[mjolk]

Responding not to throw truisms at you; checking that I'm not crazy.

> I have to say for me, this is a great ad for this employer being a safe and employee-valuing place to work.

The employer is meant to shield his employees from this kind of stuff. i.e. this is a "normal" employer.

Even if the clients don't pay the employer, the employer pays its employees -- that's the arrangement and the risk taken when you own the business (alternatively stated, as an non-exec employee, you trade a premium on salary to not deal with risk).

[mpnagle]

Oh, yeah, I think that's true that part of the employer-employee contract is guaranteeing employees payment.

I guess I mean something a little different then. That it's really heartwarming to see an employer 'go to bat' for his team's work and his company. I was resonating with the experience of directly having freelanced with a client feeling 'out of control.' I was really caught off-guard by it and it felt (in hindsight a mistake) easy to give an inch and give another inch. There's something here -- maybe I can't put my finger on it -- in this blog post that makes me thing the author would be an incredible asset in putting down hard limits and boundaries when they need to be put down.

[mjolk]

> That it's really heartwarming to see an employer 'go to bat' for his team's work and his company

He "went to bat" in court as to not risk a default judgment or additional monetary loss. Talking about how your consulting company went far out of scope and criticizing/belittling an ex-client in a blog post is kind of strange, in my opinion.

> I was resonating with the experience of directly having freelanced with a client feeling 'out of control.' I was really caught off-guard by it and it felt (in hindsight a mistake) easy to give an inch and give another inch

Yeah, that's really common. Sometimes it's a simple situation of communicating the time demand or cost of client asks and other times, it's employing a firm "no" or calculating if it's worth firing the client (never fun).

> There's something here -- maybe I can't put my finger on it -- in this blog post that makes me thing the author would be an incredible asset in putting down hard limits and boundaries when they need to be put down.

I made another post in the thread about this if you're interested[0], but it appears as if this was an issue because of the exact opposite -- contractual scope of work was not enforced and substantial additional work was performed.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348353