Detailed the shutdown on a call at 8:30am Pacific this morning. CEO said there'll be no severance or healthcare.
Lot of talented folks in Seattle and beyond who'll be looking for new gigs.
When NCC Group fired me, they gave me zero days notice and no severance.
They did emphasize that my healthcare would stay good through the end of the month, but they didn't seem to have realized that I would be unlikely to find that useful after being fired on October 31.
I would hope most employees know that is a significant risk of working at a startup?!
But yes, harsh, regardless of how predictable.
Also, healthcare shouldn't be employer provided.
Running concern businesses don't have quite the same incentives nor the same risks of failure.
"Convoy, which raised $260 million in a funding round last year that valued the business at $3.8 billion, on Wednesday told employees in an email that it would stop accepting shipments until further notice and that it was rescheduling or canceling existing loads." (wsj)
Price per shipment cratered -> Revenue cratered. (They make a % of each shipment) -> Losses spiked up. (Because they had fixed cost)
Flexport had a burn run rate of $600M a year. Convoy had less burn but also less in the bank.
https://www.theinformation.com/briefings/flexport-revenue-dr...
"No idea at all!"
No one else thought it important to try and get developers using our product to reduce our reliance on big players and well, here we are. My last check was paid out from the CEO's personal bank account.
Certain spaces are exciting to work in because you can clearly see a need but sometimes the stars don't align for you. I hope the Convoy team (sans leadership) lands on their feet. Q4 is the worst time to find jobs.
Was it largely spot rates, a bid board, and lots of small carriers?
Customers easily could just get rates / carriers elsewhere and walk from Convoy?
No other services making income keeping customers around?
Rates are pretty fluid in logistics, very strange that they would rely on that alone if that was the case.
Convoy could interface with large companies as though they had a large fleet of drivers and trucks. That "fleet" wouldn't require paying for benefits to employees, maintenance or fuel on the truck, and could scale up or down based on demand.
I would have guessed that the network effects of getting this kind of marketplace going would be the hard part. It makes me think that a big mistake in leadership was made.
Don't these sentences tend to contradict each other? What do you mean by "saturated"?
The logistics industry is really old, backwards at times, and lots of penny pinches.
But supply and demand for carriers and capacity is pretty dang fluid too... market forces are already REALLY at play in logistics lands.
If covid showed anything it was that while there would be hiccups if people can't get to work ... stuff still flows through the system pretty efficiently.
If you want to be a 3PL you gotta manage your relationships with your customers / give them a reason to stick with you.
Just not enough to offer any severance or healthcare. #TruckYeah!
(have co-owned a business where we made folks whole for pay the owner skipped out on during the failure, asset acquisition, and their onboarding with us; plan ahead and you can do the right thing, fail to plan and people will experience pain; you're not saving the business while burning through the severance allocation, you're just lying to yourself that the business isn't already dead)
What am I going to do with one more year of pay. Absolute pittance. People who are going to do this should be upfront that they are ball-less.
Given Convoy's margins and operational leverage, I'm not sure it was this simple. Legacy freight brokers who have been doing this a long time are being caught surprised. They may have thought they had months of runway that rapidly collapsed to weeks.
We need stronger unemployment benefits. Barring a public solution, severance ensconced in employment contracts is next best. Convoy had nine figures of debt. Depending on the covenants, it may not have been able to hadn't over cash at windows to employees in the form of a novel severance package.
There's at least one major US freight forwarder who has been in business for over 40 years and who has never done a layoff, not in 2008, not in COVID, and not now. They're not perfect and have other flaws (like every other company everywhere), but still.
So it's a (common) choice. They are balancing the +/- against other uses of the last bits of cash. To some degree they do it because the employee pool accepts and expects it, no better reason. If the representational damage was more acute, they might choose someone else to disappoint.
The more common problem is a "hail mary" play, where the management team is perhaps fooling themselves about the probability of success.
I think the ethical thing to do there is discuss it with employees, but that's just me.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/fedex-s...
If you look only at people who won the lottery, you'd have to be an idiot not to spend all your money on lottery tickets. How many times has someone done this and lost all their money, screwed over thousands of people, and never been heard of again? We don't know, because they aren't famous, but my suspicion is it's a much more common outcome.
What if they did and lost it all 6 weeks ago? What would that signal instead?
FedEx was already shafting their pilots for months before this. Bounced paychecks, pilots paying for jet fuel on personal credit cards, and more.
If I was a pilot there, I'd have said "Fuck you, Fred", even though he won. How sociopathic do you have to be to gamble company money (sorry, isn't that a felony?) while bouncing paychecks?
And yet you'll still have people here applauding your hustler mentality, apparently.
This is bad.
> How sociopathic do you have to be to gamble company money (sorry, isn't that a felony?) while bouncing paychecks?
It sounds like he was about to bounce a lot more paychecks. Going all or nothing instead isn't something I would call sociopathic. What makes you call it that?
Normally "gambling company money" implies embezzlement, which is not what happened here.
Huh, what?
"In one instance, after a crucial business loan was denied, he took the company's last $5,000 to Las Vegas and won $27,000 gambling on blackjack to cover the company's $24,000 fuel bill."
"Embezzlement is the fraudulent taking of property by someone to whom it was entrusted, usually involving theft from a business or employer."
I mean I suppose you could try to make some argument that it was an officially sanctioned company act, but that's definitely some post facto rationalization.
"’The meeting with the General Dynamics board was a bust and I knew we needed money for Monday, so I took a plane to Las Vegas and won $27,000.’ I said, ‘You mean you took our last $5,000-- how could you do that?’ He shrugged his shoulders"
Sounds both unsanctioned and sociopathic to me.
And not Fred's first or last brush with financial malfeasance, indicted for forgery over a $2 million loan from his family's trust fund.
I'm inclined to think 'selfish' much more than 'plucky startup founder'.
This is not embezzlement. It's reckless, not theft.
> Sounds both unsanctioned and sociopathic to me.
Very unsanctioned, but I don't see how you get sociopathic from that quote.
Please explain what's sociopathic about it like I'm stupid.
The lack of funding is already there. This act shifts the odds but doesn't really make them worse. And if the company doesn't run out of money that seems like a good thing.
The first quote I saw here was that payroll was going to fail if he didn't do this. I don't think a guarantee of only paying half the employees is better than a 50% chance of paying everyone or paying no one, for example.
If this wasn't affecting payroll then sociopathy is even less of a worry.
Only if this was going to risk payroll with no benefit to payroll do I see a serious moral issue.
That's an extremely short horizon. Normally it's more than a quarter out, at least.
That should be illegal.
How much are the executives making from this?
I'm really sorry you're in the middle of this. I hope you can find a better job soon.
Accrue the money, bankrupt one month earlier. Pay the money.
Of course this means companies think twice before hiring anyone.
So yeah, if one thinks this is wrong, they need to take it up with their lawmakers. This is not something private companies can change on their own, otherwise all the well behaved companies would be much more likely to go out of business and only the poorly behaved ones would remain.
They used to have 1,500, before they laid off 1,000 of them.
It may not be that clear cut ...
From the article: The startup, valued by investors last year at $3.8 billion, had already whittled its staff down to about 500 people from a peak of 1,500, and was on track to run out of money in a matter of weeks
If there are any outstanding debt obligations (which I expect there are), then those would be senior to voluntary severance even if the company hadn't spent its literal last dollar.
I appreciate you were focused on the exec compensation part of the dialogue. Just noting that the money was not yet all gone.
As such, spending your last cent to try to find a lifeline makes far more sense than calling it quits early. It's also certainly not in the interests of investors to just call things off.
Convoy knows their situation very well, and it hasn't changed for 6 months.
As investors and founders you can make the call and be responsible to your employees, maintaining a good reputation for yourself (as founders), and enabling future deal flow (as investors) or this situation where they get 0 help transitioning.
This wasn't an early stage company. They're a late stage (series D iirc?) company that was valued at 1 billion+ with 5000 employees. It's not fair to characterize this with the same risk profile as an early stage co., and the expectations here should be higher in terms of severance and help.
And of course, we should prioritize a class of people who BY DEFINITION have significantly more resources available to keep themselves alive and safe and happy over the well being of 500 normal people.
Indeed.
"We hoped this day would never come. We spent over 4 months exhausting all viable strategic options for the business."
If the CEO was still speaking for the company then he's being paid.
If it's not certain they are getting paid even while things are still working, how can you say he is getting paid after running out of money? Unless you mean "paid with worthless stock" in which case I would say "you can't fund severance and health care with worthless stock."
Because the executives (almost) always make sure that they are compensated before the fall.
Often after having forgone salary for a while, also.
If there are no more company operations and no current employees, there is also no plan and no COBRA.
This could also be an issue if a company restructured so it didn't have to offer employees health care because of size or everyone being part time or whatever: COBRA doesn't guarantee that there is a plan from your former employer, it just gives you a right to pay for it yourself if there is, for a certain period of time.
So 46 days of gap between job 1 and job 2? Don't get cobra, just tough it out. If medical bills are >= 3k, then go ahead and sign up for cobra and get a chunk covered.
If your employer was paying $3,000/mo for your insurance, it's going to be $3,060 for you.
Fuck whichever lobbyists made sure that was allowable.
Edit: corrected per the reply.
It's not mandatory and its capped at 2%, not 5%, but, yes, there is a potential additional charge beyond just the full cost (what would be the employer + employee share, for a current employee) of coverage.
Also, COBRA and medical insurance in general used to be a much smaller fraction of middle-class take home pay, so it was a lot more realistic to elect to pay it out of savings even if you weren't concerned about all the above.
Medicaid and CHIP: 85,614,581 people enrolled [1]
Military: 9.5 million people covered [2]
The US has not one but two of the largest single payer health insurance programs in the world.
Medicare alone has more people enrolled than any European country's single payer programs other than Germany (pop 83,294,633) and the UK (pop 67,736,802).
[0] https://medicareadvocacy.org/medicare-enrollment-numbers/ [1] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica... [2] https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/MHS-Toolkits/M...
Neither Medicare as a whole nor Medicaid is single-payer. (Individual state Medicaid plans may be single payer plans, but very often they aren't, either.)
Traditional Medicare is single-payer, but the majority (as of this year) of Medicare beneficiaries use partially-subsidized private insurance (Medicare Advantage) plans, not traditional Medicare.
As they said, it is bizarre the lengths the US will go to to maintain its layered system. It seems purpose built to screw people over.
If you have an example of a country with a single program that has more effective outcomes for a population of similar makeup and size, that would be a useful comparison.
With multiple “single-payer” systems in the same population (often serving overlapping populations with each other and private health insurance) you've negated that benefit.
You’ve also negated the market power advantage of monopsony purchasing by having multiple of them, and again having them coexist with private health insurance.
(And that's even before considering that while Medicare and some state Medicaid plans have single payer components, Medicare is not a single-payer plan covering the listed number of beneficiaries, but instead just under half are in the single-payer traditional Medicare, and that Medicaid isn't a single payer plan, or even a plan, at all, its a funding mechanism for state-operated plans, each of which may or may not operate entirely as a state-level single-payer plan.)
Turkey's system used to have that exact flaw (three single-payers, to be precise) until 2008. All merged thereafter.
Re: medicare, I think a reasonable way towards universal single payer (or whatever you call medicare advantage plans, as a sibling notes) would be to drop the eligibility age over many years, and eventually get full coverage; and at the same time, add all kids to medicaid. Ex: years 1-10, reduce medicare eligibity age by 1, have medicaid cover kids less than year number; after ten years, medicare covers you at 55, medicaid covers kids less than 10. Years 11-20, reduce medicare eligibity age by 2, still increase kids by one year per year; after twenty years, medicare covers you at 35, and medicaid covers until 18. Years 21-28?, add medicare one year from both ends, and I think at year 28, everyone is covered. Congress should adjust the rollout schedule regularly, as scaling problems emerge, or don't; if after a couple years it becomes obvious that it's too slow or too fast, it can be adjusted; it'd also work, but be more complicated, to do it on a % basis --- once a year, determine what age (years + months even?) would result in a 1% enrollment increase, and do that, you'll finish before 100 years, but I'm not doing the math to figure out how much sooner.
When a business close, if there is no money to pay the insurance company, the plan will be terminated by the insurance company, and correct, there will be no COBRA. Bad situation.
…if the company still exists (see comments above and below)
Classy. Learning a lot about how certain people treat their employees during these last couple of admittedly insane years. Good for future reference, I guess - though not much solace now. I feel for the employees.
Edit: Wow, more responses than I thought! I admit that the tone of my comment was too reactionary, but my opinion stands. I won't modify the original comment but instead will add this quote from Dalton Caldwell, YC Partner:
"So what happens if you have less than three months of cash? It's important to face the issue head on and account for your liabilities and the scenario of shutting down your company.
In many cases, <2 months is the point of no return. If you are in this state it is immediately necessary to lay off your employees and give them severance, pay down your obligations, and use your remaining cash for shutdown costs. If you don't do this and instead end up with zero cash and outstanding payroll, tax or other obligations, things will get Very Bad." [1]
Convoy raised $1.1b including a $260mm Series E almost exactly a year ago.
[1] https://www.ycombinator.com/library/3Z-advice-for-companies-...
This might be true, but personally I'd rather the company try to remain a going concern.
You could refuse the severance as an employee if you wish to go down swinging.
Edit: Knowing the company is doomed in a month or 2 and not employees offering severance is not a good thing yo do, in my book.
Has anyone at Convoy claimed this?
That being said if you're burning $30M+ every month in the current financial market I really hope you cancelled all your catering contracts a long time ago.
If no one was picking up their calls and it was obvious, then sure.
Not much is really that clear though.
In my tiny case a while back, I wiped my liquid savings to get me employees some time. Can't do that with over a thousand employees though!
I've heard it said that every boss of a failed company will tell you that they almost got a last minute investment, or almost made a big sale, or almost got acquired, if they'd only had an extra week or two it'd have all been different.
Of course that could be wishful thinking - or a sign that in the final days they were offering fire sale prices.
Manic founders who insist that a rescue will come right up until the last second often leave people feeling burned and don't get as many second chances when things don't go well.
There is a big difference between a less than 1% chance and an 80% chance here. Part of the job is knowing that difference, and how to handle/communicate it.
It's pretty easy to say "oh you should have done this differently" with almost zero actual knowledge of the situation or experience.
Not surprising though, that Elon would be in the same camp as this Convoy CEO, not likely to shed too many tears over worker concerns.
Elon has said several variations of this have happened on several occasions.
And yet this fragility never really made it into IR reports or SEC filings or annual reports.
So either he exaggerates (shocking concept from a man whose company has on multiple occasions had to follow him around and say "his claims of Tesla doing X, or doing it by Y date, are visionary, and not statements of fact"), or there's some hinky accounting going on.
FedEx famously (allegedly) came down to a hand of blackjack in Vegas to make payroll & avoid bankruptcy.
https://www.businesstoday.in/amp/technology/news/story/elon-...
Also where were you during 2017, 2018 period when the doomsayers (aka TESLAQ) predicted the same so often? So much so that this tweet became famous?
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/980566116614291456?s=46&t=yN2X...
(I'm just trying to nail down the timeline of full truths/no cap from Elon.)
It’s nothing like a layoff. For example, imagine that you are a supplier to company A and now your contract is both unpaid and cancelled and you’re going to have to lay off some of your own staff. Do you recover the contract money from company A, to give your staff severance? Or can company A stiff you and use it to give their own staff severance? (No, they can’t.)
Usually it is the reverse.
A whole two people who claim to be ex-convoy employees have chimed in from what I have seen. Hardly representative of what the average ex-employee thinks. Certainly not enough to form a conclusion either way.
If the CEO wanted to continue operations for another month to allow folks to find new work, they could have.
A statement that's just verifiably untrue. Companies that shut down provide severance all the time. It's just a matter of priority.
The directors had reduced expenses, had been seeking further investment, to increase revenue, and finally to sell the assets of the business, before voluntarily ceasing to trade. They executed their power and duties in good faith, with the care and diligence a reasonable person in their situation would have. It's not a crime to have a business fail.
Not really true. The company is owned by its shareholders, and they may choose to use funds belonging to the company (after paying outstanding obligations) to pay severance, or they may divide the funds among themselves. If there are no funds, they can choose to invest more to pay severance. Obviously they're unlikely to want to do that, but it's not a case of "can't" but rather "won't".
If they can do this, they can pay salaries another month. Making a go/no go call at the edge is difficult. It sounds like Convoy thought it was getting a loan that didn’t come through.
Put another way: if the CEO shut down the company while loan negotiations were in place, it would have zeroed out the common stock while giving preferred investors a pay-out (in addition to everyone some severance).
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
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?
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
I think you can take out private unemployment insurance, if you are worried about that? (Or just have savings.)
Red herring
You're participating in mental gymnastics to validate what is essentially poor leadership. Why?
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.
In other countries they would have to pay the salaries.
Deploying capital into something that literally has no return just doesn't make sense. You're also ignoring the reality that most capital comes in at the start. It doesn't come in at the end. That's an irrational investment. Would you buy a house that's burning down in the interest of the current homeowners?
Could a company receive funds at the end? Legally, sure, maybe (maybe not given fiduciary duties to LPs).
Investors would have to say to their limited partners: we're going to take your money, and hand it over to employees, and those employees will do no work for us and the company is shutting down anyway. That's a very ineffective use of capital and those types of decisions are worse in the end for the economy, I would argue, which does impact everyone.
Startups are risky for investors. They're risky for employees too. I think a better solution might be to bolster unemployment insurance. After all, investors often have downside protection (usually in the form of preferred shares or preferences). Employees need downside protection too. But let's not perverse how capital should work.
Disagree - it frees those employees to begin working for more productive companies sooner rather than drag them through "you are fired with no provisions for healthcare. Good luck and don't get sick during the donut period."
- yes, it's an special qualifying trigger for the exchanges but you are asking someone navigate this in short order(likely end of the month or less than two weeks)
In spirit though, I agree. Social healthcare not tied to employer would allow for more labor mobility. These transitions should not abrupt or catastrophic ideally.
People should remember the board and CEO for screwing over employees.
After people are let go, severance and continuation of healthcare beyond some term mandated by law (maybe state, maybe federal, maybe varies by state, don't know) are not considered employee claims in this sense.
CEO and the board didn't follow the YC guidance mentioned above, and it's on them.
This is important if you're staying in more or less the same field - many specialties are smaller worlds than you may think.
I am somewhat bad with names, so I've learned to take notes. I have a list of people I'd love to work with again, and another of people whose presence will stop me from accepting an offer.
This is not a thing that happens in reality.
Severance for companies with an ROI are one thing. Severance for a failed company is quite another.
It's a choice.
I shut down a VC backed startup over a decade ago and yes we did provide severance.
Parent is basically saying they gambled you sift landing and lost, as most psychopaths would.
If you want to be coddled and showered with benefits, go join a Fortune 500. Startups are not for you.
This is not normal behavior for any company, and you should run away from anyone trying to convince you otherwise. The people responsible should be treated like pariahs.
Think for a moment how far $260 million gets you when you have 1500 tech employee salaries in Seattle to pay. Plus operating expenses. Don't forget to add 15.3% for payroll tax. Median software engineer compensation in Seattle is 219k. Infrastructure and office space isn't free either. Seattle office space averages $43/sqft and the average employee space is 150-175 sqft.
That. Money. Is. Long. Gone. It's not a bad take, you just won't do basic math.
Raising $260M doesn't mean you're rich. The investors expect you to spend that money and otherwise why are you raising that much?
They spent 4 months looking for a buyer and had already shed 1000 employees before shutting down operations. It's not like current employees were clueless about what was going on.
Functionally there's little difference between operating up until now or giving 500 "chosen, lucky" people severance 3 months ago.
I'm sure very few of the people whose continued work they were depending on for a sale would have stayed this long if they realized they were going to be treated like this.
Actions and comments like this are how you kill an ecosystem.
Just because you remained does not mean that your job is secure. This is strictly common sense.
Also I've had a pretty long career and I don't know of any company in this situation who paid 500 employees severance after ceasing operations.
Are these thousands of successful companies? Or failed companies?
> Actions and comments like this are how you kill an ecosystem.
Sorry.
Now healthcare shouldn't be tied to employment, and it's not in my country. But this is the political choices of Americans in America. Not the fault of the individual companies who are subject to the system.
And you aren't being "let go" - the entire company is going under. If you are laid off and the company stays healthy, it makes sense to have some concessions. But if the entire business ceases to exist. I don't know why would you expect anything from it.
So you could work for Bezos, or you could work for these guys. I've made my choice.
They want to be able to hire good people tomorrow so they pay you severance today.
The company in question here is dead. There is no more money coming in and no business to operate.
Startups are risky and even though you work at one, I don't think they're for you. There's plenty of other union labor jobs with pensions out there that seem to be more your speed. Your position isn't a reasonable one.
You want to have your cake and eat it to. All the rewards of being an early stage startup employee without any of the risk or skin in the game.
The risk to an employee at a company that got $250 million should only be accepting options that could be worthless in lieu of a portion of salary. There absolutely does not need to be any risk of losing healthcare, lacking severance, or any other loss of benefits. Founders want you to believe this but it doesn't have to be true.
Fortunately, there are many startups whose leadership is prosocial enough to try to offset some of the risk to its employees.
Since you seem like a Chicago School kinda guy, I'll put it in terms I think you can understand: employment is a market, and I am fortunate enough to have a optionality. It's bizarre that you fail to recognize that; it's pretty critical to your own analysis.
The business (Convoy) should have shut down in e.g. August of 2023 when it was clear that they still had enough cash to pay out severance and still cover the expenses of winding down the business. They did not take this option, choosing to instead risk it all that they could bring in an infusion of cash without firing folks.
This is not "boilerplate vapid moralizing nonsense"; to take such a risk when you have a company of 500+ employees is a poor business choice.
Smart business choices rarely align with choices that I benefit employees.
The fact that they continued to operate for 4 months with no new investment is the same as if they had shut things down then and offered severance.
There was no gamble here like your comment implies.
A lot of even large companies never leave the startup phase.
Why shouldn't a business consider itself at 0 operating dollars but still have a full account for healthcare or equivalent severance?
But a startup that raises a billion dollars and fails to set a cut-off that gets everyone out the door with their last paycheques is one that people will jump out of earlier.
Most startups fail. And everyone involved should know that going into it.
To operate a startup protecting against all risk will likely guarantee failure in almost all cases.
NO, the entire point of plane safety is that you are prepared for the VAST MAJORITY OF FAILURES, through extensive planning, testing, regulations that force certain choices, redundancy, backups, etc.
Maybe companies should stop trying to play check kiting as SOP for business operation, and be willing to admit that they sucked at business, burned a billion dollars, and didn't even keep any of it to help any of the people who did the work survive for the next few months as they adjust.
Startups on the other hand, (normally) must accept some risk of failure in order to have any chance of success.
I am not a lawyer but I believe that in this case the owner can be found personally liable to the employees.