When I read that I was fuming on behalf of all the interns that have to put up with this sort of crap. It's disgusting. The original poster has named the company as "Bee Technologies Inc" [1].
They're also advertising for a "Junior Front End Engineer" for no salary and 2-5% equity. They seem to think they are doing the world a favour. Arrogance in the highest. [2]
>you will also be working alongside one of the leading React developers in the world who will assist you every step of the way.
From the Reddit thread this is a guy who is still in college and brags about his 3 month internship at Amazon. Someone's gotta knock him down a peg, or two, or five.
Fuck it, just throw him all the way down the stairs, he really needs it.
I guess I was using the idiom wrong, it's apparently "take (one) down a peg" but I've always said "knock (one) down a peg," and when I say it I always pictured, in my head, a bunch of pegs lined up like stairs and someone being knocked "down" to a physically lower peg. it's actually one of the few idioms that prompts me have a mental image of it in my head.
I'm veering off topic now but I find the English StackExchange an absolute timesink of interesting triviality for this stuff: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/29351.
(Since I can't reply to the inner comment: - the phrase itself seems to have no solid canonical first reference but a few sources online say it's to do with ships and the navy, eg http://jimcofer.com/personal/2011/04/13/what-the-navy-gave-e..., I guess pick your favourite and run with it! :)
That wasn't very helpful, it was basically "I have no idea but here's some wild speculation."
>It has been suggested... or... Either of these might be correct... 'pegs' could relate to many things.... it isn't clear what they were... Lacking any real evidence, we can't be sure of the origin.
> Bee is a photo sharing site that connects you with your favorite brands.You post photos to Bee and they're sent directly to the people who matter. You get nationwide exposure and photo credit as your shot is featured on everything from billboards to social media.
Their business model is "paying" people for stock photos with exposure. I'm not surprised they're averse to fairly compensating people who do work for them.
We dont use the W-word anymore, this is not a steel mill- we are creating the future here. Our relationship to the people in this office is better described as correlating hobbys. So if you want to ch-oin, you are welcome!
There was a report sometime ago about companies in London (probably happening elsewhere too) asking interns to pay them to get an internship (if I remember correctly, it was in fashion and journalism). And many people did so, because it helps them get a foot in the door.
I guess with more and more automation, problems like these are only going to get worse.
I assume a company in fashion journalism's model is "we sell to rich, well-connected people so we want to employ the kids rich and well-connected people who will be able to appreciate the needs of our customer base, not to mention make the right connections for us too." Using money to screen out the unqualified candidates sounds sensible. Next they should require that the money paid comes from your parents and is not yours.
OK, I was intending to be snarky and cynical but re-reading that...apart from the last sentence it probably is their plan!
I’m not sure it’s totally a bad thing. You get to work for a renowned agency. The problem is that it excludes skilled people who don’t already have money
Among authors, Yog's Law is widely known. I assure you it applies to every field:
“Money flows toward the writer.”
or, to generalize:
Money flows towards the people doing the work.
Anything which involves the other direction is a scam of some kind. If Weiden Kennedy thinks that they are so awesome that people should pay them to learn from them, the legitimate thing to do is to open a school, not pretend that they are employees.
To be clear, I'm just the messenger - a neutral one. I'm not strongly espousing one view over another. As for the W+K project, they did sell it as a school or school like experience that gives you a real W+K project, instead of an internship where the interns pay. One guy who got into YC was part of it: https://www.theymadethat.com/people/j81421/rudy-adler
There's a rule of thumb that money should flow in the opposite direction of problems, and if it's not, then the process is deeply flawed and unsustainable.
Pay an employee to take care of the company's problems; get paid by customers to take care of their problems; but if they're not paying you, their problems aren't your problems.
My wife is studying nutrition. To become a registered dietitian and be able to work in many (if not most) US states, you have to do a months-long internship at a hospital or similar facility. __you__ pay for the privilege. And when you finish, dietitian salaries are __pitiful__ compared to less rigorous health professions which don't require a Bachelors degree.
For example, in most states mental health therapists are required to finish their course of study with a certain large number of hours working "under supervision". They pay for the supervision, but at the same time they are working, so they are paid by their patients. Paying for an education isn't a scam.
If registered dietitians have to pay for their "internship", where they actually do work for the facility but don't get paid for it, yes, I think that's a scam too. Just because it's institutionalized doesn't make it an ethical practice.
In UK, certain hospitals charge 500£ applications fees for Clinical Internships (these are taken on by Migrant Medicine Graduates) so they can get at least 3 month UK NHS experience, so they can get their foot on the ladder... They only shadow to be fair, don't do any work... But, some countries will charge 5 times for visa applications, before they actually grant you a visa... UK, Canada, etc... It's an old age practice... In the old times of the geisha's, parents would pay the brothel to take up the daughters... So why wonder?
> all the interns that have to put up with this sort of crap
There are clearly some (such as at the company in the post) but in my experience software internships have gotten really good in the past years since so many companies are competing for talent. Most places that I’ve seen in SF, interns are paid a pro-rated fulltime salary, but since they’re only working for 3 months they have few day to day operational responsinsibilities and get to spend all their time on interesting projects of their choosing (that are also also still useful to the company).
It’s pretty much the best job I can think of, I wouldn’t feel too bad for them.
Yes, in that case, I totally agree - and I do believe that I'm lucky to be in this field when I compare working days to my peers that are in all sorts of industries. By "all the interns that..." I was thinking of those that don't have the confidence or feel they have to do this. In London I have seen places I worked at hire an intern purely as a "cheap employee" with little obligation. When I hear of people having to do internships to get an entry level job it really annoys me in all but a few cases. There was a time people were brought on and trained on the job.
Companies want it both ways now - they mandate having a CS degree or similar and then in the same breath tell people they expect months of low or unpaid work "so they can be useful". No wonder millennials are fed up with business culture. I don't blame them.
This is of course a particular terrible example of a "company" but I think good, strong internships as you describe are rare - from what I've seen in the UK at least.
I've seen this too many times before. They want the developer to show up with a laptop, all tools, documentation, licenses, etc. and work for peanuts. All for the "opportunity" to learn under a "seasoned professional" and/or "build your portfolio" or some other nonsense. There was even a website that used to list these absurd offers. It was "fthatjob.com" or something similar. (sadly, it's gone).
Getting an offer requires you write a good portion of their needed code for them and hand it over before you even do a phone screening call, so they might be perfectly fine for you to laugh all you want.
That AngelList link reminded me of just how many of these roles seem to be on the site. I mean, it's filled to the brim with people and 'opportunities' you'd see mocked on that 'For Exposure' Twitter account.
And it gets worse if you're not looking for software development jobs. At least for the former, there are some paying extremely high wages to make up for the low end ones expecting Silicon Valley quality engineers to work for free. In non tech jobs... forget it. Anything that doesn't have 'manager' in the title (and many that do) is probably not going to offer enough to live on in the location its based in.
The site has its uses, and it's not bad in theory, but I suspect it needs more moderation to strip out stuff like this.
I agree this is pretty ridiculous. It does make me wonder though, what is the appropriate way to bring people on when you can’t pay them? I.e. you have no money and are just starting out (1-2ppl), and need someone to help? Do you just make them a co-founder? Or can you structure an employment agreement that grants a substantial percent of equity with a guaranteed salary starting X months after start? I ask because I’m wondering how companies that bootstrap without investment grow headcount.
Edit: I guess I should have been less ambiguous, I wasn't really talking about an employee/employer situation, I agree all work should be paid for. Now that I think about it more, I guess the scenario I was describing was 1-2 people working on a project, and then getting someone else in their immediate circle (i.e. friend, connection, etc) involved. I guess this person would then be called a co-founder, since they are assuming similar risk as the 1-2 original people. My question was more, how have others structured equity for those people, (co-founders?) who join significantly after inception?
You don't hire people if you can't afford to pay them, holy shit.
"Hi, you mind cleaning my house? I'm a college student so I can't afford to pay you but I might get a job when I'm out of school, so I'll think about paying you then."
What you really are looking for if you are at that "I got an idea but no business plan" stage is investor(s). This could be a bank or one or more people, but these people wouldn't be employees.
Realistically though, you won't proceed with your crackpot idea as you realize "starting a business" is not "finding someone to work for you for free", ie, having them take on all the risk just so you can reap the rewards.
He asked if you should make them a cofounder. In the context of software development, what's the difference between sharing the risk with an investor and then using the money to hire an employee and finding someone to work with you for no pay but making them a cofounder? Either way the risk and rewards are shared with someone who can see potential upside and downside.
If a trusted friend with a good idea wanted me to "invest" in their software idea, I would be much more willing to invest the time for development than enough money to hire a developer. Especially if I could do that and work.
I did not say an "investment" doesn't include an investment in labor, of certainly does.
The context was "bootstrap without investment." The answer is, you don't, you either invest yourself (capital or labor) or you look for investors. You don't "make someone a co-founder," that strongly implies that they are a passive actor, you look for someone willing in invest, you look for someone looking to start a company. You don't have "employment agreements," you have "business partnership."
If you're less than 3-5 people and have no money, you're looking for a technical co-founder, not an employee.
I've done say, 1 day a week of dev on the weekend while having a dayjob to get a project started for a share of equity because I liked the project. (So have others I know.)
Just have realistic asks in terms of time/equity trade so people can balance their risk by having other work as well.
Spot on. I worked for 7 years as a contractor before amassing enough money to be comfortable taking on my first employee. That was just over a year ago and now I have 5 of them - and plenty of cashflow to actually pay them what they're worth.
It's almost like people have forgotten how a business works...
You get investors to give you money so you can pay to hire capable people. Or else you realize that the world doesn't owe you workers to generate profit for you to skim/scalp. If you have 'an idea' the first thing to realize is that ideas are worthless. Utterly and completely worthless. The only thing worth a cent is execution. And execution does not consist of expecting others to execute for you for no compensation. That's begging.
You're missing the point; it's not about whether or not they have the capital-- either way, the employee inevitably gets canned right before that maturity date. That's how "probationary periods" are gamed here in the US.
I think it's irresponsible to hire employees at that stage then. Either they are co-founders and are buying into the struggle equally or they are your friends and they're doing you a favour and can afford it (or can sink the cost for you because of your long-standing relationship already). To ask this of a general person who is looking for a job not a dream would be poor form IMO.
If they aren't being paid at the beginning (equity only), then they are a co-founder of the company. If you want an employee, you find a way to pay them either through personal savings pooled together by the co-founders, or because your product is already producing some revenue that you can use for salary.
In my eyes, in this situation you are either looking for a co-founder, and give them equity accordingly, or you treat them as an investor who happens to "invest" with work.
The former means giving more than you would to an "employee" and giving shares rather than options, and giving them a real say in the business.
The latter means going to people like me who earn well enough from consulting etc. that we can afford to spend some of our time on startups without getting paid in cash fully knowing it's a high risk thing, and who will insist on seeing your cap table and investment prospectus so that we can judge the risk, and who will insist on terms that provides additional security.
Note that in the latter case my first question would be "why haven't you been able to find an investor yet"?
I've talked to people who have had convincing reasons, but I've also talked to people who presented me with investor decks where it took me 5 seconds to see why they'd failed to secure investors.
Personally I don't think devs who are inexperienced with startups should consider those kind of arrangements. For me it's kind-of a fun gamble that I take on the side of making more money than most from my paying clients - I expect most of the won't pay, but that's ok.
Answering the edit: you have to value their equity somehow.
Two people taking on a third after 6 months would probably not split out 1/3 to the new person, but it should almost certainly be more than 10% and on the same voting terms as all the other equity.
Don't forget that this now gives them a say in further dilution when you want to take on a fourth or fifth, or carve out an option pool etc.
(I've been the "first non cofounder employee" at a startup, but they paid me properly from day 1 with actual money, as well as options on a normal vesting schedule)
"This also isn't one of those startups that is trying to find a developer to do what they can not. We have a fully functioning in house dev team and simply want to move faster. As such, you will also be working alongside one of the leading React developers in the world who will assist you every step of the way."
They probably have nothing. I've never seen a job posting for a junior position saying you will be a key part of the design and implementation of the entire product.
In some (many?) jurisdictions, it is unlawful to trade while insolvent. If you cannot pay your employees, you are insolvent. If they work for free, for equity, they are not employees (and therefore should be getting a lot more than a percentage or two) and are essentially co-founders.
They're also advertising for a "Junior Front End Engineer" for no salary and 2-5% equity. They seem to think they are doing the world a favour. Arrogance in the highest. [2]
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/78rhz7/t...
[2] https://angel.co/bee-technologies-inc/jobs/275465-junior-fro...