3 ms·
As I see it, they just patched up the situation. My beef with them is not that they screwed up on the policy front. It is about the underlying ethics. It was o
by c0mpute 14y ago
As I see it, they just patched up the situation. My beef with them is not that they screwed up on the policy front. It is about the underlying ethics.
It was ok if they said they did not want to pay him as he is no longer and employee and later correct themselves saying that it was a mistake on their part as he was an employee after 6 months.
What is not ok is that they used an emotional line of defense. Saying he doesn't deserve it 'cos of a screw up, tells me that both Somrat and Tim are kinda characters that would bail out when push comes to shove. Its the question of integrity and you just have to stand by the right in a startup. To me, this is the exact warning sign I need before thinking of a startup.
I hope employees of Miso read into this and take home something. Many might not care, but its their opinion.
- veemjeem 14y agoIt's also the type of founder that would dilute the employee options pool first, before touching their own. "it's okay to screw employees because they'll leave anyway"
- rdl 14y agoFucking with employee options pool is about whether previous investors (including founders and earlier employees) take all the dilution of new hires, vs. the new investors sharing equally in that. It's fairly independent of how much equity hires actually receive (you can always bump the pool up later, when you "unexpectedly" run out of equity and need to make more hires -- after 30-50 hires, the only way an individual hire makes a huge difference in the option pool is if you're bringing in a CEO to replace a founder, or maybe a Sheryl-level COO or super-accomplished VP.) It's an unrelated issue, really. I think "founder has one type of expense policy for founders and execs, and another for employees" would be more apt.