Pff. I don't know what lawyers they have but they are shitty as fuck. Of course, this is 100% unenforceable. If I was hit with one of these I would immediately sue in a small claims court. Those walkers are contractors. If they want to do this type of shit and have at least a small chance to earn those fees, start by hiring them as W-2 workers with benefits. This is just hypocritical.
Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
41–50 of 111 posts
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#42If I recall correctly, when an employer signs up with a headhunter service to bring resumes, you're also agreeing to a 1 year term of exclusivity. Often resumes are shared without a name or other basic identifying information until you agree to meet with them. If you end up hiring them anytime from then to 1 year out, you pay the headhunter their fee. Seems fair, only because the headhunter needs to make a buck. Base…
If you have this rule: > If you end up hiring them anytime from then to 1 year out, you pay the headhunter their fee. why do you need to do this: > Often resumes are shared without a name or other basic identifying information until you agree to meet with them.
Reduces the set of people covered by this to those that the company actually paid attention to through the headhunter, reducing the space for conflict.
Otherwise either the company can reach out directly and claim they didn't rely on the headhunter for that, or alternatively the headhunter has reasons to throw as many resumes as possible at the company just to "claim" more people.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#43Do people really let strangers walk their dogs?
It’s crazy, my dog is my best friend, there’s no way I’m trusting a random person with his life. If I can’t find someone to take care of him, I change my plans. If you can’t prioritise your dog you shouldn’t have one.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seems fair, only because the headhunter needs to make a buck. Seems like a relationship built on deep mutual mistrust! I spoke to a recruiter once who wouldn't tell me the company she was hiring for, presumably to stop me going directly. But it was a ludicrous situation because of course I'm not going to agree to spend my time interviewing with an unknown company!
I'm wondering how that would even work. Do they blindfold you and take you to a mystery location!?
I’m a recruiter. The contract is with the hiring company. Once I’ve submitted your resume to a company, with your permission, the company can’t hire you without paying me. So as long as I have your permission to put you forward for a role, and submit you to the client, you can cut me out of the process as much as you wish ... I’m still getting paid if you take the role.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#45Here is the clause in Section 11: As a Pet Owner, you acknowledge that Wag! is in the business of connecting Pet Owners and Pet Care Providers, and that said business is how Wag! earns its income. As a result, Pet Owner agrees that if Pet Owner solicits a Pet Care Provider to provide off-platform pet care services to Pet Owner whom Pet Owner first met and/or learned about through the Wag! platform, Wag! is entitled t…
Just a side comment: this is one reason why I love virtual credit cards.
In this way, you can create rules for businesses who levy overzealous extra charges and price increases.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#46If I recall correctly, when an employer signs up with a headhunter service to bring resumes, you're also agreeing to a 1 year term of exclusivity. Often resumes are shared without a name or other basic identifying information until you agree to meet with them. If you end up hiring them anytime from then to 1 year out, you pay the headhunter their fee. Seems fair, only because the headhunter needs to make a buck. Base…
If you have this rule: > If you end up hiring them anytime from then to 1 year out, you pay the headhunter their fee. why do you need to do this: > Often resumes are shared without a name or other basic identifying information until you agree to meet with them.
You don’t, the latter is part of candidate marketing where you send resumes to companies to tempt them to sign a contract. Scummy practice imo, as the candidates are rarely told.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have this rule: > If you end up hiring them anytime from then to 1 year out, you pay the headhunter their fee. why do you need to do this: > Often resumes are shared without a name or other basic identifying information until you agree to meet with them.
Reduces the set of people covered by this to those that the company actually paid attention to through the headhunter, reducing the space for conflict. Otherwise either the company can reach out directly and claim they didn't rely on the headhunter for that, or alternatively the headhunter has reasons to throw as many resumes as possible at the company just to "claim" more people.
[deleted]
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#48Homejoy the house cleaning startup has a very similar business model to Wag. and as Homejoy failed because clients would directly hire the cleaners vs going through Homejoy; Wag will be destined to the same failure unless they use scare tactics to block clients from hiring contractors directly
A platform isn’t destined to fail just because there’s a high rate of disintermediation.
Generally, the root cause for these sorts of businesses failing is when their customer acquisition cost exceeds their customer ltv.
Disintermediation causes customer churn which results in lower customer lifetime value. But, it’s only one of many important levers that determine the health of a platform business.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#49I'm just imagining one of the wag investors asking "What's to stop your walker who lives nearby the dog's owner, just doing the walk independently with the person they've built trust with?" And the answer is "you have a shitty business model and this should have killed it years ago"
I don't know. Both Wag and Rover have fund-raised $300M from investors. I would think they'd have responded to that line of questioning at least once.
> I would think they'd have responded to that line of questioning at least once.
Errm. You'd be surprised. Let's just leave it at that.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm wondering how that would even work. Do they blindfold you and take you to a mystery location!?
I’m a recruiter. The contract is with the hiring company. Once I’ve submitted your resume to a company, with your permission, the company can’t hire you without paying me. So as long as I have your permission to put you forward for a role, and submit you to the client, you can cut me out of the process as much as you wish ... I’m still getting paid if you take the role.
Why can’t everyone operate with a bit more trust? Am I too hopeful and in reality people would try to screw you over if you were more open?