[aswanson]

Yeah. Having the big "T" on the resume might be one of the few red flags signalling fraud and corruption worse than a few years at SAC capital after a internship at Enron and Lehman Bros. Maybe the employees themselves will sue the company for fraud and damage to their careers. Crazy situation.

[ryporter]

SAC Capital is a much bigger stain for former employees than the others, in my opinion. SAC allegedly had a deeply ingrained culture of finding and exploiting insider knowledge that permeated multiple levels. Basically, Cohen had employees do his dirty work, while he maintained plausible deniability.

At Theranos, by contrast, Holmes intentionally kept employees in the dark. If I were interviewing an ex-employee, especially one at a lab outside of California, I would certainly press the candidate on the issue, but I would be willing to believe that they were honestly trying to build and deploy a novel technology that never ended up working. It is not the case that the entire endeavor was a scam. They thought that they could develop this technology, and then the leadership covered it up as they were failing to do so.

Also, do you have any sources that document employment at Lehman Brothers as being a stain on the majority of their employees? Thousands of the employees immediately moved to Barclays and Nomura when they bought parts of Lehman Brothers. That doesn't sound like a horrible stain to me.

[hueving]

Are you serious? You would press employees on the behavior of their CEO?

[wpietri]

I don't know about ryporter, but I sure would. I'm looking for people who are both smart and of good character. Working for what is apparently a giant fraud suggests that they may lack one or both of those attributes. I'd definitely have them talk about their experience there and what they learned, and I'd be looking both for their emotional reactions and the actions they took.

As an example of somebody who handled working at dubious place well, consider this blog: http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/

[LiesNStartupPR]

I appreciate the comment, though I think the situation is often more nuanced - a junior employee may simply not have all the facts, and a more senior one may either have a 'gag order' on exit or worried that saying anything negative will affect their chances with future employers. Whistleblowers can end up harming their careers despite doing the right thing, and a halo doesn't pay the mortgage or buy the kids Christmas presents.

But onto Theranos - I just posted something on this at my blog. More than the employees, look at the Board of Directors and ask why they didn't do their jobs and enforce change. If they can't alter the ridiculous plans of the Founder/CEO due to the voting structure then they should resign. It's not their full time job, they won't go hungry if they leave, so what is their excuse for not speaking out?

[wpietri]

Oh, yeah, I'd expect a junior employee to not figure it out right away. I'd just be looking to see what they noticed in retrospect. And senior employees can have their own legitimate reasons for saying. I'm not saying I wouldn't hire them. I'm just saying I'd ask.

For me it's similar to having worked for a failed startup. I have no problem with it, but I'm definitely going to ask. The difference between a bad failure and a good one is how much you learn.

[hueving]

So you would press anyone who has worked for Google and Facebook as well right?

[wpietri]

How do you mean? Both of those are functioning businesses that build products that actually work. I'd have different concerns about people at those companies, but I wouldn't be asking them, "So when exactly did you realize it was a fraud and what did you do then?"

[ryporter]

I am serious, and I didn't say that. I would press them on what they knew and when, and I'd be willing to believe that they didn't know much more than readers of the WSJ did.

[nikcub]

Working at SAC Capital is only a black mark on your name to those outside of finance. Within the world of hedge funds SAC alumni are doing extremely well:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-23/sac-alumni...

[srtjstjsj]

Those outside of finance don't know what SAC is.

[ryporter]

That's very interesting, and it makes some sense now that you mention it. After all, SAC made it clear to investors that that would cover all of the legal expenses and fines, so they were just left with returns from the fund itself, and insider trading works.

[dingbat]

in other words, its only a black mark from people who dont matter anyway

[jdavis703]

They'll probably change their name (why hello Accenture), and the people associated can now put the untainted name on their resume.

[ocdtrekkie]

Heh, had no idea about that one!

I had recently been thinking about how terrible it would be to have a resume with a Wells Fargo job ending in the last couple months.

[FilterSweep]

That's a good point, but I would hope employers would be able to distinguish situations clearly created solely on:

a) the upper management level (Wells Fargo, Theranos)

from:

b) the employee level, whereby the employees themselves use private data for advantage and personal gain - DraftKings comes to mind here[0][1]

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/sports/fanduel-draftkings-...

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/draftkings-daily-fantasy-spor...

[ocdtrekkie]

I disagree. 5,300 low level employees actively chose to create fictional bank accounts in order to meet their goals. Even if some middle management tier recommended that they do it, I think it says something about the moral fiber of every one of those employees to be complicit in that.

[kchoudhu]

We happily hired people from Lehman after the financial crisis. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and it is tragic that the good people frequently overestimate their role in one-off events.