last day (16 days later) » 

09:10
40
Q: Is it unusual for an employee to be denied knowledge of where the company's funding comes from?

DJGAn engineer begins work at a 3rd-year startup. He inquires about how it is funded. His boss tells him, "You will never know that. Why do you want to know that? The funding is legitimate. That's all you need to know." Is this unusual? Is it unreasonable?

Depends on the structure of the company. Even in a stock-listed company, I am not sure you are in full awareness of who owns the stocks.
Is this unusual? Probably not. Is it unreasonable? Probably not. While it might be nice to know, I'm not sure the employees have a right to know. My opinion is that they don't.
jcm
jcm
I'd be a bit worried if unprompted the boss needed to mention that the funding was legitimate.
Are you the employee in this drama? Or the boss? Seems odd to me, but then I always chose to work for startups that were open and honest. This is the kind of question I tended to ask during the interview process.
@JoeStrazzere I guess you have never worked on projects with a high level of security (aside from normal commercial security issues). If you are working on a project where you don't even have enough security clearance to know who the "customer" is, you certainly don't have clearance to know who is paying for it. (And since you don't need to know, you aren't going to get the security clearance any time soon either!)
09:10
It might be plausible that someone who funded a company wishes to remain anonymous (or that there exists some other reason that would prevent an employee from being given that information). But, as for the specific quote, I expect it's more likely for someone to make up a boss saying that, than for a boss to actually say that.
@alephzero - perhaps not. Whenever I asked about funding, I got a straight answer. If an answer like "The funding is legitimate. That's all you need to know." implies a high level of security, then I have never encountered one. Seems pretty shady to me, since "It's a high security project, so I'm not permitted to tell someone without appropriate clearance" would be so much more better of an answer. I suppose we can imagine anything.
Yikes. That's a red flag if I ever saw one. Actually, at least 5 red flags: Not nice. Defensive. Opaque. Shady. Unreasonable.
@RockPaperLz-MaskitorCasket I agree in a large part with you, however, opaqueness sometimes is needed. The better answer would be "All you need to know is that the funding is legitimate. More information is above your security clearance"
OP: Is this a security-clearance-required job?
@jcm "So what does the company do for revenue?" "Nothing shady or illegal. We're a very legitimate business. Why would you even ask that?"
09:10
If my father gave me tons of cash to use for my startup, I'd be concerned that my employees may think the startup had no real value should they find out. I'd also be a bit embarrassed that I couldn't fund it on its own merit.
It's only unusual for legitimate companies.
This person is self conscious. I would suspect they've had other people leave or raise issues with, perhaps the prospect of the funding coming from Venture Capital firms / private equity groups that will invest for large stakes and then more or less squeeze the company for cash.... Fairly high experienced employees will know what the lifecycle of an org with this funding looks like, and may decide they'd rather work elsewhere as a result.... so maybe this mgr is worried about disclosing that? It's shady either way, that he would get defensive about this question
When you quit, and your boss asks why, make sure you tell him “You will never know that. Why do you want to know that? My reason is legitimate. That's all you need to know.”
@jcm My "our funding is perfectly legitimate" T-shirt is raising a lot of questions that are already answered by the T-shirt.
Run. Run quickly.
 
1 hour later…
 
2 hours later…
12:53
"I mean, in five years, the Corleone family is going to be completely legitimate. Trust me. That's all I can tell you about my business."

  last day (16 days later) »