A Rebuttal to Mr Siro
Recently an article appeared published by one Jack Siro, and while I will not link to said article because I do not want to give it any more attention than such drivel deserves, I do want to focus on elements of what were bizarre, unfounded allegations with a total lack of evidence and credibility. I also state that everything stated here is stated as a matter of opinion and cannot be stated as fact, since there is very little factual to comment on. So what follows are merely my opinions based on the years I have been part of this industry, from the most junior level to the senior positions I occupy today. I write these opinions as myself, and they are not necessarily representative of the views and opinions of anyone else or to any organization to which I am affiliated.
Firstly, this individual made claims that were generic across the entire startup sector — and while I will not dispute that some startups may have problems, to make any vague slanderous comments about the entire industry is not only fallacious but damaging to the entire sector. I find it extremely disheartening that anyone would think they can attack every single startup in the country having worked for 2 or 3 of them.
Secondly, irrespective of if an allegation is aimed at one entity or aimed at the entire sector, allegations need to be backed by facts, facts that are entirely missing from the article in question. Basically, without the evidence, what you are posting is nothing more than hot air and slander if you cannot back it with facts. To this end, I started gathering some facts of my own.
The individual in question formed a WhatsApp group — the stated aim of the group was to gather evidence to defend himself in court against a lawsuit he is now facing due to the allegations he has made. Now, if you must form a WhatsApp group and invite a bunch of people to give you evidence, AFTER you are facing legal action because of your words, this is in and of itself prima facie evidence that you had no evidence to back up your claims in the first place. That alone, makes your article slanderous hot air from moment one.
Now, let’s look at the allegations made in some detail.
The individual claims there is a toxic work environment in every startup and there is no work-life balance. In this, he cites unrealistic deadlines, excessive work hours and limited personal time. To me — without evidence, this sounds like nothing more than a bitter entitlement. Fact is, yes, this industry is hard work, it is not an easy game. I stand by the statement that as with anything, those who do the work get the rewards, and in an industry where there are individuals who will happily put in the hours, those individuals that do out of their own choice will come out ahead. As for unrealistic deadlines, if your deadlines are unrealistic, it is because you as an individual are not sitting with the management and setting realistic expectations. I’ve found throughout the years in this industry that deadlines can get tight, but often, it’s because people haven’t sat and communicated and engaged in the process of setting deadlines. But again, since he refuses to supply specifics here, there is nothing to argue against.
He then goes on to claim that startups rely on incompetent workers to oversea operations. The implication of this is that he is the only one that knows anything. To be frank, someone who has only been out of university since 2017, and who has been through a *multitude* of positions, well call me skeptical, but it would seem to be that commenting on the competency of staff at every startup in the country, in fields in which he is not qualified is again, nothing more than hot air and inflated ego. Once again, he supplies no evidence to back up these claims.
He then goes on to talk about “Unfair Treatment to Workers” and starts this section talking about unequal contract distribution. He alleges that contracts are withheld from certain workers or contract terms offered aren’t fair. So, I’m going to give this individual a bit of a life wake-up call. Firstly, a company is free to offer contracts to who they want, and under what terms they want. It is up to the worker to accept or reject those terms. The company management has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and the reasons for what they do, and why they do it may well not be known to a junior software developer. But at the end of the day, it is the choice of the individual to accept or reject contractual terms. To talk about what is “fair” and “not fair” in the business world, is nothing short of naïve. This is not a pre-school environment, this is business, and the company has the right to offer terms they feel are in the best interest of the business, the employee has the right to accept them or reject them — fair — doesn’t come into it, welcome to the big bad corporate world.
He then goes on to complain about underpayment and disproportionate compensation. Claiming that certain roles receive lower salaries than their counterparts. Well, wake up call, that is also part of business. The industry operates on a supply and demand curve, and if you are in a section of the industry that has an oversupply, you will earn less. Certain skills are more in demand. This entire section of his meaningless rant also entirely ignores the fact that certain skills are harder to attain, and hence demand a higher price tag. It also ignores the fact that companies will pay for the skills that will generate them the most revenue, since it’s those revenues the companies rely on for survival. Now, sure, there are some salaries that I would find objectionable and would not accept myself, but again this comes down to — did you accept the salary — and if so, provided it is within the law and above the minimum wage, it was your CHOICE to accept it. What someone else earns is none of your business, you should not, as an adult, be trying to benchmark your own income against others. Your benchmark as an adult should be only against the quality of your work and your value to the company, because that is what will determine the size of your pay packet.
Then he goes on about promoting double standards, and how some employees are allowed to travel extensively while others bear the brunt of demanding workloads. Well, again, as someone who travels extensively for work, wake up call, these trips aren’t holidays. Businesses will let people travel for the purposes of work and in furtherance of their objectives — which means that travel must bring value to the company. For the life of me I cannot see how a relatively junior developer will bring value to the company flying all over the world. I can however see how people involved in other lines of work certainly bring benefit to the company through travel. This benefit can be in the form of revenue generation, it can be in the furtherance of exploring of strategic objectives, it can be in the form of relationship building etc, but no, not everyone will travel equally, because there is not equal value to the company in such. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a serious entitlement problem and doesn’t understand business.
He then makes excuses about failing to pay workers on time. Now, on this one, I do not believe this is universal to the startup industry, and while I do know that it occurs occasionally this can be for a variety of reasons. If you are however being consistently paid late, then you may be able to take issue with your specific employer. You cannot however take issue with the entire industry and allege that it is universal. You also must be able to provide factual evidence with such allegations, without evidence, all you are doing is casting aspersions. It is not professional, nor will help to resolve the situation to behave in this manner.
We then move on to where he starts alleging what may or may not be criminal behavior. Firstly, he refers to the personal use of investor funds. He refers to purchasing luxury items such as cars and neglects the fact that some companies do provide company cars for senior employees as part of compensation packages, and companies may also have company cars for other reasons. This is simply part of business and is not necessarily a misappropriation of investor funds. He also starts going on about extravagant travels around the world, but again, neglects to comment on the fact that business travel may well be to further the objectives of the company. Of course, with no substantiation and evidence to anything said here, it’s impossible to judge. What I find most bizarre about this entire section is that the implication is that all investors are idiots. As someone who has invested in companies, most investors will be monitoring how their funds are utilized — it isn’t a blank cheque, which casts serious doubt that this problem exists everywhere. And again, where is the evidence, particularly when you are claiming this implies to the entire startup industry.
His next complaint was about failing to communicate critical information to workers. He starts off complaining under this heading about shifting project timelines. Well, wake up, this is business, project timelines may shift, and priorities may change. He states this may happen because of investor recommendations or demands. Guess what, that’s business. We do not live in a static world. With regards to transparency, there are very often reasons why certain information is kept close. This can include protection of intellectual property, NDA’s signed by management with regards to certain projects, or a host of other reasons. Junior employees do not get to know the full scope of everything happening at a company because very often it is both impractical, potentially illegal in the case of NDA’s and totally contrary to the companies interests to have what they are doing and why out in effectively the public domain (which is what happens if every member of your staff knows everything you are up to). So, some information is kept close to heart. This is normal business practice, and to sit and whine about the fact that you aren’t briefed on every detail is an attempt to micromanage your employer. That is both unreasonable and naïve.
He then goes on about indefinite termination of contracts and layoffs. Wake up call, the global IT industry has seen tens of thousands of people laid off recently due to economic conditions. It is sad when it happens, but it is also practical reality. If companies do not engage in retrenchment, when necessary, they go bust, and everyone ends up out on their ass because the company ceases to exist. Further to this, under law there are ways a company may do this, and ways they may not and if they follow the law, it is the companies right to make such decisions for the interest of the company. It protects the majority. Again, this is business, and this is the way the world works.
He talks about threats to workers in the form of legal action. What I see in this, is a complaint that after slandering a company he got sued. Well, such is life, if you want to go and shout your mouth off about things, and not back it up with any evidence, and then go and try and find the evidence later when you are being sued, you brought the legal action on yourself. You cannot complain that when you attack a company without evidence that it fights back. Do you expect companies to sit still while you slander them without evidence and not use their rights under the law to ensure that you stop or — to put this another way — put up or shut up with the evidence?
He then also whines aobut companies paying for positive articles and reviews. Well mate, I’m going to introduce to this little business concept called marketing. Go back to school, study it, and understand what common practice in every industry in the world is. What do you think the social media influencers live on?
To add to all of this, he starts talking about swindling investors. He claims that companies pitch non-existent products or services. Well, yes, many companies pitch ideas that require development. That is part of looking for angel capital. He then goes on to say that startups pretend to be innovative and unique only to realize that some ideas are not novel and already exist. Again, this happens, in fact a bit of research would show that the average startup that makes it to true success pivots multiple times to adjust to changing conditions. That is the nature of the business world.
So with all this said, now let me talk a little bit about what I found out about this individual from his own words and statements. What is write here is based on what he put out on social media.
Firstly — he left the company that he first directed his ire at a year prior to starting to scream and moan and whine. He posted his exit letter from said company on social media, and in that letter, he had nothing but positive things to say, and they had positive things to say about him. It is very telling that a year later, while out of work, he starts finding things to cry about, despite signing said exit letter himself. He then, again, on social media, talks about another company he worked for, and apparently claims they were terribly toxic as well. So now, I’m starting to ask myself, with all these complaints he is coming up with, who is the common denominator? Because it isn’t the companies in question.
Finally, add to the fact that after being sued for defamation he went out and started a fund-raising campaign to cover the legal fees. The problem with this is, on Friday he informed someone that he was contemplating settling this, and in fact, he said on social media that by Monday he should have a solution to his problems. In the very same tweet, he asked people to keep funding his legal defense. So, he was asked, if he settles this would he return the money from the fund-raising campaign. Of course, surprise, there was no commitment to doing that, so I must wonder, was this individual just trying to make money off people who felt sorry for him because he suddenly got a big mouth? We won’t know and I can’t say for a certainty, but it does make you wonder.
To every other individual out there, here is some advice. If you have a problem with an employer, sit down with them and talk about it. If you cannot find common ground, you have the option of leaving. But to go out and slander an entire industry because you are having a bad day, will do nothing but land you in the category of people who are unemployable. Such unsubstantiated whining with no evidence, no facts, and nothing but hot air, simply shows the industry that the moment you have a bad day you are prepared to launch baseless attacks. That makes you a liability to any company that would employ you, and even if you go out and do this, get sued, and win the case, you have lost the war, because in the process, in the public eye, you have made yourself unemployable and an absolute liability to anyone insane enough to employ someone so entitled and naïve that they engage in this form of behavior.
I am sickened by everything I have seen here — and I honestly believe, within the bounds of my opinions, that this individual, now needs to go through the legal process, and put up the evidence, or face the consequences for unfounded defamation.
