We had a nice run for a year and a half. Learnt a lot during that time, including management and people skills (had to train junior developers as well). It was a fun time with highs and lows. Too bad the company didn't make it. It didn't ruin any friendship, so all good in the end.
Ask HN: Those who've joined a friend's startup as an employee, how did that go?
131–140 of 300 posts
Re: Ask HN: Those who've joined a friend's startup as an employee, how did that go?
#132I joined a friend's business as an employee and worked for him for years. I think for the most part that went ok but the fact that we're not friends any more probably tells you something. At some point I felt like I was being taken advantage of, left, and that sort of ruined the friendship. We weren't particularly close friends to start with and we were still on talking terms when our work relationship ended. I also…
Anyone giving you a wage while seeking a profit instead of partner equity is taking advantage of you tautologically
Not neccessarily. For example, all companies are seeking profits, but some are actually losing money. Such companies still have to pay wages, in which case they're partially paid out of owners' pockets.
Re: Ask HN: Those who've joined a friend's startup as an employee, how did that go?
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an employer, I'll push back on this. I'll start by saying that if you want equity, then by all means seek out jobs that provide equity. In mu experience, people don't want equity as much as they want a living wage. They want a proper salary, every month, not some mythical payday in the future. If you can find a place that does both, thats fantastic. Incidentally if you have meaningful equity that comes with a bunc…
> In mu experience, people don't want equity as much as they want a living wage. They want a proper salary, every month, not some mythical payday in the future. People also don't want to be screwed over by their friends. A little equity costs the startup's founders very little, while making sure their friends see some benefit from a successful exit is worth a lot to those friends.
The concept of 'screwed over' usually boils down to a misunderstanding.
If I hire a friend, then the transaction is simple - do the work, get a salary. Whether the business does well, or badly, is irrelevant. How much I do, or don't, take home is irrelevant. There's no "fairness" in play here, it's a simple business transaction.
If you can't live with that then don't take the job. Join as a founder, or go start your own company.
Feeling "screwed" happens when you feel entitled to the upside, but don't take the downside along the way. When the business folds, and the owner loses his house, are you chipping in? Are you signing paper to cover liabilities?
I'll be honest, most friends cannot separate friendship from business. So yes, it usually ends badly. Usually because the employee I expecting things not in their contract.
Re: Ask HN: Those who've joined a friend's startup as an employee, how did that go?
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an employer, I'll push back on this. I'll start by saying that if you want equity, then by all means seek out jobs that provide equity. In mu experience, people don't want equity as much as they want a living wage. They want a proper salary, every month, not some mythical payday in the future. If you can find a place that does both, thats fantastic. Incidentally if you have meaningful equity that comes with a bunc…
I’ll push back on everyone here: if you’re looking for a stable living wage, you’re a fool — especially in tech. The economy is cyclical. Tech runs on speculation and (used to) on lax tax rules. Likewise, hiring is based on asinine processes, asinine vogues of fashion, and asinine practices. At any moment in time you could be made persona non-grata in tech. If you joined tech for the passion of if, and you’re not ind…
There are lots of companies put there. I'm sure a few operate as you describe.
But lots and lots of tech workers go to work, get paid and repeat till they retire. So I don't think your thesis is universally true.
Re: Ask HN: Those who've joined a friend's startup as an employee, how did that go?
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
it depends on their previous relationship. if they have worked together before then the test should be redundant. so why should i feel bothered that they didn't have to do a test?
If the founder is not really involved with the hiring team then you are essentially going over them without them having any idea how you work. While I know what you're saying that the founder is vouching for your experience, its still going to cause friction, I think. Especially, again, to all the people that fought for the job.
sure, i am thinking of cases where the founder is still involved with hiring, and especially more so, where the founder is the lead developer and still coding.
i agree with you that once the company is large enough that the founder is no longer involved with hiring decisions then they should not just go over the hiring team.
more specifically, as in this article: https://www.cio.com/article/236189/5-reasons-ceos-should-be-...
i am talking about smaller companies that don't yet have senior management and HR teams
Re: Ask HN: Those who've joined a friend's startup as an employee, how did that go?
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll push back on everyone here: if you’re looking for a stable living wage, you’re a fool — especially in tech. The economy is cyclical. Tech runs on speculation and (used to) on lax tax rules. Likewise, hiring is based on asinine processes, asinine vogues of fashion, and asinine practices. At any moment in time you could be made persona non-grata in tech. If you joined tech for the passion of if, and you’re not ind…
Well put. Although, I'd say this view, much as I share it, makes it harder to find companies to work for. Especially in a tougher job market like right now. I'll do conversational technical interviews all day. Leet code and 6 interviews unrelated to the job, hell no. It's cynical, but once you've been through the meat grinder with layoffs, obsessive VC overgrowth and unfulfilled promises, I don't see another way so g…
Its fair to point out that US,VC company culture is not how most of the world works.
Naturally if you revolve only in that space it may seem like it. And I can certainly see that culture leading to your viewpoint.
Fortunately, my experience has not been like yours.
Re: Ask HN: Those who've joined a friend's startup as an employee, how did that go?
#137startup needed to pivot after 6 months, back to job market, no hard feelings though as I understood the risks before joining
Re: Ask HN: Those who've joined a friend's startup as an employee, how did that go?
#138I'd definitely only join if I was made something very near to equal partner.
Re: Ask HN: Those who've joined a friend's startup as an employee, how did that go?
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such situations make me furious, but not so much at individuals as at the system. Getting equity in a startup is ridiculously high friction. It's often been a deal breaker for me; not because the founder themselves had personal objections, but because of bureaucratic nonsense such as; it was too much hassle legally or other large investors wouldn't like it, etc, etc... IMO, it should be illegal to launch a limited li…
> IMO, it should be illegal to launch a limited liability company/corporation and only allow specific people to buy shares. I object to the idea of incorporation and limiting directors' liability to begin with but since it is allowed, at the very least, it should be a requirement under the law that the shares be on the open market such that anyone who wants them can buy them and resell them at any time. I don't under…
>> If I start a company on my own and I provide all the equity then I own all the "shares". What would it mean for those shares to "be on the open market"? If I'm not selling them then no one can buy them.
If you own all the shares initially, it means you get to set the price to whatever you want (and hope that someone is willing to pay that price), or you can just hold them and keep them all to yourself.
BUT, if you decide to sell them, you can't just sell them to a specific person over the counter. You'd have to sell on a market so that anyone can potentially buy them and potentially outbid your intended investor.
>> And if it was a trivial low-regulation thing to create shares and sell them to the public, it would undermine the entire body of regulations they put in place to prevent scams and ensure transparancy.
These regulations are completely useless at preventing scams and it's not the government's job to protect people from scams ahead of time. It's extremely disingenuous to suggest that the government can even know what is a scam ahead of time... Scams like FTX were allowed to grow to billions of dollars and the regulators didn't bat an eyelash until the whole scheme was blown wide open. The only correct, honest way to handle it is that if people get scammed, they can sue the scammer to try to recover as much money as possible. The person who lost the money is partly responsible because they failed to judge the founder's character.
>> If I think that my labour makes a huge difference to the success of a company
Nobody's Labour ever makes a difference. The success of any project is all about capital, political leverage and media exposure. Let's be honest here.
>> And by the way, if you got your wish and limited liability was abolished, then all shareholders would be on the hook for any and all debts the company cannot pay (jointly and severally). That would include employees paid in shares. It contradicts your desire for broad share ownership.
I would be fine with that. My strategy would be to only invest in small or medium-sized companies whose founders I can trust and who can manage their risk. The bigger the company, the higher the risk. All of society would be better off if everyone did this. This is not a new concept. It used to be how humans did business for thousands of years. They did just fine, in spite of having very little technology at their disposal. Then finally honesty would be worth something again...
It's terrifying how everyone blindly trusts criminals just because the government gave them its stamp of approval.
Re: Ask HN: Those who've joined a friend's startup as an employee, how did that go?
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an employer, I'll push back on this. I'll start by saying that if you want equity, then by all means seek out jobs that provide equity. In mu experience, people don't want equity as much as they want a living wage. They want a proper salary, every month, not some mythical payday in the future. If you can find a place that does both, thats fantastic. Incidentally if you have meaningful equity that comes with a bunc…
>people don't want equity as much as they want a living wage. I'd add the caveat that equity is worth more than it isn't so limited in usage for those it is distributed too. 1 year cliff, 4 year vest, but company likely to just retrench you? Worthless. Developers don't stay that long on average, and the sale terms are basically handcuffs waiting for an exit event. Constant promises of revshare when profitability is r…
People who say:
"Anyone giving you a wage while seeking a profit instead of partner equity is taking advantage of you tautologically"
assume all startups have huge exit and don't account that equity can actually go down to $0 - that $100 I get today wired to my account does not go to $0 suddenly.
Then you might be stuck with equity because there might be no one who will buy it off - or company board won't approve of sale, so you might be sitting on loads of "theorethical cash" that you won't be able to materialize.
Still $100 wired to my account - if I can spend it - is not getting voted by company co-owners and if things go south, believe me, you will have a hard time to bail and getting any money back from the equity.
Just like lottery ticket, people don't see the downsides only that there is $8 000 000 to win and they hear in the news every 2 weeks someone wins. Where no one is making news stories about people who spend $100 every week for years and never won.