Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Not sure what signed employment contracts have to do with someone flaking on starting a job. Guy doesn't want to work for you, he's not going to work for you. No contract in the world changes that. Companies that give out 5-figure signing bonuses still lose people to better offers. That's life in the big leagues.

You don't make yourself look better by slagging people for doing something that everybody does.

If you want to pick this apart, I'd be interested in knowing the whole story. What was the comp package you offered him?

View on HN

I mostly agree. If we're talking about employees, California is a Right-To-Work state, so an employment contract is effectively bupkis. In my experience, this is very beneficial for both companies and employees.

Things get stickier if money has changed hands. In that case, you've probably got grounds for a civil suit at the very least, but beyond that, you take your licks and keep on going, which is what it sounds like the author has done.

Cofounders aren't just employees, though. They're also shareholders, as well as nominally members of the board. That confers a different set of legal responsibilities. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure if being a corporate officer puts you in a different position regarding employment contracts than just being an employee.

Overall, I think we would agree that Ted's actions were highly unprofessional.

Once you've signed a contract, you're committed.

If you're going to bail, bail before ink hits paper. If you aren't sure about working with someone, make your reservations clear from the get-go.

Agreed don -- the contract was effectively worthless in terms of 'binding nature' -- more along the lines of unprofessionalism and commitment

> for doing something that everybody does

Are most people truly this unethical? It's one thing to look out for yourself and not take a bad deal (crap equity, undermarket salary, unfulfilled promises), but it's another to indicate commitment (signed papers, lots of talks, knowing the other person is moving across the country for this) and then completely flake out and bail.

The 'signed papers' is where the douche-baggery starts. If you're not going to commit, keep ink away from paper. Period.

Significant, significant equity, co-founder CTO for venture-backed company.

I know you can't reasonably say what % you offered (you're still apparently a going concern), but know that people on HN are pretty accustomed to b-school types and their notions of what "significant equity" are.

Again though, the top line here is, we're in the middle of a tech bubble, there are a lot of venture-backed companies, most of them are going to fail, tech comp packages have never ever been higher, competition is fierce, aggressive, and protracted. There has never been a worse time to assume you've got talent locked up.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that someone who isn't 100% sold shouldn't represent themselves as 100% sold. BUT. Oftentimes, we don't demand of others the frank answers we don't want to hear. How many serious sit-down conversations did you have with your potential partner about his commitment level? Your post is "Red flag!" "Red Flag!" "Warning sign!". Well, did you react to any of those flags?

If you didn't: I appreciate the idea of writing a post about the warning signs you've learned people should be looking for. However, if you ignored warning signs that the guy wasn't committed, it becomes harder to sympathize with the idea of a blog post designed to slag one guy for not signing on with your company.

If you did react to the warning signs and diligently qualified and re-qualified this guy and he kept coming back saying "absolutely I am one hundred fifty percent behind you": I agree you got shafted a bit, but again remind you that tech people mostly don't give a shit. A guy who can execute on the level you're saying you needed can simply write his own ticket. The game theory suggests that you have little to gain by lashing out.

((I'm having a really procrastinate-y morning, which comes from knowing I'm working super late tonight, so sorry I'm being so noisy. At least you're not on the logo design thread I'm howling at.*)

a) I'm not a b-school guy, so it's legit significant equity. b) Understood on the competitive space front c) Repeatedly, repeatedly had those conversations with him. He NEVER said he wasn't going to start, and I continuously had him reaffirm that. d) I was somewhat pot-committed at the point that the red flags really started popping up...

I like the lessons. Good to keep in mind while hiring.

Having said that, this might also be a good moment to reflect. How can you make yourself a more attractive founder/company to work with? [You meet a girl, she's hot, she sees you for a bit and then moves on. I wouldn't waste such a nice opportunity for self-reflection. Maybe you need to lose weight or enjoy outings more so the next hot girl sticks..]

...or give her more coke?

tptacek, I like you, but in this particular case Josh really wasn't in the wrong. Definitely not a 'b school' kid; I went to high school with him (so I'm biased) but I can vouch for the fact that he got royally fucked over.

I like you too, and I agree that what happened looks unfortunate and is not Josh's fault.

Yeah, but unless the offered equity was 50%... then it's a just a job and probably comes with below market salary to boot. Here's a test for being a cofounder: can one cofounder overrule the other? Then you don't have cofounders; you have a founder and an employee.

Bad advice (and mathematically impossible). 25% definitely qualifies you as a co-founder, if you joined and worked for no cash and all equity, before the first funding event.

No, 25% makes you a sucker -- as much risk as the true founder but 66% less reward and 0 real control. (Obviously assuming 2 founders. If 4 founders then my point doesn't apply.)

Not true. If you have investors and two cofounders, both cofounders will have less than 50% even with an even split. And a cofounder coming on after a lot of work has been done doesn't deserve a full equity split.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com