
Tell HN: I got screwed by my employer - DeusExMachina
Premise: this story is in part my fault too, but I will leave it here to warn other people on this subject: bootstrapping a startup while employed.<p>I worked in a consulting company in my country of origin and I was bootstrapping a startup in the meanwhile. A few weeks ago I moved to another job in another country. Now I have to close my startup because my employer does not allow it.<p>There are posts like this one http://blog.asmartbear.com/working-startup.html that tell you that usually things go well in this regard. While I don't doubt it, it wasn't my case. If you want to start a startup while employed, be very careful on this matter.<p>Actually everything seemed ok with this at first. I was hired in my current position because of my startup (I have an iPhone developer position here and the only iPhone development I ever made was in my startup) and during the interview I was asked if I wanted to continue to keep my startup after switching job. I answered yes to that question and there wasn't any issue about it.<p>I received my contract just a few days before leaving my country and there was a non competitive clause on it. Nothing strange, only a clause stating I can't compete with my employer while I am employed and I was in no way competing. So everything looked fine to me.<p>But when I got here I discovered that I'm not allowed to do any development out of the company, for myself or for anyone else, in any form (paid or free, open source or not), even if it is not competing in any way with this company. This is because they think that this would take my focus from my current job and since they give me a good salary and enough interesting challenges in my job, I don't need anything else (these are exactly their words).<p>I think this is very stupid and inconsistent. Stupid because I can just find any other passion that can take my focus from my job, or just get drunk every night (they actually encourage parties and drinking!). Inconsistent because they hire people that did extra projects out of their previous jobs. Then, when you are here, they forbid it. I think that as hackers you can imagine all the other flaws in this way of thinking and why it actually hurts all their company (which is mainly made of developers).<p>Let me tell you that it really hurts to close a startup and to give up all your work not because it failed but just because someone compels you to do so. Not because I was getting some big money from it (actually I still had to break even) but just because I did it for passion. I share the fault because I didn't ask to make everything clear before coming here, but given the premises everything seemed ok to me and I really wanted to leave my country so I overlooked this matter.<p>Actually I'm not in the position to challenge this decision and I can't just switch to another job, so for now I have to suck it and stop everything. As soon as I will be in a better position I will start looking for a job with better conditions for me (actually this is a very good job, but I really can't stand this stupid rule that controls what I can do with my spare time).<p>I just wanted to warn you. I hope that this will be useful for somebody.
======
pmjordan
That sort of stuff is illegal/unenforcible in many countries. It's not clear
where you're located, but it's probably worth checking.

~~~
DeusExMachina
I'm actually in the Netherlands. I will ask for legal advice to be sure.

~~~
roel_v
I'm in the Netherlands too. I also have a (Dutch) law degree. That does not
make me an authority, yet if your product and theirs are not in the same
industry or in another way in competition, I can't think of any legal grounds
on which this clause can be enforced, but several of why it can't be. That
said there is a real chance that pressing the issue is going to make the
relationship turn sour. Remember that in your first month you can be fired
without cause, without compensation. You likely also have an employment
contract of limited duration (1 year?) which they don't have to prolong.

An alternative is to not give up your company and hope they fire you, and then
sue for unfounded dismissal. This can be quite lucrative. I wouldn't want to
wage a legal battle in a country I just arrived in, in a language I don't
speak though.

If you speak Dutch there is a quite good forum that often has useful advise
(in addition to consulting a lawyer, not instead of).

The union advise below is, as much as I dislike them, good - for little money
they will help you out with this. A legal assistance insurance isn't going to
cover this issue at this point, if you didn't have one before this whole thing
started.

Also I'm really curious on what company this is, and what country you're from.

~~~
DeusExMachina
You are right, my main concern now is not to turn things bad, since I just
moved here a couple of weeks ago and I live in an apartment I rent from them.
You also guessed correctly, I have a 6 month contract.

I don't speak Dutch yet, unfortunately, and even if I'm studying it, it will
not become good enough in a short time. So I can't use the forum you wrote
about.

Answering your last question: I'm Italian and I'm working for a big big social
network here (you will surely know it). The workplace is quite good actually,
except for this rule, that happens to be one of the most important things to
me...

~~~
roel_v
Yes then I know who you're talking about. I also found out from previous
postings where you're from.

I was intrigued by the legal issues and after doing some research I am not so
convinced any more as I was in my previous answer. You didn't provide the full
text of your non-compete clause but most 'standard' ones are quite elaborate
and do include broad exclusions on what is considered being in competition.
Considering that your company can afford professional council I would expect
your employment contract to be quite elaborate and tight. The case law also
points to a fairly broad interpretation of non-compete clauses - i.e. the
competition can be only slightly overlapping and that would still be covered
by many non-compete clauses.

On top of that, now that I know who your employer is, I would argue that you
are (with at least one of your products) in direct competition with them
and/or several of their strategic partners. It still sucks for you that they
promised you could continue work on it and now they won't let you but that
does not have any legal standing any more.

Anyway good luck. One hint as to an option would be that your Ltd can have a
trust for a director, and that the beneficiaries of UK trusts can be
anonymous...

------
edw519
First you say

 _I received my contract..._

Then you say

 _But when I got here I discovered that I'm not allowed..._

Did you sign the contract? What did you agree to in writing? Do they have
_other_ constraints not specified in the contract? If so, are you legally
required to be subject to those constraints? You may have rights you are not
currently aware of.

Sounds like you're beyond the point of soliciting personal and business advice
and now your should seek legal advice.

Find a competent attorney and have him review your contract. Have him help you
understand your options. This probably should have been your first step. But
it's still not too late to do this. Do it now.

Understanding what your alternatives really are is the first step in a proper
plan of action.

~~~
DeusExMachina
>First you say

>I received my contract...

>Then you say

>But when I got here I discovered that I'm not allowed...

On my contract there is only the non competing clause. What I mean when I say
"I discovered" is that they told me so by email after coming here. It is not
something written on the contract.

Asking a lawyer is exactly what I want to do now. The non competing clause in
my contract is very short and in my opinion it does not enforce what they are
trying to compel me to do (I don't have it with me now, but I read it several
time to be sure). But that's only my opinion and I really need legal advice on
this.

~~~
nkohari
If it's not in your contract, it doesn't exist for the purposes of law. That's
good, because it means they can't take claim of any IP from your startup
(which is the most important thing). The common wisdom in the US is that if
you don't use your employer's time, resources, or equipment, and you don't
compete materially with them, you're fine.

That being said, at least in the US, employment is at-will, and companies can
fire you for pretty much any reason. Arguably, a side business is a large
distraction. For example, what happens if someone needs support during
business hours?

~~~
DeusExMachina
Actually I assured them that this will never be the case. I've done this
before and never took time from other companies. I don't even check my startup
email while I am at work.

Given the kind of apps I develop (as of now) it nearly impossible that someone
will need urgent support.

------
gamache
Get out.

~~~
cookiecaper
Seriously. This is merely a precursor to what you'll experience in coming
months if you stick around. Their policy against outside development is a
symptom of diseased thinking, and if you have diseased thought dictating
policy, things never work out for the better.

Your current employer should be considered an enemy to your well-being and you
need to find new employment post-haste.

~~~
andreyf
A counter-point: instead of storming into work one day and quitting, ask your
boss for a meeting and point out in the most direct-but-professional manner
you have that this isn't what you signed up for: that this is hurting you as a
developer, and that if they intend to enforce those rules, you can't stay at
the company.

No company will have regulations which are all-and-always perfect for every
employee, and some managers will be stupider in applying rules than others -
this is a good exercise in learning to stand up for yourself and getting what
you want without quitting. If you're a good developer, they'll be willing to
"bend a few rules" to keep you.

~~~
potatolicious
You make a good point, but in my experience a company deluded enough to
prevent their devs from programming outside of work is just systematically
broken in ways that a mere cog cannot hope to rectify.

I concur with the top comment: run, don't walk, to the nearest exit.

~~~
gruseom
_systematically broken in ways that a mere cog cannot hope to rectify_

So true. Cogs cannot rectify. Therefore, either give up hope or switch to a
context where you are not a cog.

It's surprising how far people can string themselves along refusing to admit
this (cf the fantasy literature about "organizational change"). I did it
myself for a few years before snapping out of it.

------
ww520
Find another job, really. The company is being unreasonable demanding you work
for them 24-hours a day but not paying for those hours. If they want you to
stop working on your idea after work, tell them to compensate for your "work"
after workhour. If they can't do it, give them the finger and find another
company.

------
bensummers
Am I correct in thinking that you were told this was OK before you were hired,
but they changed the rules after you signed the contract?

That's dreadful. It's a shame you can't quit.

(Bootstrapping while contracting is best when you own the consultancy
company.)

~~~
DeusExMachina
You are correct. It was just a little exchange. It went like this:

"Do you want to keep your startup after you join us?" "Yes, I'd really like
to." "Ok."

Maybe I was too ingenuous and share part of the fault, I really don't know.
There were no written rules anywhere, just this verbal agreement. The person
was the same one that then told me I have to stop, the head of software
development of the company.

~~~
bensummers
Your fault? If that is what happened, you can only be blamed for believing
your new boss was honourable.

Obviously it would have been better to get it in writing, but even then, it
still could be ignored and it's not like it's worth fighting.

~~~
lief79
You are going in based on faith. You should always get it in writing, if
nothing else you are making sure that you are avoiding misunderstandings. It
is required to be thorough, which is a sign of a good developer.

------
buro9
Your paper contract is what matters, not the opinion of your managers.

Most contracts refer to (in the UK) the patent act of 1974 and specifically
claims by an employer against work are restricted to that which they ask you
to do, that which they support you in doing (financially, or with time
benefits). Anything outside of those fall within your own remit and providing
it's happening without their asking you to do it, and without them paying you
or giving you time to do it... then anything you do is outside of work in your
own time and whatever your employer says has no bearing on this.

Basically, they can control what you do _at_ work and on _their behalf_...
beyond that, they have zero say.

If you want to stay where you are, engage a lawyer to have this conversation
with them. I pretty much had to do the same with my last employer just to make
it explicit that what I created in my own time was nothing to do with them and
they have no say over.

------
stevoski
In what country can an employer dictate what you do in your own time? Just
because an employer puts somethings in a contract doesn't make it legal.

~~~
coffeeaddicted
In Germany it's a common clause in contracts. And it's valid if the work you
do in your spare-time might affect the work you do for your day-job. For
example because it makes you too tired to concentrate in your daily work.

~~~
nkohari
It's also very common in the US, but it's largely unenforceable unless the
company can demonstrate a legitimate conflict of interest. (IANAL)

~~~
MrFoof
It may be largely unenforceable, but there's nothing preventing them from
hauling you into court over it to keep their legal counsel entertained and to
drain you of your savings. I can say from experience that this is a less-than-
desirable outcome.

You've wisely chosen to not ruffle any more feathers there. Just behave and
get out when you can.

------
ErrantX
> But when I got here I discovered that I'm not allowed to do any development
> out of the company, for myself or for anyone else, in any form (paid or
> free, open source or not)

That's bullshit if they've told you that. Threaten to challenge them legally
over that (a simile might be if you worked in a garage and your contract
"stopped" you from fixing your neighbors car as a favor at the weekend).

If it is not explicitly in the contract it is not legal for them to say this
to you.

It annoys me how software companies think they can get away with things like
this.

I would go do whatever software you like (as long as it is not competing,
obviously) and let them try to a) find out and b) stop you.

~~~
chmike
In one company here in France, an employee who was volunteer fireman during
his free time was asked to stop it on the basis that an employee must be fully
dedicated to the company. An accident in that activity could cause a prejudice
to the company.

~~~
ErrantX
Here in the UK I believe that is specifically legislated against - it
certainly is with regards to being a member of the Territorial Army and I am
pretty sure volunteer fire service as well.

------
plyawn
>> or just get drunk every night (they actually encourage parties and
drinking!)

Do you work for Accenture?

Sure sounds like their strategy: (1) hire young, incredibly bright & talented
people (2) isolate them by (a) sending them on the road for engagements (b)
work like dogs (c) party (very hard) only with other Accenture people in
limited free time (3) repeat

Make no mistake, it's a cult. Fun for a while, but ultimately very empty.

~~~
eru
Do they manage to hire introverts who aren't into partying?

------
euroclydon
Do you have a sister who might be into running an iPhone startup?

~~~
NEPatriot
Agreed. Hand over everything to a family/relative you trust who is also a
developer and have them say they are doing/taking over the dev work on it.
Just make sure they can't ever prove you are the one doing the work.

------
Mc_Big_G
Play nice and find another job as soon as possible. In your spare time, work
on whatever you want without publicly mentioning or launching anything. When
you leave the company, launch whatever you've been working on in your spare
time.

If the ridiculous contract says they own everything you do during your
employment, wait a reasonable amount of time until after you've quit to launch
anything.

It's better to never sign the contract or take the job in the first place.
We'd all be better off outing companies who force people to sign these kinds
of contracts.

------
MrMatt
Mothball your startup (i.e. don't just kill it completely), and find another
job.

I'd be very wary of a company that is that shortsighted.

------
olefoo
This sounds very counterproductive on their part, if they promised you one
thing and then reneged on that promise once you'd made a commitment to move
abroad to work for them, they've cost themselves whatever loyalty they might
have expected from you and stifled one of the outlets that would make you more
productive at your job. I take it this is a big company?

~~~
alexro
Like someone else said in another thread big company managers do never look
for productivity but for how to rule the world

------
bensummers
Your startup is mentioned in your HN profile. Would your employer be upset if
they googled its name and found this?

(Being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, etc.)

~~~
DeusExMachina
Uh, actually I did not think about this. I think I will temporarily remove the
link from my profile, just in case.

~~~
shrikant
Have you already removed the link? The email in your profile still gives it
away..

------
drivingmenuts
I interviewed with a company that had the same standard of conduct: no dev
work outside the company, no matter what. I did not take the job and I am so
very glad.

In my opinion, the work that most companies offer are challenges, but not very
interesting ones and the no-outside-work clause would prevent me from taking
on a spur-of-the-moment challenge outside my particular development area that
might actually lead to some self-improvement.

~~~
kd0amg
_would prevent me from taking on a spur-of-the-moment challenge outside my
particular development area that might actually lead to some self-improvement_

This sort of thing is why I got a chuckle out of the claim that there would be
"enough interesting challenges in [OP's] job." No employer can offer me enough
interesting work that I won't find something unrelated I'd like to play with
in my spare time, and I'm probably not alone in that.

------
matrix
You say you don't have a choice, but really, you do. It's not an easy choice,
but nevertheless it IS a choice. Sure, making that choice might mean going
back to your country, but it's your decision to make. There's a good chance
that if you (politely) threaten to walk because of that clause, they'll take
it out of the contract. Have a letter of resignation written, and ready to
hand them - the threat has to be credible.

Most people face these sorts of big, tough choices in life. Many let the
situation make the choice for them. Those people are generally not
entrepreneurs. Make a conscious decision. Make it and mean it.

------
cdibona
While this seems like quite a bucket of cold water was dropped on your head, I
will tell the assembled hackers here in hn that these sorts of clauses are not
just present in your contracts but in the laws that govern your employment as
well (except for a small number of countries and jurisdictions)

At my work, we've taken explicit steps to allow people to open source, and
most legal departments in larger companies can often respond (and sometimes
even positively) to requests to retain copyright, but most of the laws say
that programming work done on your own time, even on your own resources, very
simply belongs to your primary employer.

I had a friend lose his house after the company he worked for decided they
didn't like his new consulting business that was only a modicum similar to the
job he left. It was punitive and petty, but they managed to nearly ruin him.
This was in northern virginia, whose laws are only slightly less midievil than
most.

So while much of the advice here is to 'get out' and 'run', the question that
is not answered is 'to where'. A more reasonable response is to ask yourself
if you are okay with this kind of arrangement , and if not, resign and make
sure your next job doesn't have this kind of language in the contract and that
you have an affirmative recognition of the kind of ip deal you want with the
company.

This, btw, includes people in california, who's laws allow a loophole for
employers the size of a truck in its anti-competition language.

It is always worth your time to understand what is going on around
intellectual property in your jurisdiction, your contract and your personal
ethics because as the OP saw, it can be difficult to resolve after the fact.

~~~
starkfist
NoVa and Texas are particularly egregious for non-competes being in favor of
the employer. NY is pretty bad, too. I'm curious about your claim about
California. Do you have any references to this loophole?

~~~
cdibona
See below, under 2870.a.1. That definition can be all encompassing.

2870.

(a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee
shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to
his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee
developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's
equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those
inventions that either:

(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention
to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or
development of the employer; or

(2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require
an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to
be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy
of this state and is unenforceable.

------
illumin8
This just goes to show you should always get specific exemptions from their
non-compete policy in writing. For example, I refused to accept full time
employment at my present company before the legal department struck several
clauses from their non-compete, and added a specific clause saying that all
iPhone software I develop on my own is my personal property, so long as I
don't compete directly against them.

Most employers have overly broad clauses like "everything you write is our
property," and I let them know right up front I would never hire on with a
clause like that. It definitely took some negotiation, and I had an advantage
in that I had been a contractor for 1 year previously, and they really wanted
me full time.

Eventually, they got what they wanted, a full time employee, and I got what I
wanted, full time employment with the ability to develop my own iPhone
software on the side and retain ownership of my software, as long as it
doesn't directly compete with them.

This was back in 2007. You definitely need to be careful what you agree to,
but most companies try to get you to sign non-compete agreements that are over
broad and unenforceable.

------
Angostura
From what you say, a "little chat" before you signed the contract suggested
that it was fine to keep your start-up.

A "little chat" afterwards has suggested that it is not.

Both of these little chats are beside the point - it is the contract that
matters. So the question is, does your start-up compete with your employer.
That's not compete as in "compete for time in the same way that eating a
sandwich would compete for time" that's compete as in "compete commercially".

If not then your are not breaking the terms of the contract. If they would
like to renegotiate the contract that is something they need to talk to you
about.

I see that Pawn is a Ltd. company, so I guess that you are based in the UK in
which case I suspect an industrial tribuneral would find in your favour and
award you compensation if your employer tried to fire you for this. You might
wan to have a chat to a nice lawyer.

------
revorad
Matteo, sorry to hear that and thanks for sharing your experience.

Can you not get another day job, which has nothing to do with software but is
enough to pay the bills? That way you wouldn't have to worry about weird
contracts and could work hard on your startup in your spare time?

~~~
DeusExMachina
I wish I could, but actually I don't know. In the next months I will surely
investigate all the viable options.

------
Batsu
I imagine you moved to where you are now because the pay was quite good. If
that is the case, rather than threatening legal action (win or lose, don't see
how you'd stay at the company) I would continue to do what you do. Just keep
it on the down low.

However, given that your startup revolves around iPhone development, as does
your current position, it's likely they're concerned that you will get burnt
out on it... I'm not defending their position, just stating a possibility.

------
zackola
It is totally ridiculous - they cannot bar you from coding in your spare time.
Instead of having a "startup" have a "hobby". Don't say a thing to anyone you
work with about this, find someone else to be the public face of your "hobby"
if you get to the point you need someone to do that, and by no means use your
employer's time or equipment to work on your "hobby". Also IANAL, and you
should talk to one, stat.

------
barnaby
Everyone should have a side-project like yours, it's normal. Every employer
should attempt to stop their employees from having such side projects (unless
they own them, like Google's 20% thing). That's also normal.

Just keep doing stuff on the side and don't tell them. They're not paying you
enough to own you. Maybe they're paying you enough to slow you down, but never
enough to own you.

~~~
eru
I'd check that with a laywer, if you are going to make any money with your
side project (or even if you are only going to publish it non-anonymously).

------
drtse4
Really sorry to hear that Matteo, i've read you comments on HN and was quite
happy for you when i discovered you were going abroad.

Doesn't contracts matter any more? That is an usual non-competing clause and i
guess that you don't develop apps that compete with what you build in your day
job...

Quite sad, wish you the best...

------
huhtenberg
Electronic Arts is like that.

I was interviewing with them few years ago, and when I asked if they are OK
with me writing side projects, and they said "Why would you want to do that?
Besides you are going to be busy coding for your work projects... even when
you are at home."

------
jerrell
Definitely have to agree with those saying "get out" - obviously we don't know
all the circumstantial details and it may not be practical to leave
immediately, but if you're somebody who enjoys working on side projects and
keeping yourself occupied and excited outside your 9-5, you'll probably never
be happy working for this company. Better to get out before you commit any
further.

I've recently started a company out of a hobby project while working for my
day-to-day employer and they've never raised an eyebrow about any of it - it's
one of the things I value most about my current job. DeusExMachina, your story
is a real reminder of how important this has become to me - thanks for
sharing.

------
kilian
In the Netherlands, your employer really has nothing to say about what you do
in your free time (with the exemption of directly competing with them, which
you don't). If you don't use company resources, they have nothing to say.

------
lief79
I hope you realize that you likely have coworkers reading this, and able to
determine who you are based on timing and location (since others have already
figured out who you work for).

I don't think there is anything in here that you need to worried about, but I
figured I should point it out. Their HR department might complain anyway, if
they ever see it.

------
jqueryin
I'd be hard pressed to stay with that company.

------
ntulip
We were just asked to sign these forms also. Fortunately, they allowed me to
attach my own letter where I stated that anything existing (which I listed)
and any other future developments under my companies can not be subject to the
policy. Too bad not all companies are like that.

------
mikeryan
When I started my most recent consulting gig (part time) I had my attorney
look at my contract and remove anything I didn't like before I signed. The
company I worked for accepted these red line changes and on we went.

This is normally how contracts work. I'm not sure where you got screwed.

------
alanh
IANAL but have you considered operating under a pseudonym? How hard could it
be to do open-source iPhone development that way? After all, _why was one of
the most prolific open-source coders of a generation, and his identity is,
AFAIK, unknown.

------
blhack
What they're doing is, likely, illegal, but that doesn't really help you.

You can either quit your job and continue doing your startup,

    
    
        or
    

You can tell them that what they're doing is illegal, get fired, and continue
working on your startup.

------
davidedicillo
That sucks, I know people who had the same problem. In their case things
changed after a while because the new investors didn't want the employees to
get distracted.

Btw, you can always find a "prestanome" and keep pushing out apps. ;)

------
auston
Am I the only that see's this as a trap?

They hire good programmers, who are slightly entrepreneurial & try to turn
them into employees by ensuring they have no fallback of any sort?

------
xilun666
They are a bunch of morons.

Give us their names, so we never deal with them ;)

------
CoachRufus87
couldn't you just continue to work on the project during your own time and
simply not disclose the fact that you are?

~~~
rmc
I'm sure they are not following him 24/7, so in theory he could keep doing it
in his spare time, but that would be silly. His employer can now use this
against him if they have any dispute with him.

------
dasht
Perhaps they have buyer's remorse and are trying to pressure you to quit? or
are setting up a "for cause" firing? Here is a similar-sounding example I saw
happen in the U.S., although it may be U.S.-specific:

An employer (themselves a start-up with big funding) hired a new employee,
offering relocation costs to bring the employee and his family across the
country. The employee was hired to lead a new project whose scope was only
partially clear during the interviews - the guess was that it would probably
be a 6-to-12 month project before moving on to other tasks.

During the few weeks of relocation process, another employee at the company
realized that a simpler solution would be good enough and completed the
project. So, on day 0, the new employee was told "Oops, we don't need you for
that. We'll try to think of something else."

The company then balked at reimbursing a large percentage of the relocation
costs. They simply deleted line items from the expense report, paid out rather
less than the agreed upon cap, and said (in effect) "What, you wanna fight
about it?"

The new employee was both the only employee actively working on a visible free
software project, and the only male with long hair. (To be clear, the employee
"presented" at the office in Dilbert attire: dress slacks, crisply ironed
white button down nerd shirt, hair neatly tied back, etc.)

HR announced new policies: (1) regulation of hair length was introduced. (2)
outside-the-office work on even utterly non-competing free software projects
was forbidden. The new employee was cautioned about (1) and told, regarding
(2), to take down his project's web site.

Now, what is the motivation of the employer here? Money. It's simple:

If the employee were fired or quit before 90 days, the employee (per contract)
would owe back the relocation expenses. On the other hand, if the employee
were fired before 90 days, the employer would almost certainly be forced to
defend itself against - and likely lose - a suit for having made a fraudulent
job offer that cost the employee greatly. Thus, the company had a strong
financial incentive to inspire the new employee to quit in less than 90 days.

Beyond 90 days: if the company fired the employee _for cause_ or if the
employee quit then that would be that. On the other hand, if the company fired
the employee without cause, then the company would be on the hook for the
employee's unemployment benefits. Thus, the company had a strong financial
incentive to inspire the employee to quit, or to justify a _for cause_ firing.

The pattern that started on day 0 of employment continued. HR started
dictating stricter policies on hours (while selectively applying the rules
mainly to this one employee while winking at the others). The highest level
managers assigned the employee useless work and then changed their assignments
frequently (to other useless work). The employee was allocated a
malfunctioning workstation.

The employee got the message and planned to stick it out for the 90 days
and/or until finding a replacement job and then get out of dodge. Then some
mysterious things started happening: Of all the cars in the parking lot, the
new employee's somehow wound up being the one whose tire stems got cut. A VP
got in the habit of "stalking" the employee around the office. A manager
cornered the employee in a cubicle and menaced him with a threat of physical
violence while barring the employees exit from the cubicle. (The list goes on
but those are some highlights.)

The last day was the one that the employee left his desk for a few minutes to
make some photocopies, returned, and found that -- and I'm not kidding --
urine had been added to his drinking water.

Fearing for his safety, the employee left and did not return. He later
received a demand letter for the return of relocation expenses. This being a
"your word against theirs" situation, he had little choice but to comply.

The employee, in subsequent years, displays symptoms of post traumatic stress
when entering cubicle-type office environments. He was forced to declare
bankruptcy after these events.

Short summary: if on day-0 an employer has already decided that they made a
mistake and shouldn't have hired you, it may very well be the case that (for
money reasons, at least) they want you to quit rather than to fire you.

One way to push someone towards quitting is by piling up unreasonable demands:
like no outside work on free software.

In such situations, unless you can _prove_ the fraud or any underhanded or
illegal actions by the company, they hold all the cards. "No outside
activity," may be nothing more than a warning shot.

------
Colinc075
This is a weird submission... If you don't like em tell em to go finger their
butts, if you take their money, do what they tell you... Every living person
makes this decision, you're being a tad precious.

------
marknutter
Is hacker news becoming a place for people to bitch about problems in their
personal lives?

------
brmore
Two words... due diligence. If it's that big a deal, you should always ask. As
written, the startup sounds more like a hobby and this post more of a whine
... where's the plan of action for remedy? I urge to you re-evaluate the
passion for your startup if you really believe.

