Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–639 of 639 posts

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#631

Post by User23 »

cwilkes wrote: post #485
User23 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the law has changed, in California back pay is senior to everything except tax debt. And the company officers are personally liable for it. It should work that way everywhere. Executives need to be incentivized to do layoffs while there’s still cash for it. Defrauding employees is a terrible evil.

Slight twist on that here: most employees are in Seattle and WA state law doesn’t mandate paying out unused vacation time. Most (good) employers do that when employees quit but they don’t have to.

WA state law is really quite employer and landlord friendly.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#632

Post by hinkley »

jefftk wrote: post #630
hinkley wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn’t get our final check. The class action suit went on for several years and the lawyers got all the money. I believe I was entitled to something less that $100 in the end and I declined.

Are we still talking about Convoy?

Nope, different school of hard knocks.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#633

Post by robocat »

sofixa wrote: post #537
robocat wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably to fix that would need legislation specific to start-ups. I would hope most employees know that is a significant risk of working at a startup?! But yes, harsh, regardless of how predictable.

Why specific to startups? Everyone deserves some leeway during layoffs, having a minimum severance for everyone is pretty basic stuff. Also, healthcare shouldn't be employer provided.

Because startups are expected to fail, and VCs won't "waste" money unless they are forced to so they will leave the business with $0. Without legislation VCs won't assign any money for post-failure employee costs.

Running concern businesses don't have quite the same incentives nor the same risks of failure.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#634

Post by eru »

vidarh wrote: post #628
eru wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you describe workers as parasites, that is utterly vile and explains a lot. And so we are done here. You are putting words in my mouth. I am talking about unions, not workers.

Unions are made up by their members, so this is a distinction without any meaning.

Company's are made up by their employees, too.

And governments also claim to be of the people.

Unions are bureaucracies and have an organisational life of their own. You can't just equate them with workers. (In addition, there are also non-unionised workers.)

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#635

Post by djmips »

acyou wrote: post #506
djmips wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I did not appreciate in my scenario that the founder REJECTED a buy offer for what would have been a life changing amount of money for me, because he thought it was too low. Same scenario for me - so I left - and then shortly after they did sell. Argh.

How do you know for sure the first buy offer was real?

You're going to have to take my word.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#636

Post by shiroiuma »

paulddraper wrote: post #560
shiroiuma wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they need something in bankruptcy law that requires the executives to stick around, at low pay, to do their jobs and unwind the company. After all, they're the ones who made it fail. Why should they be allowed to walk away? If a regular individual declares bankruptcy and then doesn't bother doing any of the required paperwork and legal stuff, saying the court needs to pay them top dollar for their time, things…

> Why should they be allowed to walk away? Because we decided ages ago that compelled labor is a bad idea.

Again, try declaring bankruptcy, and then refusing to do any more paperwork or show up for the bankruptcy hearing with the judge, and see how it goes for you.

In fact, bankruptcy is a process that, if you follow the rules, is beneficial to you: you get protection from your creditors so that your loss is minimized. If you refuse to do the labor to follow this process, you won't have any protection and things will go badly for you. I don't see why it should be different for the owners and executives of a corporation. These people are not employees.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#637

Post by FireBeyond »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #615
FireBeyond wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this not theft? He took company funds and gambled them. That he won and was able to replace them is immaterial. Martin Shkreli was convicted for misusing company funds even though he made his investors money. It's not "not theft" because you can or do put the money back. I can't understand how you can't see that. That $5,000 ($40,000 in today's money) might not have gone very far, but you are very eager to whi…

Okay, I don't want to argue about the exact semantics of the word theft and what kinds of "misuse of funds" it includes. Nothing went in his pocket; it wasn't embezzlement. And Shkreli was moving money between companies and lying to investors, neither of which is relevant here. More importantly, none of that explains what is sociopathic here. > He easily could have lost that bet, and that money could have reimbursed…

> I don't want to argue about the exact semantics of the word theft and what kinds of "misuse of funds" it includes. Nothing went in his pocket; it wasn't embezzlement.

See, the law very much disagrees with you here. It went into his pocket, and from there on a card table at Vegas. The moment he had decided to use company money like this, it was taken from its rightful owner.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#638

Post by Dylan16807 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #637
Dylan16807 wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I don't want to argue about the exact semantics of the word theft and what kinds of "misuse of funds" it includes. Nothing went in his pocket; it wasn't embezzlement. And Shkreli was moving money between companies and lying to investors, neither of which is relevant here. More importantly, none of that explains what is sociopathic here. > He easily could have lost that bet, and that money could have reimbursed…

> I don't want to argue about the exact semantics of the word theft and what kinds of "misuse of funds" it includes. Nothing went in his pocket; it wasn't embezzlement. See, the law very much disagrees with you here. It went into his pocket, and from there on a card table at Vegas. The moment he had decided to use company money like this, it was taken from its rightful owner.

But the money stayed owned by the company the entire time. He bet it on behalf of the company.

Companies are allowed to make bets on things. And he was high up enough to be able to make that decision.

It went in his pocket, but it would have gone in his pocket if he was going to the office supply store too. That's not an issue.

But none of this explains why it's sociopathic. Most crimes don't rise to that bar. For example, embezzling money from a company that's already guaranteed to collapse and unable to make payroll is generally not sociopathic. Especially if it's some kind of technical embezzlement where you have no personal gain whatsoever.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#639

Post by vipbb »

revel wrote: post #412

There are some really profound misunderstandings of how bankruptcy and credit work in this thread. Creditors are ranked by seniority and get paid out in order by seniority. Equity is below every creditor and has been completely wiped out. Companies are not allowed to take cash or sell the furniture to pay out employees. That money is legally owed to creditors and attempting to stiff them is theft. I'm sorry to those…

"Convoy got stuck holding the bag after their partner carriers went under, having already paid them for their service, but still waiting for payment from the shipper."

This doesn't make any sense. What you're describing is normal course of business. Shipper pay terms are usually longer than when the carrier get's paid from broker. "Carrier's went under", doesn't make any difference. If the shipper doesn't pay, than that's a problem. But to say paying carriers that "went under" contributed to Convoy going out of business just isn't accurate.

Post reply on HN