Working sans a paycheck
That's how a staffing company called Peopleconnect gives high-tech start-ups the chance to hire managers or execs--even if a start-up hasn't raised enough money to pay them yet.
"It's sort of a Catch-22 because if they had the money, they could hire the people and be more valuable. And often investors say that if you would have these people on board, we would be more likely to invest in you," said Max Shapiro, CEO and founder of Peopleconnect.
San Francisco-based Peopleconnect, which has five employees, hooks up start-ups with candidates who are willing to work for free for up to three months. It obviously creates a risk both for the recruitee and for Peopleconnect.
Out of the 25 to 30 people who have been placed, however, 80 percent have started getting paychecks.
The company's business model first came to Shapiro in late 2001 after the dot-com bubble burst.
Shapiro said to himself at the time: "I bet there are a whole lot of people who are tired of not working and (are) depressed and would be interested if the opportunity were right to jump on and work before the company could start paying them."
The no-paycheck model accounts for about 20 percent of the company's work. The rest follows the normal model of recruitment.
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Senators lack votes on immigration despite progress
- Senator: Oklahoma "hit hard, but we're not knocked out"
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 206 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun













AFTER THEY HAVE GIVEN UP ALL THE INFO THEY CAN, THEN TURN THEM OVER TO THE FEDS TO PROSECUTE.
THE CHRISTMAS BOMBER COULD EASILY BE CONVICTED ON THE EVIDENCE FROM THE FLIGHT AND INCIDENT.....BUT....HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUMPED FOR INFO JUST AS SOON AS THE DOCS PUT SOME BANDAGES ON HIS BURN'T PRIVATE PARTS!
http://******/aTWT71
this story here though gives a more legal point of view
http://******/tribunal-or-civil
Just a bit of discrepancy there....
If Holder had any character, he'd resign. But then, what can you expect from someone best noted for the following?
The pardon of Marc Rich
The pardons of Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans
Clemency for FALN terrorists
Failure to prosecute Black Panthers for obstruction of the electoral process
IT WAS already too late for objections -- more smoke and mirrors from this administration that does nothing but deceive, or try to.
Holder made the decision from Day One, and I ask myself why. IS it because they really believe criminal justice is the only way to go, OR is it to put more power & money in the hands of the DEMS. biggest supporters-- trial attorneys.
Watching how this WH favors Unions over the rules of law and all of the rest of us, I think monetary gain for their crony lawyer buddies is right up their in their priorities.
One more comment, Holder neglects to mention that Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, confessed and NEVER went to trial. And that his case was BEFORE Congress had the military Tribunals set up. The Moussaou trial went on for years -- how much did we pay for that ?? Are we prepared to spend millions and eventually billions of OUR tax dollars, defending terrorists in criminal courts -- when they can be prosecuted for a fraction of that in Military Tribunals ?
AG Holder was not obligated to ask anyone what he should do. He had the authority already. That authority is the US Constitution and the Justice System within the rule of law that issues from that document.
Your idiotic insistence that this has to do with trial lawyers and unions is really too ridiculous to waste key strokes refuting.
You say Richard Reid was not tried. Oh yes he was. He did confess, but that happened at trial. He was read Miranda rights within 5 minutes of apprehension and held over for trial, nobody in the intelligence community was asked if that was okay. It wasn't their call then and it is not now.
As for the assertion that these terrorist thugs should be tried as military combatants, I think the judge at Reid's trial sums it up quite efficiently and correctly.
At sentencing, Reid claimed he was a soldier of Allah under the command of Osama bin Laden. The sentencing Judge Young replied: "You are not an enemy combatant, you are a terrorist' ... 'You are not a soldier in any army, you are a terrorist. To call you a soldier gives you far too much stature."
_________
Tell me -- were you up in arms and screaming about cost back then? If not - either accept the label of hypocrite, or hold your tongue.
_____________________
By the way
-- the Obama administration is not following the *policies* of the Bush administration in regards to that case and this one -- BOTH administrations were and are correct in following the rule of law. That is not a policy, it is American justice in the rule of law.
AFTER THEY HAVE GIVEN UP ALL THE INFO THEY CAN, THEN TURN THEM OVER TO THE FEDS TO PROSECUTE.
THE CHRISTMAS BOMBER COULD EASILY BE CONVICTED ON THE EVIDENCE FROM THE FLIGHT AND INCIDENT.....BUT....HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUMPED FOR INFO JUST AS SOON AS THE DOCS PUT SOME BANDAGES ON HIS BURN'T PRIVATE PARTS!
In addition, the evidence is overwhelming. The information you get from torture is worthless. The person you are torturing will tell you anything, just to stop the torture. So why should we resort to the same tactics as Iran, when they don't even work?
Eric Holder's decision gives me another reason why I am glad I voted for Obama and not the sorry crew of ignorant religious fanatics and ideologues that characterize the GOP>