can see the truth for yourself.
- tantalor 14y ago
  I don't think they did admit they were wrong, because they weren't necessarily wrong. They admitted they made a mistake in not clearly documenting their policy, which was ambiguous. As part of correcting that mistake, they recompensed an employee who was wronged by the ambiguity. They did this not because they were obligated by a policy or contract, but by ethics. I think it's debatable whether he was entitled to the bonus, that's why I say they weren't "necessarily" wrong. Obviously Miso felt he was not entitled to it, since under their clarified policy he would not be.
  - creamyhorror 14y ago
    > They admitted they made a mistake in not clearly documenting their policy, which was ambiguous. As part of correcting that mistake, they recompensed an employee who was wronged by the ambiguity. They did this not because they were obligated by a policy or contract, but by ethics. This is not a matter of a simple "ambiguity in policy", is it? This is a contract they made with their employees that failed to specify terms like "the bonus will only be payable while you are an employee of the company". Miso doesn't get to retroactively apply terms to a contract that has been made. Hence, IMO, they recompensed the employee because they were obligated to by contract. edit: Two good comments from the blog: ---- Somrat, Tim: your mistake was not that you were unclear about your policy. Your mistake was failing to follow your policies and agreements in the first place and then trying to apply new policies after the fact. This isn't unclear, it's unethical. --- This reply tells everyone that CYA is your sole problem solving skill. ---
    - tantalor 14y ago
      I see your point, which is very persuasive, but this case is ambiguous because it could be interpreted in either way. As an agreement between the employer and employee, the agreement might be interpreted to apply only to active employees, and on resignation vanishes. Suppose a company's expense report policy does not clarify whether they will fulfill expenses incurred during employment but filed after resignation. The day after you quit you find an expense receipt you forgot to report. Must the company compensate you? It's ambiguous.
- zem 14y ago
  if you read the email, they did not admit they were wrong. they held that in the light of their policy they were correct not to pay him, and their only mistake was in not making that policy clearer, and therefore they'd pay out this once.
- crdoconnor 14y ago
  >I'm not sure exactly what more you'd expect them to do. There's not a lot more that they can do. They've advertised themselves as a company that willingly screws their employees and goes back on their word. Whatever the details of the case, anybody who is thinking of joining their team will now think "they might do something like this to me".
- lurchpop 14y ago
  They didn't admit they were wrong for not paying him though. They apologized for not having a "clear and complete policy." If you look at the sequence of emails he was first denied the bonus on the grounds of his own job performance, then on the grounds of not having a written contract, then finally because he didn't meet their ad hoc policy requirements. I guess nobody actually expects them to apologize like human beings, but it would be nice if they said something like, "We're sorry for fighting you on the referral bonus. You deserved it after the 6 months was up and we should have given it to you then. We've put a structure in place at the company so this doesn't happen again. "

weixiyen 14y ago

They are also legally bound to pay the referral bonus, unless they can provide evidence that they informed Joshua before he referred his buddy that there were any exceptions to the rule.

xyzzyb 14y ago

Agreed. There's a big difference between being sorry and being sorry you got caught. Miso management is sure coming off like the latter.

rdl 14y ago

They paid him. They admitted they were wrong and apologized. They clarified their policy so people won't dispute it in the future. I'm not sure exactly what more you'd expect them to do. I'm sure they wish they'd handled this differently, but once he posted it, they seem to have handled things reasonably well. Plus, of course, you've only seen one side of the story. Even if the company has other facts, they can't present them publicly, because then they'd potentially be open to a lawsuit. Similar reasons why people don't give honest feedback after interviews, or referrals other than "yes, he worked at this company on those dates".

jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
When they thought they had all the power, they saw no reason to pay him. Once it was clear that the power wasn't imbalanced, they went for damage control. That reads pretty transparently to anyone who's been around the block a few times. The loudest expression of your morals is what you do when you have all the power. If you act poorly, later rationalizations do little to convince anyone otherwise.
- mturmon 14y ago
  Usually attributed to Lincoln: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    If this is attributed to Lincoln, that kind of phrase does not play to his own advantage. (hint: read "The Real Lincoln" if you are interested).
    - ralfd 14y ago
      Hm, this book has also lot of criticism.
    - jbooth 14y ago
      Holy shit that book looks bad. From the inside cover: "DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized?as the Founding Fathers intended?to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade." No mention of, you know, slavery? Or the fact that southern states seceded before he was even inaugurated? I'd like to see a Venn Diagram of people who like this book and people who own confederate flags.
      - mturmon 14y ago
        We are clearly getting way off track, but anyone who has entertained the (false) idea that the South seceded from the union because of some States Rights principle would benefit from reading the original secession proclamation from the state of South Carolina. The document is available online; here is one source: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/12/the-south-has-risen.html http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/12/the-south-has-risen.ht... The first section in the linked page is a preface written on a state website, summarizing that the secession document was totally concerned with slavery. It is then followed by the document in its entirety so that you can see the truth for yourself.
tantalor 14y ago
I don't think they did admit they were wrong, because they weren't necessarily wrong. They admitted they made a mistake in not clearly documenting their policy, which was ambiguous. As part of correcting that mistake, they recompensed an employee who was wronged by the ambiguity. They did this not because they were obligated by a policy or contract, but by ethics. I think it's debatable whether he was entitled to the bonus, that's why I say they weren't "necessarily" wrong. Obviously Miso felt he was not entitled to it, since under their clarified policy he would not be.
- creamyhorror 14y ago
  > They admitted they made a mistake in not clearly documenting their policy, which was ambiguous. As part of correcting that mistake, they recompensed an employee who was wronged by the ambiguity. They did this not because they were obligated by a policy or contract, but by ethics. This is not a matter of a simple "ambiguity in policy", is it? This is a contract they made with their employees that failed to specify terms like "the bonus will only be payable while you are an employee of the company". Miso doesn't get to retroactively apply terms to a contract that has been made. Hence, IMO, they recompensed the employee because they were obligated to by contract. edit: Two good comments from the blog: ---- Somrat, Tim: your mistake was not that you were unclear about your policy. Your mistake was failing to follow your policies and agreements in the first place and then trying to apply new policies after the fact. This isn't unclear, it's unethical. --- This reply tells everyone that CYA is your sole problem solving skill. ---
  - tantalor 14y ago
    I see your point, which is very persuasive, but this case is ambiguous because it could be interpreted in either way. As an agreement between the employer and employee, the agreement might be interpreted to apply only to active employees, and on resignation vanishes. Suppose a company's expense report policy does not clarify whether they will fulfill expenses incurred during employment but filed after resignation. The day after you quit you find an expense receipt you forgot to report. Must the company compensate you? It's ambiguous.
zem 14y ago
if you read the email, they did not admit they were wrong. they held that in the light of their policy they were correct not to pay him, and their only mistake was in not making that policy clearer, and therefore they'd pay out this once.
crdoconnor 14y ago
>I'm not sure exactly what more you'd expect them to do. There's not a lot more that they can do. They've advertised themselves as a company that willingly screws their employees and goes back on their word. Whatever the details of the case, anybody who is thinking of joining their team will now think "they might do something like this to me".
lurchpop 14y ago
They didn't admit they were wrong for not paying him though. They apologized for not having a "clear and complete policy." If you look at the sequence of emails he was first denied the bonus on the grounds of his own job performance, then on the grounds of not having a written contract, then finally because he didn't meet their ad hoc policy requirements. I guess nobody actually expects them to apologize like human beings, but it would be nice if they said something like, "We're sorry for fighting you on the referral bonus. You deserved it after the 6 months was up and we should have given it to you then. We've put a structure in place at the company so this doesn't happen again. "