20 ms·

> I like the founders - they are good guys. No. They're not. You don't get to screw around with other people's lives and continue to possess the title of "good

by jowiar 12y ago

> I like the founders - they are good guys. No. They're not. You don't get to screw around with other people's lives and continue to possess the title of "good guy". If they were good guys, you would be receiving tens of thousands of dollars for your difficulties, and such would have enough of a runway on that such that you wouldn't need to ask us for advice. Please do us all a favor and let us know who they are beyond "a YC startup" so that none of us find ourselves in your shoes. As it stands, if you had one of the other offers you were interested in, let them know that the company that you had taken reneged, and that you would love to work with them. Hiring good engineers is hard (and expensive) enough that any decent company won't mind being your second choice.

JasonFruit 12y ago
I'd say you did the right thing in not saying what the startup was — it isn't wise to look like a bridge-burner when you're looking for work.
- hacknat 12y ago
  Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? I'd say that this startup has burnt this bridge pretty well. It would have been perfectly reasonable for him to tell us who they were and for us to avoid them like the plague.
  - smtddr 12y ago
    >>Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? Because the individual has more to lose. Which is more likely, the public boycott the company or the companies boycott the individual? Especially in the world of tech, even if you're right about a company's bad practice just going off and posting a rant about them online reflects badly on you. It means you probably should have just left the company before you got so angry about them. I personally have some very deeply negative feelings about my time in at&t but now I realize it's my own fault for staying 6 years when I was already fed up in my first 18 months. It just made me bitter. At the absolute minimum, when they see your name on a resume and immediately associate it with recent memory of a rant on HN or some complex ordeal described in a techcrunch article, they'll think twice about you. Maybe they'll still go forward with you; but their will be a double-think. If someone really wants to post something that's less than positive about a previous employer, that person should do it as objectively as possible. Remove all emotion, only state facts with no sensationalism or leading-questions or anything suggestive and be sure to state the whole thing as just "their very humble opinion". It would also show a sense of responsibility/maturity to state the issues that concerned in in a form of a question. "Who you the reader have done things this way?" And especially to suggest a solution. "The way I would have done it is..." What happened to the OP here is regrettable and doesn't sound like it's his/her fault. This person handled it professionally by just asking for advice and not mentioning names.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? It has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the situation. It is about presenting yourself to the rest of the world. Being a bridge-burner doesn't look good to potential employers.
    - angersock 12y ago
      Oh, like the next round of shitbag YC kids hiring a COO? C'mon, man.
    - Liesmith 12y ago
      @angersock yeah, exactly like the next batch of shitbag YC kids hiring a COO. Because apparently that's who he's trying to get employed by. It's weird that you seem to think that this crowd are shallow children and yet somehow don't think that they will retaliate against public criticism.
      - davelnewton 12y ago
        There's a "reply" :/
        yebyen 12y ago
        Reply button is usually hidden for the first 2-5 minutes on deeply nested comments, to prevent angry back-and-forth with no thought. You can reply, but you have to know to click the permalink for the comment.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        You replied to the wrong comment. HN has a time delay for nested comments. That's why angersock's comment didn't have a reply link.
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    It's on both sides not to "burn the bridge". The problem here is those of us observing from the sidelines have very little access to the facts, so we really have no idea what the truth of the matter is. All we'll see is bickering and unverifiable (by us) claims, and without the ability to discover who is in the right, it just looks bad to observers. It's like having a shouting match in the middle of the parking lot. One of you might be entirely in the right and completely justified, but to the rest of us it just looks like a situation to avoid.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    Think about the next company who considers hiring this guy. Perhaps they'll think "hm, what if he doesn't like being with us - will he derail us in public, too? Perhaps we can find a less risky candidate".
    - Liesmith 12y ago
      Exactly. These things are ugly and this is a cautionary tale for anyone looking to work for a new startup but it's also really important to keep from looking like a bitter employee who will turn on you and make you look evil if things don't work out.
      - Chronic29 12y ago
        I'd much rather give the company a bad reputation. It is easy to get another job.
  - jheriko 12y ago
    having been a bridge burner i can say that most employers are not competent enough to discover that you burned a bridge if they care... and if you volunteer the information its a great way to filter bad employers too.
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      Not ordinarily, no. But I can't think of a circumstance under which it benefits you to disclose your grievances with a former employer to a new or potential employer. There is nothing but downside in doing that. Just as most companies are too incompetent or uninterested to search out your dirty laundry, most companies are too incompetent or uninterested to sort it. If they see it, they'll just acknowledge its existence, and probably think twice about you because of it. They won't dig deeper, or spend any effort sussing out who was right and who was wrong. They'll just note it as a red flag. This is why people advise against "bridge burning," even when you have no reason to believe you'll ever cross that bridge again. It's all about perceptions. "Optics," as they say in corporate parlance. Being seen as a malcontent is never good for your employment prospects, even when you're completely justified.
      - poof131 12y ago
        But I can't think of a circumstance under which it benefits you to disclose your grievances with a former employer to a new or potential employer. I think the circumstance is like @jheriko said, as a filter. If an employer sees treating employees bad as dirty laundry, well maybe it isn't the place you want to work, and you're better off not getting an offer.
        jonnathanson 12y ago
        I understand that objective in theory, but it seems impractical in the wild. Most employers won't look beyond the surface level of "This person had issues with a previous employer and feels the need to discuss them here." They won't bother to ferret out who was right, who was wrong, and whether your grievances are legitimate -- even if they are. So you're basically raising a flag, and a lot of interviers or hiring managers will treat it as such. Think about it from their perspective. They don't know you too well. All they know, at a quick glance, is that you have had problems with a previous employer. They get your side of the story, perhaps, but how are they to know if you're telling the full story, or if you're just the kind of person who complains about things and causes morale issues? They don't have the time or the process to sort that out, so they'll default to the conservative position of assuming you are more trouble than you're worth. I've seen this torpedo people in job interviews. I've seen it sink the candidacies of people who were otherwise in very strong contention. Is that fair? Of course not. But it's something to keep in mind. In a perfect world, sure, this would serve as a nice filter to determine if employers are worth working for. In the world we actually live in, this filter will, more often than not, filter you out of a lot of job opportunities. Meanwhile, there are more effective and less risky filters you can apply when vetting an employer.
  - Liesmith 12y ago
    Because the individual needs something, and the startup does not. what do they care if he is pissed? He's some unemployed dude they'll never have to deal with again. Meanwhile potentially having them as a resource who will say 'oh yeah Ex Employee was a really great guy, we regret losing him, definitely hire him if you can' is pretty much the only positive he's gonna get from this experience. Complain about them and you don't even get good word of mouth from the, just a ton of wasted time and an angry story to tell. YCombinator people talk to one another. they go to meetups. San Francisco is an incestuous little town. It's hard to break into and having bad blood with people on the inside can make it harder.
    - soperj 12y ago
      The start up will need something if he actually says who it is, because they'd be hard press to hire anyone on here if this becomes public knowledge.
    - poof131 12y ago
      YCombinator people talk to one another. They should talk to each other about why this was bad behavior. If the OP mentions the name, the company can respond with their reasons in an adult and professional manner, explain why they needed someone else, and how they are going to make this right. Then they look like smart, grounded pros willing to admit a mistake and will get some free marketing.
    - mgkimsal 12y ago
      "Because the individual needs something, and the startup does not" Sounds like they do, in fact, need something, and it's a different person. "Meanwhile potentially having them as a resource who will say 'oh yeah Ex Employee was a really great guy, we regret losing him, definitely hire him if you can' " He was there 2 weeks, if that. You can't tell if someone was good in that time period. If I got a reference like that about someone who worked at a place for a grab total of 6 days... I'd think something was fishy.
  - angersock 12y ago
    The burden is on the individual not to "burn the bridge" because it suits everyone (rightly or wrongly) to perpetuate the myth that companies cannot be held responsible for screwing up the lives of individuals.
    - davelnewton 12y ago
      Of course it doesn't suit everyone.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > I'd say you did the right thing in not saying what the startup was — it isn't wise to look like a bridge-burner when you're looking for work. Today I learned that its considered "bridge burning" to communicate a company's terrible ethics in public.
  - maaku 12y ago
    Of course it is. Are you perfect, 100% without any flaws? How certain then are you that the employee you hire isn't going to start airing your dirty laundry at the earliest convenience?
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      > Are you perfect, 100% without any flaws? How certain then are you that the employee you hire isn't going to start airing your dirty laundry at the earliest convenience? Not at all. If I hire someone, I'm making a commitment. If I made a mistake, its out of my pocket to make them whole. Disclaimer: I have made mistakes hiring people, and have paid them for their troubles, even going so far as to be a reference for the other opportunities they had available and telling them it was our mistake.
      - guybrushT 12y ago
        Disclaimer: I have made mistakes hiring people, and have paid them for their troubles, even going so far as to be a reference for the other opportunities they had available and telling them it was our mistake. I really respect this.
        toomuchtodo 12y ago
        Thank you, but you shouldn't respect me for doing the right thing. Its what people should do.
        ms4720 12y ago
        Most just don't bother, well done
- sbarre 12y ago
  Really? I certainly wouldn't hold it against him for burning a bridge that leads to people like that..
- Zarkonnen 12y ago
  This is a very depressing attitude. A functioning market relies on information flow, and if this information flow is killed because people are scared, the market stops functioning.
  - electic 12y ago
    Companies are complex, they are going to have issues. They are going to make bad hires, have drama, bad product launches, and disfunction. Especially startups. But, when you leave or if you disagree with what happened at the company and you air that laundry. It looks bad on you. Trust me, I am going to google you before I hire you and if I see you being a mess online that means you could be a huge mess in my company. As a startup, when every hiring decision matters, I am going to pass on you.
    - ChrisNorstrom 12y ago
      A growing number of users think HN is Wendy Williams for Startups. They love gossip, drama, and revenge. Don't bother trying to convert them, "name-and-shame" is a growing new attitude in Startups. Every problem and issue is now being aired out in public because it allows people (completely unrelated to the issue) to opinionate and play hero.
  - guybrushT 12y ago
    You are right. The key is to find a structural solution to this, since this is a common occurrence (i.e. joining startups early stage) - and spread information about the "best practice" way of avoiding situations like the one I went through.
    - nostrademons 12y ago
      There probably is a business in this, but it looks like TheFunded and GlassDoor are already taking it on. Anyway, there is a solution to this - it's to develop a personal set of red flags and heuristics that you use to weed out bad founders when you talk to them. I have one, and it disqualifies probably 95% of startups that I talk to. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's any way to build this reliably short of bitter experience. The problem with a general "post your grievances" board is that you don't get both sides of the story. I know at least one person who has posted their grievances publicly on HN where I personally witnessed what actually went down, and their account is nowhere close to what I witnessed.
- sheetjs 12y ago
  I'd say he'd be doing a public service to other people considering a job at that company. If I were a prospective employee I'd like to know more
  - jowiar 12y ago
    Or a prospective customer or prospective investor.
- bentcorner 12y ago
  I'm completely with OP's decision here. You can't unring a bell, folks.
- incision 12y ago
  >'I'd say you did the right thing in not saying what the startup was — it isn't wise to look like a bridge-burner when you're looking for work.' So true. I abhor this, but I certainly understand it. I think the real danger in bridge burning isn't from the people you leave behind, it's everyone who might see the smoke and flames. It's the label you'll get. No matter the actual facts, moving forward in the back of many minds you're a liability, a vigilante arsonist ready to torch a company when things don't work out in your favor.
- poof131 12y ago
  Was Edward Snowden a bridge burner for the NSA? We need transparency both in government and the corporate world. If a company isn't willing to stand by their actions in public, they shouldn't be doing it. And paying the OP severance, admitting a mistake, and moving on is fine by me. He probably didn't have the right domain expertise, and an advisor/investor told the founders to switch. As green young kid's they didn't do it properly. They need to learn that you can't fire the whole PM team because you want to. These are other people's lives, people who may have mortages, kids, etc.
sheetjs 12y ago
> Please do us all a favor and let us know who they are beyond "a YC startup" so that none of us find ourselves in your shoes. Two other reasons for considering revealing the name: 1) a casual bystander might see this and conclude that all YC companies behave in this way, which hurts the other companies. 2) PG and other partners at YC read HN, and there's a good chance that action can be taken if they know who is involved.
- georgespencer 12y ago
  "action can be taken" Come on. They didn't do anything wrong. They withdrew an offer of employment. 1. It could be performance related, and they just don't want to tell OP, 2. They realised quickly -- shock horror, things change quickly in startups -- that actually they don't need X guy they need Y guy. These things happen. In situations like this you can fire well: give explicit reasons, make sure the person knows you're going to give them a great reference, consider paying them a notice period in excess of what you're obligated to. But really they didn't do anything wrong, and I don't think naming and shaming them is going to solve anything.
  - jowiar 12y ago
    > They withdrew an offer of employment. Doing this without compensation is ABSOLUTELY doing something wrong. Maybe not necessarily tortious, but certainly unethical and indicative of someone who should not be trusted in a business relationship. The YC company made a mistake and is sticking someone else with the bill. FWIW, There's a certain amount of "foreigners are expendable" mindset that seems to exist in the American tech sphere that might factor into this situation as well...
    - shampine 12y ago
      I had an offer withdrawn the day before I was supposed to get on a plane to move myself cross country. I had quit my job, broken my lease, etc. The company paid me a 6 week severance, even though I never worked a minute for them, just to compensate me for what I had given up.
genericuser 12y ago
It is indeed in the best interests of nearly everyone to explicitly state the company that is acting in a undesirable manner. Unfortunately it is not in that companies best interest for him to state it. And because it is not in any companies best interest to have employees that when let go will put the common good above the good of the company, it is not in his best interest either to publicize the name of the company. With that in mind, yes please do us the favor. As someone engaging in a job search, I know it would be appreciated by the general population to receive this information.
- ohyes 12y ago
  Actually, severance is for keeping your mouth shut. If they were interested in op keeping his mouth shut, they would have offered a severance package. They did not so he can say what he will.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- genericuser 12y ago
  It sounds like he was working for those two weeks he is receiving pay for. Not compensation for any troubles, but rather payment for work done.
- vojnovski 12y ago
  It seems he was offered compensation for the two weeks he actually worked for them, which I'd take for granted. What the comment above is probably alluding to is termination of contract compensation.
- patio11 12y ago
  An employee who was acceptable to the company on X and unacceptable on X + 2 weeks is being asked to shoulder risks equivalent to that of an independent contractor or consultant. Many people enjoy shouldering the many risks associated with parachuting into foreign countries for two weeks to execute engagements with no guarantee that there will be work available on week three. We are customarily compensated for shouldering these risks. It is one reason why consultants quote week rates like $10,000 as opposed to getting only $120k in yearly salary but very predictably actually getting that and its attendant benefits suite. Half of the low-ball startup monthly salary offer plus no benefits plus no options doesn't even crater the approach to the bridge of the disruption this putative employee suffered to get him to the US. While acknowledging that the US is largely an employment-at-will country and people can dissolve things for any reason or none at all at virtually any time, writing somebody a $4k check as sole payment for services rendered, after they've joined your company as an employee and been involuntarily terminated 2 weeks in, strikes me as deeply problematic.
  - guybrushT 12y ago
    You articulated the situation (and my thinking) very well. Any thoughts on what future early employees could do to protect themselves?
guybrushT 12y ago
"..so that none of us find ourselves in your shoes." Thank you for this comment. This is a very important discussion to have. And I don't think naming the company is a good answer (it is a point solution - you may not want to join this company but thats it). With this thread getting some attention, I have higher hopes than that. I think we can come up with good strategies, resources, and an agreed upon code of conduct that future early employees can use to protect themselves.
- jowiar 12y ago
  It's a few things. Sure -- I don't want to join this company, or partake in business with them in the future. But I also want to establish it as standard in this industry that doing what they did to you is unacceptable -- and that any company that contemplates such a thing in the future is going to pay a very heavy cost in future investment, customers, and recruiting.
justplay 12y ago
> I like the founders - they are good guys. They are very professional.
justguessingbut 12y ago
I think the YC startup is almost certainly SketchDeck. It's not too difficult to find the OP's real life identity based on his past work. From that, the information on http://angel.co/ http://angel.co/ pretty much gives it away.
- angersock 12y ago
  So, the unfortunate thing now is that if it isn't SketchDeck, they're going to have some nasty PR shit to clean up that is totally undeserved. If it is, well, they still need to do cleanup. OP, can you confirm/deny?
  - dennisgorelik 12y ago
    I think you overestimate the significance of this discussion. Besides, there advertisement rarely have negative effect. I wish my startup was mistakenly confused as a place that fired OP.
    - angersock 12y ago
      What's your startup? Might as well link it here. :)
- andrea_s 12y ago
  I had never heard of SketchDeck - I don't want to derail, but I'm genuinely interested in understanding their business model. Specifically, it looks like a linearly scalable enterprise (consulting-like: they provide custom design on demand). How is this appealing for an investor? I'm not deeply involved in the mechanics of looking for funding, but I thought investors kind of shunned consulting startups.
- gone35 12y ago
  At least the timing and job description sort of match, but it's far from definite so who knows [1,2]: SketchDeck (YC W14) is hiring its first employee (sketch-deck.com) - 70 days ago We're now looking for our first employee. (...) You are going to run SketchDeck day-to-day whilst masterminding our scale to become the biggest design agency in the world. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7819953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7819953 [2] http://blog.sketch-deck.com/sketchdeck-first-hire/ http://blog.sketch-deck.com/sketchdeck-first-hire/

by jowiar 12y ago

JasonFruit 12y ago

I'd say you did the right thing in not saying what the startup was — it isn't wise to look like a bridge-burner when you're looking for work.

hacknat 12y ago
Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? I'd say that this startup has burnt this bridge pretty well. It would have been perfectly reasonable for him to tell us who they were and for us to avoid them like the plague.
- smtddr 12y ago
  >>Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? Because the individual has more to lose. Which is more likely, the public boycott the company or the companies boycott the individual? Especially in the world of tech, even if you're right about a company's bad practice just going off and posting a rant about them online reflects badly on you. It means you probably should have just left the company before you got so angry about them. I personally have some very deeply negative feelings about my time in at&t but now I realize it's my own fault for staying 6 years when I was already fed up in my first 18 months. It just made me bitter. At the absolute minimum, when they see your name on a resume and immediately associate it with recent memory of a rant on HN or some complex ordeal described in a techcrunch article, they'll think twice about you. Maybe they'll still go forward with you; but their will be a double-think. If someone really wants to post something that's less than positive about a previous employer, that person should do it as objectively as possible. Remove all emotion, only state facts with no sensationalism or leading-questions or anything suggestive and be sure to state the whole thing as just "their very humble opinion". It would also show a sense of responsibility/maturity to state the issues that concerned in in a form of a question. "Who you the reader have done things this way?" And especially to suggest a solution. "The way I would have done it is..." What happened to the OP here is regrettable and doesn't sound like it's his/her fault. This person handled it professionally by just asking for advice and not mentioning names.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? It has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the situation. It is about presenting yourself to the rest of the world. Being a bridge-burner doesn't look good to potential employers.
  - angersock 12y ago
    Oh, like the next round of shitbag YC kids hiring a COO? C'mon, man.
  - Liesmith 12y ago
    @angersock yeah, exactly like the next batch of shitbag YC kids hiring a COO. Because apparently that's who he's trying to get employed by. It's weird that you seem to think that this crowd are shallow children and yet somehow don't think that they will retaliate against public criticism.
    - davelnewton 12y ago
      There's a "reply" :/
      - yebyen 12y ago
        Reply button is usually hidden for the first 2-5 minutes on deeply nested comments, to prevent angry back-and-forth with no thought. You can reply, but you have to know to click the permalink for the comment.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      You replied to the wrong comment. HN has a time delay for nested comments. That's why angersock's comment didn't have a reply link.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  It's on both sides not to "burn the bridge". The problem here is those of us observing from the sidelines have very little access to the facts, so we really have no idea what the truth of the matter is. All we'll see is bickering and unverifiable (by us) claims, and without the ability to discover who is in the right, it just looks bad to observers. It's like having a shouting match in the middle of the parking lot. One of you might be entirely in the right and completely justified, but to the rest of us it just looks like a situation to avoid.
- facepalm 12y ago
  Think about the next company who considers hiring this guy. Perhaps they'll think "hm, what if he doesn't like being with us - will he derail us in public, too? Perhaps we can find a less risky candidate".
  - Liesmith 12y ago
    Exactly. These things are ugly and this is a cautionary tale for anyone looking to work for a new startup but it's also really important to keep from looking like a bitter employee who will turn on you and make you look evil if things don't work out.
    - Chronic29 12y ago
      I'd much rather give the company a bad reputation. It is easy to get another job.
- jheriko 12y ago
  having been a bridge burner i can say that most employers are not competent enough to discover that you burned a bridge if they care... and if you volunteer the information its a great way to filter bad employers too.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    Not ordinarily, no. But I can't think of a circumstance under which it benefits you to disclose your grievances with a former employer to a new or potential employer. There is nothing but downside in doing that. Just as most companies are too incompetent or uninterested to search out your dirty laundry, most companies are too incompetent or uninterested to sort it. If they see it, they'll just acknowledge its existence, and probably think twice about you because of it. They won't dig deeper, or spend any effort sussing out who was right and who was wrong. They'll just note it as a red flag. This is why people advise against "bridge burning," even when you have no reason to believe you'll ever cross that bridge again. It's all about perceptions. "Optics," as they say in corporate parlance. Being seen as a malcontent is never good for your employment prospects, even when you're completely justified.
    - poof131 12y ago
      But I can't think of a circumstance under which it benefits you to disclose your grievances with a former employer to a new or potential employer. I think the circumstance is like @jheriko said, as a filter. If an employer sees treating employees bad as dirty laundry, well maybe it isn't the place you want to work, and you're better off not getting an offer.
      - jonnathanson 12y ago
        I understand that objective in theory, but it seems impractical in the wild. Most employers won't look beyond the surface level of "This person had issues with a previous employer and feels the need to discuss them here." They won't bother to ferret out who was right, who was wrong, and whether your grievances are legitimate -- even if they are. So you're basically raising a flag, and a lot of interviers or hiring managers will treat it as such. Think about it from their perspective. They don't know you too well. All they know, at a quick glance, is that you have had problems with a previous employer. They get your side of the story, perhaps, but how are they to know if you're telling the full story, or if you're just the kind of person who complains about things and causes morale issues? They don't have the time or the process to sort that out, so they'll default to the conservative position of assuming you are more trouble than you're worth. I've seen this torpedo people in job interviews. I've seen it sink the candidacies of people who were otherwise in very strong contention. Is that fair? Of course not. But it's something to keep in mind. In a perfect world, sure, this would serve as a nice filter to determine if employers are worth working for. In the world we actually live in, this filter will, more often than not, filter you out of a lot of job opportunities. Meanwhile, there are more effective and less risky filters you can apply when vetting an employer.
- Liesmith 12y ago
  Because the individual needs something, and the startup does not. what do they care if he is pissed? He's some unemployed dude they'll never have to deal with again. Meanwhile potentially having them as a resource who will say 'oh yeah Ex Employee was a really great guy, we regret losing him, definitely hire him if you can' is pretty much the only positive he's gonna get from this experience. Complain about them and you don't even get good word of mouth from the, just a ton of wasted time and an angry story to tell. YCombinator people talk to one another. they go to meetups. San Francisco is an incestuous little town. It's hard to break into and having bad blood with people on the inside can make it harder.
  - soperj 12y ago
    The start up will need something if he actually says who it is, because they'd be hard press to hire anyone on here if this becomes public knowledge.
  - poof131 12y ago
    YCombinator people talk to one another. They should talk to each other about why this was bad behavior. If the OP mentions the name, the company can respond with their reasons in an adult and professional manner, explain why they needed someone else, and how they are going to make this right. Then they look like smart, grounded pros willing to admit a mistake and will get some free marketing.
  - mgkimsal 12y ago
    "Because the individual needs something, and the startup does not" Sounds like they do, in fact, need something, and it's a different person. "Meanwhile potentially having them as a resource who will say 'oh yeah Ex Employee was a really great guy, we regret losing him, definitely hire him if you can' " He was there 2 weeks, if that. You can't tell if someone was good in that time period. If I got a reference like that about someone who worked at a place for a grab total of 6 days... I'd think something was fishy.
- angersock 12y ago
  The burden is on the individual not to "burn the bridge" because it suits everyone (rightly or wrongly) to perpetuate the myth that companies cannot be held responsible for screwing up the lives of individuals.
  - davelnewton 12y ago
    Of course it doesn't suit everyone.
toomuchtodo 12y ago
> I'd say you did the right thing in not saying what the startup was — it isn't wise to look like a bridge-burner when you're looking for work. Today I learned that its considered "bridge burning" to communicate a company's terrible ethics in public.
- maaku 12y ago
  Of course it is. Are you perfect, 100% without any flaws? How certain then are you that the employee you hire isn't going to start airing your dirty laundry at the earliest convenience?
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > Are you perfect, 100% without any flaws? How certain then are you that the employee you hire isn't going to start airing your dirty laundry at the earliest convenience? Not at all. If I hire someone, I'm making a commitment. If I made a mistake, its out of my pocket to make them whole. Disclaimer: I have made mistakes hiring people, and have paid them for their troubles, even going so far as to be a reference for the other opportunities they had available and telling them it was our mistake.
    - guybrushT 12y ago
      Disclaimer: I have made mistakes hiring people, and have paid them for their troubles, even going so far as to be a reference for the other opportunities they had available and telling them it was our mistake. I really respect this.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        Thank you, but you shouldn't respect me for doing the right thing. Its what people should do.
        ms4720 12y ago
        Most just don't bother, well done
sbarre 12y ago
Really? I certainly wouldn't hold it against him for burning a bridge that leads to people like that..
Zarkonnen 12y ago
This is a very depressing attitude. A functioning market relies on information flow, and if this information flow is killed because people are scared, the market stops functioning.
- electic 12y ago
  Companies are complex, they are going to have issues. They are going to make bad hires, have drama, bad product launches, and disfunction. Especially startups. But, when you leave or if you disagree with what happened at the company and you air that laundry. It looks bad on you. Trust me, I am going to google you before I hire you and if I see you being a mess online that means you could be a huge mess in my company. As a startup, when every hiring decision matters, I am going to pass on you.
  - ChrisNorstrom 12y ago
    A growing number of users think HN is Wendy Williams for Startups. They love gossip, drama, and revenge. Don't bother trying to convert them, "name-and-shame" is a growing new attitude in Startups. Every problem and issue is now being aired out in public because it allows people (completely unrelated to the issue) to opinionate and play hero.
- guybrushT 12y ago
  You are right. The key is to find a structural solution to this, since this is a common occurrence (i.e. joining startups early stage) - and spread information about the "best practice" way of avoiding situations like the one I went through.
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    There probably is a business in this, but it looks like TheFunded and GlassDoor are already taking it on. Anyway, there is a solution to this - it's to develop a personal set of red flags and heuristics that you use to weed out bad founders when you talk to them. I have one, and it disqualifies probably 95% of startups that I talk to. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's any way to build this reliably short of bitter experience. The problem with a general "post your grievances" board is that you don't get both sides of the story. I know at least one person who has posted their grievances publicly on HN where I personally witnessed what actually went down, and their account is nowhere close to what I witnessed.
sheetjs 12y ago
I'd say he'd be doing a public service to other people considering a job at that company. If I were a prospective employee I'd like to know more
- jowiar 12y ago
  Or a prospective customer or prospective investor.
bentcorner 12y ago
I'm completely with OP's decision here. You can't unring a bell, folks.
incision 12y ago
>'I'd say you did the right thing in not saying what the startup was — it isn't wise to look like a bridge-burner when you're looking for work.' So true. I abhor this, but I certainly understand it. I think the real danger in bridge burning isn't from the people you leave behind, it's everyone who might see the smoke and flames. It's the label you'll get. No matter the actual facts, moving forward in the back of many minds you're a liability, a vigilante arsonist ready to torch a company when things don't work out in your favor.
poof131 12y ago
Was Edward Snowden a bridge burner for the NSA? We need transparency both in government and the corporate world. If a company isn't willing to stand by their actions in public, they shouldn't be doing it. And paying the OP severance, admitting a mistake, and moving on is fine by me. He probably didn't have the right domain expertise, and an advisor/investor told the founders to switch. As green young kid's they didn't do it properly. They need to learn that you can't fire the whole PM team because you want to. These are other people's lives, people who may have mortages, kids, etc.

sheetjs 12y ago

> Please do us all a favor and let us know who they are beyond "a YC startup" so that none of us find ourselves in your shoes. Two other reasons for considering revealing the name: 1) a casual bystander might see this and conclude that all YC companies behave in this way, which hurts the other companies. 2) PG and other partners at YC read HN, and there's a good chance that action can be taken if they know who is involved.

georgespencer 12y ago
"action can be taken" Come on. They didn't do anything wrong. They withdrew an offer of employment. 1. It could be performance related, and they just don't want to tell OP, 2. They realised quickly -- shock horror, things change quickly in startups -- that actually they don't need X guy they need Y guy. These things happen. In situations like this you can fire well: give explicit reasons, make sure the person knows you're going to give them a great reference, consider paying them a notice period in excess of what you're obligated to. But really they didn't do anything wrong, and I don't think naming and shaming them is going to solve anything.
- jowiar 12y ago
  > They withdrew an offer of employment. Doing this without compensation is ABSOLUTELY doing something wrong. Maybe not necessarily tortious, but certainly unethical and indicative of someone who should not be trusted in a business relationship. The YC company made a mistake and is sticking someone else with the bill. FWIW, There's a certain amount of "foreigners are expendable" mindset that seems to exist in the American tech sphere that might factor into this situation as well...
  - shampine 12y ago
    I had an offer withdrawn the day before I was supposed to get on a plane to move myself cross country. I had quit my job, broken my lease, etc. The company paid me a 6 week severance, even though I never worked a minute for them, just to compensate me for what I had given up.

genericuser 12y ago

It is indeed in the best interests of nearly everyone to explicitly state the company that is acting in a undesirable manner. Unfortunately it is not in that companies best interest for him to state it. And because it is not in any companies best interest to have employees that when let go will put the common good above the good of the company, it is not in his best interest either to publicize the name of the company. With that in mind, yes please do us the favor. As someone engaging in a job search, I know it would be appreciated by the general population to receive this information.

ohyes 12y ago
Actually, severance is for keeping your mouth shut. If they were interested in op keeping his mouth shut, they would have offered a severance package. They did not so he can say what he will.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

genericuser 12y ago
It sounds like he was working for those two weeks he is receiving pay for. Not compensation for any troubles, but rather payment for work done.
vojnovski 12y ago
It seems he was offered compensation for the two weeks he actually worked for them, which I'd take for granted. What the comment above is probably alluding to is termination of contract compensation.
patio11 12y ago
An employee who was acceptable to the company on X and unacceptable on X + 2 weeks is being asked to shoulder risks equivalent to that of an independent contractor or consultant. Many people enjoy shouldering the many risks associated with parachuting into foreign countries for two weeks to execute engagements with no guarantee that there will be work available on week three. We are customarily compensated for shouldering these risks. It is one reason why consultants quote week rates like $10,000 as opposed to getting only $120k in yearly salary but very predictably actually getting that and its attendant benefits suite. Half of the low-ball startup monthly salary offer plus no benefits plus no options doesn't even crater the approach to the bridge of the disruption this putative employee suffered to get him to the US. While acknowledging that the US is largely an employment-at-will country and people can dissolve things for any reason or none at all at virtually any time, writing somebody a $4k check as sole payment for services rendered, after they've joined your company as an employee and been involuntarily terminated 2 weeks in, strikes me as deeply problematic.
- guybrushT 12y ago
  You articulated the situation (and my thinking) very well. Any thoughts on what future early employees could do to protect themselves?

guybrushT 12y ago

"..so that none of us find ourselves in your shoes." Thank you for this comment. This is a very important discussion to have. And I don't think naming the company is a good answer (it is a point solution - you may not want to join this company but thats it). With this thread getting some attention, I have higher hopes than that. I think we can come up with good strategies, resources, and an agreed upon code of conduct that future early employees can use to protect themselves.

jowiar 12y ago
It's a few things. Sure -- I don't want to join this company, or partake in business with them in the future. But I also want to establish it as standard in this industry that doing what they did to you is unacceptable -- and that any company that contemplates such a thing in the future is going to pay a very heavy cost in future investment, customers, and recruiting.

justplay 12y ago

> I like the founders - they are good guys. They are very professional.

justguessingbut 12y ago

I think the YC startup is almost certainly SketchDeck. It's not too difficult to find the OP's real life identity based on his past work. From that, the information on http://angel.co/ http://angel.co/ pretty much gives it away.

angersock 12y ago
So, the unfortunate thing now is that if it isn't SketchDeck, they're going to have some nasty PR shit to clean up that is totally undeserved. If it is, well, they still need to do cleanup. OP, can you confirm/deny?
- dennisgorelik 12y ago
  I think you overestimate the significance of this discussion. Besides, there advertisement rarely have negative effect. I wish my startup was mistakenly confused as a place that fired OP.
  - angersock 12y ago
    What's your startup? Might as well link it here. :)
andrea_s 12y ago
I had never heard of SketchDeck - I don't want to derail, but I'm genuinely interested in understanding their business model. Specifically, it looks like a linearly scalable enterprise (consulting-like: they provide custom design on demand). How is this appealing for an investor? I'm not deeply involved in the mechanics of looking for funding, but I thought investors kind of shunned consulting startups.
gone35 12y ago
At least the timing and job description sort of match, but it's far from definite so who knows [1,2]: SketchDeck (YC W14) is hiring its first employee (sketch-deck.com) - 70 days ago We're now looking for our first employee. (...) You are going to run SketchDeck day-to-day whilst masterminding our scale to become the biggest design agency in the world. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7819953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7819953 [2] http://blog.sketch-deck.com/sketchdeck-first-hire/ http://blog.sketch-deck.com/sketchdeck-first-hire/