Complaint Review: Elance - Internet

Ryan (owner of Live Saga LLC) split the development of his new website, livesaga.com, into several small jobs. These jobs were then put up for bid on Elance and other websites.

The first few jobs appear to have gone smoothly. However, as the site developed and the different components became increasingly interconnected, his approach began to break down. Different teams who had previously been developing in solo were required to work together, and Ryan's management style unfortunately stood in the way of effective teamwork.

Ryan fostered a culture of blame, where the employees that survived did so by concentrating their efforts on scapegoating at the expense of their work. The quality conscience engineers, who simply got on with the job and ignored the virtual office politics, quickly fell victim to backstabbing and were removed from the project. The project thus became staffed with contractors who excelled at blaming others for their failings but were unable to actually accomplish anything, and consequently failed.

One of the engineers that Ryan had recruited through Elance spent several weeks trying to resolve these issues with him, first through direct communication, and then through Elance's dispute resolution process. Throughout these attempts Ryan displayed unwarranted hostility, and refused to cooperate with mediation. He also demanded that the engineer perform twice as much work as had been originally agreed upon, threatening to withhold payment and leave negative feedback if this was not done.

Only after Ryan's intransigence had thwarted every possibility of reconciliation was he invoiced for the work completed. Ryan immediately filed for binding arbitration with net-ARB, a widely respected arbitration service. The arbitrator heard both sides as they argued out their case, inspected the work product, and concluded that Ryan's complaints were entirely without merit. In particular, it must be emphasized that the contractor had successfully completed all of the work which was required of him, and then continued to work gratis for the sake of good will.

It is unfortunate that, even after losing arbitration, Ryan is continuing to blame everyone else for the problems caused by his own mismanagement.

This is how Net Arb performed their "legal proceedings".  Now you tell me that this is not a scam:

1.  Show me all of the emails you sent to anyone involved in this project.  Now arrange them by date and by individual you sent them to. (There were hundreds of emails). 

2.  If you have witnesses whose testimony you want to submit you will have to get that first notarized.  (Imagine the difficulty getting workers in India who do not work for you to send you a notarized letter).

3. Plantiff:  What Happened?
    Defendant:  Did that really happen?  (No it did not)
    Plantiff:  Well he didn't complete the work.   Anyone can see that the app that he built is only 20% complete.  I fired him after extending the deadline an extra month. 
Defendant:  I was willing to work indefinitely until I completed it.
Arbitrator:  Since he was willing to complete the work at some point, you should not have fired him.

4.  Arbitrators Decision:  Award 100% of the funds to the worker, plantiff pays the defendants fee, all negative comments are removed from Elance.
    

Ryan (of LiveSaga LLC) filed a complaint against his contractor with net-ARB, a globally respected arbitration service, whose rulings have been upheld by numerous courts in the USA and abroad.

Both sides were given as much time as they wanted to argue out their case and present supporting evidence. Additionally, net-ARB's partnership with Elance allows direct access to the workroom, where the arbitrators can view all of the communications over the course of the disputed contract, and inspect the actual work submitted.

The arbitrators found that the contractor had done all that was required of him, and then some. He also spent a considerable amount of his own time liaising with Ryan's vendors, assisted other contractors gratis, and displayed exceptional patience in dealing with Ryan's unreasonable demands.

The code submitted through Elance's workroom was well documented, appropriately structured, and satisfied all of the job's requirements. The fact that Ryan's other contractors had failed to complete their tasks (despite receiving extensive help) does not exempt him from contracts which have been successfully completed. Ryan himself commended the contractor for having "definitely gone above and beyond" before demanding a vast volume of additional unpaid work.

For the record, net-ARB arbitrators write in grammatically correct English, unlike the misrepresentation posted above.

It is very simple situation.  The contractor was hired to perform a task.  The contractor did not complete even 25% of the work yet you ruled that he should be owed 100% of the funds.  The contractor bid on a job that they were not technically capable of completing.  You have a history of giving funds to the workers even when they do not complete the work.  There is only one reason: so that Elance can keep its fees and you can continue to suck the blood from hard working Americans.

Your response here is so absurd that I am barely going to mention any of it.  YOU DO NOT WORK FOR MY COMPANY NOR HAVE YOU EVER SPOKEN TO ANYONE THAT HAS.  How is it that you have become a consultant that seems to be able to assess the success and failures as if you had worked for the company for many years.  The net-arb scam machine took no interest in learning anything about the facts of details about this case.

You are going to continue to get more and more upset people if you operate in this fashion.  Let this  be a warning to whoever responded to this and a wake up call for anyone using ELANCE'S service.  If you continue to offer hearings that have abitrators that are inherently biased you will continue to lose business.  Bottomline.

And there are too many other services where employers can post jobs and get workers who are bound to a contract centuries old:  When you are hired to do a job, you complete that job in total or you do not get paid.

But enough of the he said she said.  Lets just let anyone that reads this be the judge.  If your final decision letter addresses anywhere the fact that the worker did not complete the task, did not even do 1/4 of the work, complete 3 out of 10 of the requirements that were laid out quite clearly in the initial description.

People can see for themselves how inadequate your "decision" is.  How obviously biased your process is.  You guys are a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

net-ARB Binding Arbitration Award
Case No. 4261740

Client: ryheena (Ryan Michelson)
vs.
Contractor: Accursoft (Gideon Sireling)


Explanation to the Parties:The following is a brief explanation of the facts and evidence from your hearing that most influenced your panel's decision. It is not meant to nor will it discuss every issue and every piece of evidence.The
plan was to have one team build the front end (Will and i2i) and one team build the back end (Accursoft). Accursoft finished its job but the front end team failed. So in order to test Accursoft's work, the client insists the
contractor create a dummy front end to demonstrate his work.

We find this added burden is beyond the original scope of the project and thus cannot be the basis upon which to reject the contractor's work - unless it shows his software doesn't work!

The client's complaints that the code has no comments is "highly procedural, not at all object oriented" may be legitimate but are not original requirements nor are they essential. It can be argued too that the back end is itself an "object". At some level code has to be procedural in order to get anything done.

The client's failure to have the front end ready to connect to the back end as planned is not the contractor's fault or responsibility. We find the contractor bent over backward trying to assist the front end developers and staying with the
project for far longer than he was required to, without even asking for final payment.

The client's excuse that his front end people had server configuration problems that took a month to rectify did not
prevent his team from studying the code during that time. Regardless, the client's problems do not act as a warranty extension.

Even though the front end was not ready on time for integration, the contractor kept assisting the front end developers and stayed with the project for far longer than he was required to, without even asking for final payment. And he remained available until the client filed a dispute (supported by competing freelancers with a lot to gain). The
bottom line is the contractor did his job and then some. Furthermore, we believe the contractor would have continued to support his work for as long as it took had the dispute not been raised.

We grant the contractor's request for final payment, reimbursement of the arbitration fee, and removal of Elance feedback. We wish the best for both parties going forward.

Final Award:
1. The contract for this project is terminated except for any non-disclosure provisions that may exist.

2.Three business days after this Award or within a reasonable time thereafter, Elance shall release the escrow ($400) to the contractor, Accursoft.

3. Pursuant to the parties' request to consider arbitration fee reimbursement, ryheena (Ryan Michelson) shall pay
Accursoft $199 within 5 days.

4. Pursuant to the contractor's request, the parties shall not be permitted to leave Elance feedback for this project. Any feedback already left shall be removed.

 The Final Award section of this decision will be forwarded to Elance.

For the Panel,
Arbitrator: Chris
Dated: March 13, 2012

Ryan (of LiveSaga LLC) filed a complaint against his contractor with net-ARB, a globally respected arbitration service, whose rulings have been upheld by numerous courts in the USA and abroad.

Both sides were given as much time as they wanted to argue out their case and present supporting evidence. Additionally, net-ARB's partnership with Elance allows direct access to the workroom, where the arbitrators can view all of the communications over the course of the disputed contract, and inspect the actual work submitted.

The arbitrators found that the contractor had done all that was required of him, and then some. He also spent a considerable amount of his own time liaising with Ryan's vendors, assisted other contractors gratis, and displayed exceptional patience in dealing with Ryan's unreasonable demands.

The code submitted through Elance's workroom was well documented, appropriately structured, and satisfied all of the job's requirements. The fact that Ryan's other contractors had failed to complete their tasks (despite receiving extensive help) does not exempt him from contracts which have been successfully completed. Ryan himself commended the contractor for having "definitely gone above and beyond" before demanding a vast volume of additional unpaid work.

For the record, our arbitrators write in grammatically correct English, unlike the misrepresentation posted above.

Ryan (owner of Live Saga LLC) split the development of his new website, livesaga.com, into several small jobs. These jobs were then put up for bid on Elance and other websites.

The first few jobs appear to have gone smoothly. However, as the site developed and the different components became increasingly interconnected, his approach began to break down. Different teams who had previously been developing in solo were required to work together, and Ryan's management style unfortunately stood in the way of effective teamwork.

Ryan fostered a culture of blame, where the employees that survived did so by concentrating their efforts on scapegoating at the expense of their work. The quality conscience engineers, who simply got on with the job and ignored the virtual office politics, quickly fell victim to backstabbing and were removed from the project. The project thus became staffed with contractors who excelled at blaming others for their failings but were unable to actually accomplish anything, and consequently failed.

One of the engineers that Ryan had recruited through Elance spent several weeks trying to resolve these issues with him, first through direct communication, and then through Elance's dispute resolution process. Throughout these attempts Ryan displayed unwarranted hostility, and refused to cooperate with mediation. He also demanded that the engineer perform twice as much work as had been originally agreed upon, threatening to withhold payment and leave negative feedback if this was not done.

Only after Ryan's intransigence had thwarted every possibility of reconciliation was he invoiced for the work completed. Ryan immediately filed for binding arbitration with net-ARB, a widely respected arbitration service. The arbitrator heard both sides as they argued out their case, inspected the work product, and concluded that Ryan's complaints were entirely without merit.

It is unfortunate that, even after losing arbitration, Ryan is continuing to blame everyone else for the problems caused by his own mismanagement.