I had a similar thing happen to me a little over a year a go. The offer wasn't rescinded, but I received a text message the day before my start date informing me that my start date was delayed (due to Covid). It was very frustrating because I had not only resigned from my previous position after receiving a signed offer, I also turned down a competing offer.
I immediately followed up with the competing offer, but that was no longer on the table (also due to Covid). So, I filed for unemployment. It took about 10 weeks to receive the weeks that I claimed (due to Covid). It also was not nearly as much I would have earned otherwise, but still appreciated.
The good news is that I did find a new job in a short amount of time. I'm still with that employer. In the end everything worked out for me. But it made me see how wrong things can truly go even when you do everything right (waiting for a signed offer before resigning, providing two weeks notice, etc).
It's common advice to tell someone to just find a new job if they aren't happy where they are. I mostly agree with that advice. However, there is a flip side to that coin and for some the risk is very real and can leave them in an untenable position if the worse happens. It was certainly a stressful and revealing experience for me.
Obviously we don't know why Stripe rescinded the offer - staffing changes, reorganization, miscommunication, could be lots of things. I think it's reasonable that companies should be able to do this, but I think they should feel obligated to compensate the candidate. Something like "after >48 hours after offer received (signed?), if we rescind the offer, we pay the candidate as a consultant for 3 months of the wage they would have received"
That would both provide some relief to the candidate, who might have passed up other jobs or resigned from their current job already due to the expectation they have a job, and would provide some incentive for companies to not do this.
> would provide some incentive for companies to not do this.
The disincentive is that when I know that companies do this, I am less likely to take an offer from them, or more likely to continue interviewing and then renege if I get a better offer.
It breaks down trust, I imagine getting the reputation that you do this would make hiring much more difficult.
No, I'm saying there are already existing disincentives that I think are pretty strong, I'm not saying this is a disincentive of the scheme that was suggested.
Agree with this. If an employee was laid off even on their first week on the job, a company like Stripe would offer them some severance package. Same thing should apply if it happens a week before they start.
Well, no company has any incentive to do this until they start having hiring problems due to their strategy over in HR.
And as far as I can tell, Stripe has an endless amount of candidates lining up to get in. So, they’re unlikely to ever implement this. Same with basically any company that is out there.
I guess we have to take their word that Stripe didn’t communicate the change in a respectful way.
Nonetheless, long term reputational hits like this seems to slowly, subtly, but surely, accrete at any organization past a size where the CEO cant supervise the bottom two layers.
If by 2031 Stripe becomes mired in major business problems, the long tail of many small errors, like this, snowballing, will likely be the cause.
If you look at her Twitter history you can see she’s a big fan of political activism in the workplace, something that more and more companies are treating as both toxic and unprofessional. Virtue signaling on Twitter almost seems to be a requirement if you’re one of these activist people employees, so it’s kind of tough to demonstrate your performative woke-ism to your legions of fans yet keep the fact that you intend to use your job as a social activism platform secret all at once.
Go ahead and browse her Twitter. She’s toxic and rude.
Can you really rescind an offer after it has been signed? Wouldn't they have to have terminated the contract instead? (Not that it makes a difference in practice unless there's a mandatory termination period)
Employment contracts are very rare in corporate employment for most positions, whether tech, accounting, etc, with the exception of course being Collective Bargaining Agreements and some 'reputational' positions like the CEO. Such contracts, like at-will employment, balance interests and are too 'double-edged swords' themselves.
So offers for at-will employment can be rescinded, though they do cost an organization - time wasted, restarting candidate search, loss of productivity, etc. Usually not done flippantly at a competent and prudent organization.
Stripe may be neither or it may have had a great reason that made a lot of internal sense. We'll probably never know.
Is there? I literally have no idea how many states respect that doctrine wrt at-will employment, particularly outside of CA. The limits to PE claims are based on your lost income from previous job, not compensation you would have received (which a contract dispute would theoretically avail to you). Right?
Sure. All US states recognize promissory estoppel doctrine, and I'm not aware of any state statues which specifically bar it in employment cases. Damages in a PE case-- "reliance" damages-- could certainly include lost income from a job you quit in reliance on an offer from another employer. But they could also include any other harm you suffered by virtue of relying on it (relocation expenses would be a canonical example here). Yes, those damages would also be available in a breach of contract case. Source: Myself (More than a decade consulting on contract and employment litigation; currently a law student; just got an A in contract law).
Why do you think businesses tend to be benefit the most? There are historically twice as many quits as separations, so workers are twice as likely to use "at will employment" to leave then having the Business use it to fire them. I can't think of any data to support the notion that the bulk of the benefits are not borne by workers, but if you have some, I'd be interested in hearing it.
I was thinking that for a company to lose an employee is not something negligible but usually not the end of the world, while, for the average person, losing their job could be a big deal. Given this asymmetry in power, I can imagine that the employee is the one that usually has to compromise on things.
You do understand that people with contracts are also laid off, right? The question is whether you get any better terms or are restricted in how you do something (for example, waiting for a period of time to end or providing additional compensation)
Technically, if you are employed, you have a contract, but the default terms of that contract in an at-will jurisdiction (e.g., every US state and D.C., at least) include the option for either side to terminate at will, hence the name.
Since the contract is terminable at will, reliance on it continuing into the future is generally unreasonable, and costs incurred based on such reliance will not generally be recoverable in the event it is terminated sooner than you expected.
I'm confused, what do get instead in the US when you're employed? I didn't know that contracts are not universal, over here I've never heard of anyone not having a contract.
You can do whatever you want, if you’re willing to take the risk of a long court battle. That’s a lot easier for big companies to do as compared to “natural persons”.
For us living, breathing “natural persons”, are you willing to take on what might be a decade-long court battle, just to get a small amount of money or force them to employ you for a certain amount of time?
In right to work states you can, because the definition of right to work is inexplicably that you can be fired at will without any justification needed.
kinda funny how you are always suppposed to wait for the "signed offer" before relocating, notifying your current job etc, but the signed offer in reality is just as worthless as the verbal offer.
Yes. There's a legal concept called "promissory estoppel". Essentially, a promise is a promise, and if I act on your promise and you later break it, and I suffer economic losses because I assumed you wouldn't, you're liable.
That still wouldn't cover the inconvenience of looking for a new job, but it is something.
Normally it does, but seldom are the stakes high enough to sue. The concept is called "detrimental reliance."
But it looks like she was already unemployed and the job was remote (so she didn't have to move). If it was at-will, and she hadn't done any work yet, there's probably not much there. Online embarassment is hard to value, unfortunately.
Was this in CA? Because CA is a “right to work” state, which means fire at will, at any time. A signed offer that doesn’t include explicit contractual guarantees in the case of termination is worthless.
Just a note, "right to work" and "at-will" are different
A “right to work state” is one in which the state has the authority to decide whether employees can be required to join a labor union as a condition of their employment.
California is an at-will employment state. At-will employment means that an employer can fire an employee for any reason or at any time.
I immediately followed up with the competing offer, but that was no longer on the table (also due to Covid). So, I filed for unemployment. It took about 10 weeks to receive the weeks that I claimed (due to Covid). It also was not nearly as much I would have earned otherwise, but still appreciated.
The good news is that I did find a new job in a short amount of time. I'm still with that employer. In the end everything worked out for me. But it made me see how wrong things can truly go even when you do everything right (waiting for a signed offer before resigning, providing two weeks notice, etc).
It's common advice to tell someone to just find a new job if they aren't happy where they are. I mostly agree with that advice. However, there is a flip side to that coin and for some the risk is very real and can leave them in an untenable position if the worse happens. It was certainly a stressful and revealing experience for me.