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.
>>Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"?
Because the individual has more to lose. Which is more likely, the public boycott the company or the companies boycott the individual? Especially in the world of tech, even if you're right about a company's bad practice just going off and posting a rant about them online reflects badly on you. It means you probably should have just left the company before you got so angry about them. I personally have some very deeply negative feelings about my time in at&t but now I realize it's my own fault for staying 6 years when I was already fed up in my first 18 months. It just made me bitter.
At the absolute minimum, when they see your name on a resume and immediately associate it with recent memory of a rant on HN or some complex ordeal described in a techcrunch article, they'll think twice about you. Maybe they'll still go forward with you; but their will be a double-think. If someone really wants to post something that's less than positive about a previous employer, that person should do it as objectively as possible. Remove all emotion, only state facts with no sensationalism or leading-questions or anything suggestive and be sure to state the whole thing as just "their very humble opinion". It would also show a sense of responsibility/maturity to state the issues that concerned in in a form of a question. "Who you the reader have done things this way?" And especially to suggest a solution. "The way I would have done it is..."
What happened to the OP here is regrettable and doesn't sound like it's his/her fault. This person handled it professionally by just asking for advice and not mentioning names.
It's on both sides not to "burn the bridge". The problem here is those of us observing from the sidelines have very little access to the facts, so we really have no idea what the truth of the matter is.
All we'll see is bickering and unverifiable (by us) claims, and without the ability to discover who is in the right, it just looks bad to observers.
It's like having a shouting match in the middle of the parking lot. One of you might be entirely in the right and completely justified, but to the rest of us it just looks like a situation to avoid.
Because the individual needs something, and the startup does not. what do they care if he is pissed? He's some unemployed dude they'll never have to deal with again. Meanwhile potentially having them as a resource who will say 'oh yeah Ex Employee was a really great guy, we regret losing him, definitely hire him if you can' is pretty much the only positive he's gonna get from this experience. Complain about them and you don't even get good word of mouth from the, just a ton of wasted time and an angry story to tell.
YCombinator people talk to one another. they go to meetups. San Francisco is an incestuous little town. It's hard to break into and having bad blood with people on the inside can make it harder.
They should talk to each other about why this was bad behavior. If the OP mentions the name, the company can respond with their reasons in an adult and professional manner, explain why they needed someone else, and how they are going to make this right. Then they look like smart, grounded pros willing to admit a mistake and will get some free marketing.
"Because the individual needs something, and the startup does not"
Sounds like they do, in fact, need something, and it's a different person.
"Meanwhile potentially having them as a resource who will say 'oh yeah Ex Employee was a really great guy, we regret losing him, definitely hire him if you can' "
He was there 2 weeks, if that. You can't tell if someone was good in that time period. If I got a reference like that about someone who worked at a place for a grab total of 6 days... I'd think something was fishy.
> 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.
Reply button is usually hidden for the first 2-5 minutes on deeply nested comments, to prevent angry back-and-forth with no thought. You can reply, but you have to know to click the permalink for the comment.
Think about the next company who considers hiring this guy. Perhaps they'll think "hm, what if he doesn't like being with us - will he derail us in public, too? Perhaps we can find a less risky candidate".
Exactly. These things are ugly and this is a cautionary tale for anyone looking to work for a new startup but it's also really important to keep from looking like a bitter employee who will turn on you and make you look evil if things don't work out.
having been a bridge burner i can say that most employers are not competent enough to discover that you burned a bridge if they care... and if you volunteer the information its a great way to filter bad employers too.
Not ordinarily, no. But I can't think of a circumstance under which it benefits you to disclose your grievances with a former employer to a new or potential employer. There is nothing but downside in doing that.
Just as most companies are too incompetent or uninterested to search out your dirty laundry, most companies are too incompetent or uninterested to sort it. If they see it, they'll just acknowledge its existence, and probably think twice about you because of it. They won't dig deeper, or spend any effort sussing out who was right and who was wrong. They'll just note it as a red flag.
This is why people advise against "bridge burning," even when you have no reason to believe you'll ever cross that bridge again. It's all about perceptions. "Optics," as they say in corporate parlance. Being seen as a malcontent is never good for your employment prospects, even when you're completely justified.
But I can't think of a circumstance under which it benefits you to disclose your grievances with a former employer to a new or potential employer.
I think the circumstance is like @jheriko said, as a filter. If an employer sees treating employees bad as dirty laundry, well maybe it isn't the place you want to work, and you're better off not getting an offer.
I understand that objective in theory, but it seems impractical in the wild. Most employers won't look beyond the surface level of "This person had issues with a previous employer and feels the need to discuss them here." They won't bother to ferret out who was right, who was wrong, and whether your grievances are legitimate -- even if they are. So you're basically raising a flag, and a lot of interviers or hiring managers will treat it as such.
Think about it from their perspective. They don't know you too well. All they know, at a quick glance, is that you have had problems with a previous employer. They get your side of the story, perhaps, but how are they to know if you're telling the full story, or if you're just the kind of person who complains about things and causes morale issues? They don't have the time or the process to sort that out, so they'll default to the conservative position of assuming you are more trouble than you're worth.
I've seen this torpedo people in job interviews. I've seen it sink the candidacies of people who were otherwise in very strong contention. Is that fair? Of course not. But it's something to keep in mind.
In a perfect world, sure, this would serve as a nice filter to determine if employers are worth working for. In the world we actually live in, this filter will, more often than not, filter you out of a lot of job opportunities. Meanwhile, there are more effective and less risky filters you can apply when vetting an employer.
I agree that it may not work very well as a filter and that you have to be extremely cautious with any 'negative' statements when interviewing for a job.
the way to flag this to an employer is simply. not to air the grievance but to inform them of it if it is public knowledge... e.g you left as a result, it was your former employer who will be contacted for a reference, or there was some public exposure etc.
they might already know and its in your best interest to be honest. getting found out after the fact is bad, regardless as to your employer's intentions.
its really quite different from airing the concerns that led to the situation.
in this specific case the problem is that he worked for a short period and was let go very rapidly. having a 2 week blip as your last role on a CV is worth explaining - but not complaining about.
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.
