A culture of beer and overtime • Hacker News Board

Re: A culture of beer and overtime

#161

Post by reginaldjcooper » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 2:52 PM UTC

jholman wrote: post #39

patio11 wrote: post #5

n.b. It was time to leave, and the HR lady came to me and said I would have to sign a release letter and send it back within 2 work days (the following Monday was a holiday), otherwise I would not get any of the remaining pay I'm not familiar with the law in Canada, but I rather suspect that it's similar to America, so a bit of advice for the young and impressionable: virtually no threat to not pay an employee wages…

Oh, the employment law is a lot employee-friendlier in Canada than in the US. In particular, BC employment law (relevant to this post) is a lot friendlier than California employment law. And when you go to take them to court, the government will, under some circumstances, provide free legal services to the employee (you can look up the BC gov's Employment Standards Branch). That said, IIRC, even BC is pretty employer…

It always blows my mind when countries get things right, and by that I mean providing adequate health, housing, and legal services to all residents.

Paying legal fees for employed persons sounds like a great way to provide them access to fair(er) representation. Otherwise if they have to pay out of pocket they can't afford it, and if it's loser pays the risk requires a large reward before it's rational to pursue.

Well done, again, Canada.

Re: A culture of beer and overtime

#162

Post by walshemj » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 3:25 PM UTC

jayhuang wrote: post #100

patio11 wrote: post #5

n.b. It was time to leave, and the HR lady came to me and said I would have to sign a release letter and send it back within 2 work days (the following Monday was a holiday), otherwise I would not get any of the remaining pay I'm not familiar with the law in Canada, but I rather suspect that it's similar to America, so a bit of advice for the young and impressionable: virtually no threat to not pay an employee wages…

Hi Patrick, Thanks for the tip. I always find your comments very helpful. This was definitely a huge learning experience for me; probably better now than 15~20 years down the road. I too, was quite sure they would still have to pay me even if I didn't sign. I just wanted everything to be done with and never have to deal with them again. I've had to sue before, but I try to avoid it if at all possible. Funny thing is…

Don't take this the wrong way Jay but HN is not in any way a professional adviser that would be your lawyer or other "approved" person

So you signed a compromise agreement (which you have now broken) without getting anything for it or having a lawyer check it out.

Re: A culture of beer and overtime

#163

Post by walshemj » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 3:27 PM UTC

throwaway1979 wrote: post #135

patio11 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to help. I mostly give advice like this because I'm keenly aware that when I was young and stupid I was often a doormat in e.g. dealing with companies, and despite years of socialization which had suggested to me that being a doormat was praiseworthy, things started to get better in a hurry after I abandoned my default presumption of doormathood. In your future professional dealings, and those of the peanut gall…

Sorry for being thickheaded. I want to clarify the point of contention. The way I understand it ... the company wanted him to sign the release without "any real consideration". The claimed consideration was the employer would pay the employee his owed wages. I totally understand that this is not real consideration - they owed the employee this anyways. But what kind of consideration should/could he have expected?

This is whats termed a compromise agreement basically if you pay me x I will go quietly and your right just paying what your owed is not acceptable.

Re: A culture of beer and overtime

#164

Post by henrikschroder » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 3:45 PM UTC

laughfactory wrote: post #72

Dude, I feel ya. And thanks for sharing. I'm not (yet) a developer (though that is my long game), but I have run into similar situations in data science. I had an idiot boss (boss of my immediate boss) who sat around all day with his feet on his desk, staring off into space, but demanded that we all work 60-ish hours a week. And this was at a bank, where the standard was 40 and they made a lot of noise about their su…

What I don't understand is what your boss thought he would gain by the threat? Because if you quit, they'll lose weeks or months trying to find a replacement?

And if the environment is toxic and they'll repeatedly try to get people to do the job, they'll get absolutely nothing done in the long run?

Re: A culture of beer and overtime

#165

Post by potatolicious » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 3:53 PM UTC

jayhuang wrote: post #129

kafkaesque wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once created a throwaway account here to post about a company's bad practices. I named the company, as well. It was immediately removed from this site. I'm actually from Vancouver, so I would love to know the name of the company. The OP's old employer: 1. Has one (big) claim to fame 2. Located in Vancouver 3. Has a product "dealing with large amounts of money from customers’ bank accounts" But (3) might not be part…

I'm very hesitant to post the name of the company because most of my experience has to do with the PM, and not the company as a whole. Although I do have some issues with how this company is run in particular, I do not want to misguide people into thinking that working at this company will be an absolute nightmare. I have seen different dynamics on other teams within the company, but it's also not the complete pictur…

> "Either way, (3) is a new product, essentially a startup on it's own."

Hehehe, the good old "it's a startup inside a big company!" thing. Here's my advice for when someone pitches that thought to you: run away.

Here's the thing about "startup inside a big company!" - it's never true.

Re: A culture of beer and overtime

#166

Post by refurb » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 3:59 PM UTC

reginaldjcooper wrote: post #161

jholman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, the employment law is a lot employee-friendlier in Canada than in the US. In particular, BC employment law (relevant to this post) is a lot friendlier than California employment law. And when you go to take them to court, the government will, under some circumstances, provide free legal services to the employee (you can look up the BC gov's Employment Standards Branch). That said, IIRC, even BC is pretty employer…

It always blows my mind when countries get things right, and by that I mean providing adequate health, housing, and legal services to all residents. Paying legal fees for employed persons sounds like a great way to provide them access to fair(er) representation. Otherwise if they have to pay out of pocket they can't afford it, and if it's loser pays the risk requires a large reward before it's rational to pursue. Wel…

Canada doesn't provide free legal services to employed people. In this particular case, you can get assistance with legal fees for an employment-related dispute, but that by no means extends to other legal matters.

Re: A culture of beer and overtime

#167

Post by mogrim » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 3:59 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #153

jaf656s wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were treated fairly. Bluntly but fairly. When you turn in your resignation, your notice is just an offer of a grace period. They are not obligated to take you up on your offer.

Depends. Some countries will require you to work a certain amount of time. And some contracts will require you to work after handing in a notice.

Spain requires 15 working days notice for example, although if you leave on good terms there's usually a certain amount of flexibility.

Re: A culture of beer and overtime

#168

Post by aestra » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 4:30 PM UTC

prawn wrote: post #60

redthrowaway wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who don't drink tend to view quasi-mandatory drinking as exclusionary and indicative of strange priorities. Imagine you were a non-smoker and your team regularly got together to smoke, then questioned your commitment when you didn't join them. It would heavily colour your opinion of the team dynamic and why it seemed broken to you.

Bit of a difference between passive smoking and drinking water around colleagues who are having a few drinks.

Not really. Imagine if you had a serious alcohol control problem, alcohol was a huge trigger for you, you had a family alcohol related death, you were arrested for drinking and driving, you grew up with alcoholic parents, you were removed from your parents as a child because they couldn't care for your because of their alcohol problem, etc.

Re: A culture of beer and overtime

#169

Post by 6d0debc071 » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 5:21 PM UTC

> “You are not 100% committed.”

I can't remember quite how I responded to that the first time I got it but it went something very much along these lines:

"To gain big you have to gamble big, if big gains were simple everyone would be doing them. There is always the possibility of failure, of losing everything you bring to the table, and being a hundred percent committed to anything, bringing everything you have to the table, is a bad gambling strategy. We can work together for our mutual benefit, but if you expect me to throw my entire life, and potentially all my future options, behind something that may or may not work out... well, I can see how that's to your benefit but I don't see how it's to my likely long-term good. The average lifespan of a company is thirty years, and significantly less in the startup space. I'm afraid that if you want me to sacrifice my interests for yours you either need to be paying me a lot more to justify the added risk you're asking me to take on, or we've reached a parting of the ways."

People like that are, I feel, just looking to take advantage of you. Loyalty is won by laying the best hearth, not demanded.

Re: A culture of beer and overtime

#170

Post by michaelochurch » Fri, Nov 08, 2013, 5:29 PM UTC

It was time to leave, and the HR lady came to me and said I would have to sign a release letter and send it back within 2 work days (the following Monday was a holiday), otherwise I would not get any of the remaining pay, including my “stock options”. Apparently instead of full-time as stated in my offer letter, I was a “Contractor” and that the agreement was “terminated”. I guess that’s to protect them somehow. And the “stock options” that she said I would be paid amounted to $0 (as expected).*

That shit is highly illegal. Get a lawyer. Even now, after the fact, there are things an attorney can do for you, like negotiate a settlement. (If they pressured you into signing a release or non-disparagement agreement, they're afraid). The release should be voided by the threat of withholding wages. This reversion to consultant status is fishy, too. It seems like they're afraid of a constructive dismissal claim (essentially, the argument that the PM's horrible behavior constitutes wrongful termination).

I'm not saying that you should sue them. That's not my decision to make, and for a 9-week job it's rarely worth it. Given that they already broke the law, you don't much to lose, and there is something to gain, by getting an attorney involved. If nothing else, it'll make that horrible PM look bad to his superiors, and that's a small win.

You won't get stock options, of course. Typical vesting is 4/1, meaning you get zero if you leave in the first year. I don't know why they even mentioned that. Almost no one gets stock options (for obvious, legitimate reasons) who worked at a place for 9 weeks.