141–150 of 297 posts
[I've deleted the contents of this post. I apologize to readers for the inconvenience and confusion. I related a story similar to that of the OP but decided I shouldn't post about it here.]
Bloody hell, that is horrible, do you mind me asking, if there were performance issues bad enough to pick up on in the first few weeks how were they not picked up on in the interview?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could he send a private email to PG and partners at YC? Not as a complaint but more like, "hey, just a heads up, this just happened at one of the companies you guys sponsored." I don't know anything about investing in startups but common sense would suggest that this would raise some red flags.
I would talk to a lawyer before doing this... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
[I've deleted the contents of this post. I apologize to readers for the inconvenience and confusion. I related a story similar to that of the OP but decided I shouldn't post about it here.]
[I've deleted the contents of this post. I apologize to readers for the inconvenience and confusion. I related a story similar to that of the OP but decided I shouldn't post about it here.]
Bloody hell, that is horrible, do you mind me asking, if there were performance issues bad enough to pick up on in the first few weeks how were they not picked up on in the interview?
Granted, keep in mind that I'm not privy to all the details. He very well may have been granted a generous severance pay-out to ease the burden -- I honestly don't know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could he send a private email to PG and partners at YC? Not as a complaint but more like, "hey, just a heads up, this just happened at one of the companies you guys sponsored." I don't know anything about investing in startups but common sense would suggest that this would raise some red flags.
I would talk to a lawyer before doing this... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? It has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the situation. It is about presenting yourself to the rest of the world. Being a bridge-burner doesn't look good to potential employers.
@angersock yeah, exactly like the next batch of shitbag YC kids hiring a COO. Because apparently that's who he's trying to get employed by. It's weird that you seem to think that this crowd are shallow children and yet somehow don't think that they will retaliate against public criticism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
An employee who was acceptable to the company on X and unacceptable on X + 2 weeks is being asked to shoulder risks equivalent to that of an independent contractor or consultant. Many people enjoy shouldering the many risks associated with parachuting into foreign countries for two weeks to execute engagements with no guarantee that there will be work available on week three. We are customarily compensated for should…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At very conservative estimates for bay area salaries, 2 weeks is probably like $5000. Complaining about that is not "whining" in my book - that's quite a bit of money where I'm from. That said, there are various things involved with the decision.
$5000 is peanuts to work two weeks , uproot your life and reject other, more valid job offers, only to get sand kicked in your face for no reason. in fact it's downright insulting, and most importantly, humiliating to an extreme degree. if there's anything in the world that could be classified as being a bitch, that's it. stop short-changing yourself and technology professionals, you do us all a disservice and it's e…
What's his professional governing body going to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? I'd say that this startup has burnt this bridge pretty well. It would have been perfectly reasonable for him to tell us who they were and for us to avoid them like the plague.
The burden is on the individual not to "burn the bridge" because it suits everyone (rightly or wrongly) to perpetuate the myth that companies cannot be held responsible for screwing up the lives of individuals.
I'm a bit surprised no one has suggested what I consider the most likely possibility: They had no idea what getting you a visa actually entailed and bailed once you started and they discovered how hard it would be. I'm leaning that way because most people don't understand how hard visas actually are, the way they were vague about their reasons and the timing. Of course, if that's what actually happened, not telling y…