Even saying that it could cost him seems like empty threats from the peanut gallery. On what basis, that someone might not want to hire him because they plan to rip him off?

as someone who has been in charge of tech hiring for a startup, this would definitely not be a red flag for me. as you say, it's not like we would be planning on ripping him off, and blacklisting him for what is after all nothing more than human disgruntlement over getting screwed would be petty and childish.

Well in this case, it seems that the company is acting childish. I wouldn't hesitate to hire someone who honest about what he believes in.

Dear _____,

While we found your CV to be the best of the bunch, and you are the most well suited applicant, we have decided to decline your request to work here at _____.

Upon discovering your blog, we found it in our best interests to not hire someone who does not like it when they are not paid.

All the best, Miso.

Someone might not want to hire him because they see his behavior as vindictive and immature. Not that I agree with that analysis, but there is a risk of that perception.

How big of a risk, do you think?

The point I'm driving at is that this is (obviously) seen to be taboo behavior, but I'm not sure that anybody would find this and visit repercussions upon the author.

Additionally, a lot of the taboo might be based on "word getting around." Well, how many times have you heard of management badmouthing people to other companies? Ever? I'm not sure the blacklist implied in some of these responses actually exists.

Furthermore, there has been plenty of bad management to go around, and publicizing their faults has not affected hardly any of their careers. In fact, it can be seen as a badge of experience to have presided over a failure. Experience is experience, after all, and might you want to hire a developer who has learned the hard lesson of not keeping backups? A lot of companies (including Miso, apparently) could use talent like that.

Absolutely a huge risk. This is a signal for litigious behavior. Who knows what could set this guy off? This time it's $10k. Maybe next time it's something else. There are a lot of smart people out there, many of whom are more reliable than this guy. Pass for sure.

Interesting bunch of inferences and extrapolations there.

"Signal for litigious behavior" - because we all know if you promise something, you shouldn't have to follow through on it unless it really works for you, and you're not upset about something else entirely. That whole "after the DB damage, I'm hesitant" implies both admission of situation, and vidictive behavior on the part of the company. Why shouldn't he be feeling litigious? Is part of your recruitment process "Must be spineless and / or company man"?

"many of whom are more reliable than this guy"?

How has he demonstrated lack of reliability?

It doesn't really matter.

Hirebots are always making inferences and extrapolations that are wrong. The OP's blog post just gives more fuel to any Hirebot's prejudices.

It's impossible to know how big the risk may be. Maybe he'll impress the hell out of whoever Googles him in the future. Maybe they'll run screaming.

My instinct based on incomplete understanding of the information is that the risk/reward was too high for my comfort level. In any case, I wish the author the best of luck in getting his bonus and in getting better about backups :)

If it's impossible to know how big the risk may be, how can you say that there's any risk?

It has less to do with planning to rip off a prospective hire than determining whether the hire has a sense of discretion.

Do I think he's in the wrong with Miso, absolutely not. He has, on the surface at least, a legitimate grievance. He should have, however, handled this matter with a legal mechanism vs. a blog post.

When I hire, I have to look at the risk that a prospect is the type of person who will air his/her beefs in a blog post after he/she leaves the company. Which is why I spend time doing searches of everyone who makes my short list.

While I do think the OP has a legitimate beef, the outcome was predictable and preventable. If the OP was smart and had any work experience, he would have known to make any claims to any outstanding money before even signalling that he was going to leave. Companies, especially small ones, tend to be petty about dealing with former employees.

"Sense of discretion?" Why is this the first time I've ever heard that phrase used in the context of startups? Because it's never a concern and is only a matter of common sense when someone is defensive.

Nobody hiring is ever preoccupied with how a prospective employee will "air his/her beefs" with the company after leaving its employ. Quite the opposite, companies tend to hire for the long term since onboarding new hires is such an expensive process.

This thread has caught fire, to say the least, so I'm thinking the taboo against airing his/her "beefs" has long been an empty threat holding back a lot of pent-up frustration.