An employee who was acceptable to the company on X and unacceptable on X + 2 weeks is being asked to shoulder risks equivalent to that of an independent contractor or consultant. Many people enjoy shouldering the many risks associated with parachuting into foreign countries for two weeks to execute engagements with no guarantee that there will be work available on week three.

We are customarily compensated for shouldering these risks. It is one reason why consultants quote week rates like $10,000 as opposed to getting only $120k in yearly salary but very predictably actually getting that and its attendant benefits suite.

Half of the low-ball startup monthly salary offer plus no benefits plus no options doesn't even crater the approach to the bridge of the disruption this putative employee suffered to get him to the US.

While acknowledging that the US is largely an employment-at-will country and people can dissolve things for any reason or none at all at virtually any time, writing somebody a $4k check as sole payment for services rendered, after they've joined your company as an employee and been involuntarily terminated 2 weeks in, strikes me as deeply problematic.

+1 thanks,that is the best comment. I have worked as a consultant for about 15 years, and as a (mostly remote) consultant, being told to take a hike after two weeks would be acceptable (I think; it has not happened to me yet) and a minor inconvenience.

It is so very different however with a hired employee.

I agree that it is not in guybrushT's interests to name the company, but he should definitely send them an email referring him to this Ask HN discussion, just in case they have not seen it yet.

You articulated the situation (and my thinking) very well. Any thoughts on what future early employees could do to protect themselves?

If somebody for some reason managed to convince me to come onboard as an employee, and I was asked nicely to leave after two weeks, I would begin the conversation with "That is unfortunate and unexpected, as I was looking forward to working with you guys. We're all businessmen here, so we know that there are certain reasonable expectations which one has with regards to employment offers. I shouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know when I say that this is highly irregular. It would not be irregular if I were, say, a consultant. If you want to retroactively treat our arrangement as a consulting arrangement, I'm amenable to that reclassification, because I like you and wish you to succeed. I will send you a copy of my standard Master Services Agreement and a Statement of Work for two weeks work. You will sign them, as written. I will then invoice you for my standard consulting rate, which is $60,000 for two weeks. You will pay it and we will part ways as friends."

And then I'd see where it took me from there.

This is a reasonable approach. I will try this.

Sidenote: In my last discussion, some of the phrasing was eerily similar - "That is unfortunate and unexpected, as I was looking forward to working with you guys" - "we're businessmen here" - "part ways as friends".. etc. Just that I didn't push for what you are suggesting. Thanks again!

Good luck convincing them to shell out 60K for two weeks. If they could afford it, they'd probably could afford throwing 30K more and keeping him for a year.

In Japan we have a distinction between what we say on the outside and what we think on the inside.

Outside: "You can't afford $60k? Oh, you're smart guys, I'm sure you can figure it out if it is a priority for you."

Inside: "Horsepuckey, YC company, cry me more tears about your inability to find tens of thousands of dollars when you're a mortal lock on a seed round and presumably on the glide path to an A."

They don't have to pay it up front; they can draft an agreement to defer compensation to their next round of funding or to their first $N dollars of revenue, pay him the immediately owed "salary" number today, and pay the delta later.

It seems he was offered compensation for the two weeks he actually worked for them, which I'd take for granted. What the comment above is probably alluding to is termination of contract compensation.

It sounds like he was working for those two weeks he is receiving pay for. Not compensation for any troubles, but rather payment for work done.