Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 291 posts

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#191

Post by mynameisvlad »

cactusface wrote: post #150
pvg wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

an acquisition does not normally require existing employees to sign new contracts I'm not sure why you think that is true. So this is a non-negotiable reduction in the legal position of the employees at best. This is an extraordinary statement that requires the requisite evidence. I don't think it matches US law or precedent, it simply seeks to formalize it, while giving the other party a full and fair negotiating po…

Every single time a man has abducted a child he was not in jail. Can you think of a counterexample?

Plenty, would you prefer those of a man who has not abducted a child and not in jail, those where a man has abducted a child and gone to jail, or those where a man has not abducted a child and gone to jail? Because all three have very many examples available.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#192

Post by jacquesm »

ghaff wrote: post #165
jacquesm wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a matter of whether or not the paperwork is standard, the problem is that an acquisition does not normally require existing employees to sign new contracts and 'harmonizing' the relationships the company has with its employees is something they would only do if they feel their own contracts give them a more solid position on something they care about. So this is a non-negotiable reduction in the legal positi…

> an acquisition does not normally require existing employees to sign new contracts My anecdata differs. I was with a company that was acquired and I had to sign a non-compete that did not have with my previous employer. (There may have been other things as well in the contract but I don't remember.) Said acquirer, BTW, has been one of the most vocal in preventing Massachusetts from putting non-compete restrictions i…

'had to' or what?

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#193

Post by USNetizen »

rmc wrote: post #171
DennisP wrote: post #158

I was faced with this last year. I'd been at the acquired company for sixteen years, so most of my ideas on the side came about after I started employment. There were too many to practically list anyway. I met with a business attorney for an hour. He said the terms were enforceable in my state; in fact, they'd taken it as far as they could without making it unenforceable. There were significant and potentially very e…

> In my state, employers can fire employees for any reason, so there was nothing stopping them from firing me for not signing. At will employment screws over us white collar, high end, knowledge worker. Here in many states in Europe, there's no at will, and if your employer is bought, then they have to give you a job on the same, or better, conditions. At will is bad for tech workers.

I'd much rather own/operate a business in an At Will environment. If someone isn't performing, you don't have to worry about tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in legal fees to defend your decision to get rid of them. Add to that all of the lost productivity and taxes paid funding a position for someone who is wholly incapable and then having to create a year-long paper trail to back up a decision you came to as little as a month into their employment.

That is time and money that could have gone towards hiring high-skill, productive people who actually WANT to work at your company and supporting expansion (e.g. new job creation).

Contrary to your statement, Knowledge Workers fare the same in At-Will situations as they do in others because of the high levels of job demand. The demand itself motivates employers to retain them (and if they don't want to incentivize their retention, there are thousands of other companies that will).

I'm speaking, of course, as an employer who has offices in both At-Will and other states in the U.S.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#194

Post by johnward »

tptacek wrote: post #78
blazespin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did it once, they said sign or don't come on board. If you are bluffing, yes, go ahead, you probably have nothing to lose. Microsoft, I know, would laugh if you pulled that.

I have actually seen both crossing-and-initialing work, and, more often than that, simply not signing: take the paperwork, say you need to read it, and "forget about it". You can often slowroll things like this for awhile.

We had people refuse to sign after being acquired by IBM. They no longer work with us.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#195

Post by kyllo »

USNetizen wrote: post #193
rmc wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my state, employers can fire employees for any reason, so there was nothing stopping them from firing me for not signing. At will employment screws over us white collar, high end, knowledge worker. Here in many states in Europe, there's no at will, and if your employer is bought, then they have to give you a job on the same, or better, conditions. At will is bad for tech workers.

I'd much rather own/operate a business in an At Will environment. If someone isn't performing, you don't have to worry about tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in legal fees to defend your decision to get rid of them. Add to that all of the lost productivity and taxes paid funding a position for someone who is wholly incapable and then having to create a year-long paper trail to back up a decision you came to as…

The term "Right to Work" doesn't mean that employment contracts are required. Right to Work is a euphemistic term for "employees cannot be required to join a labor union." Totally different issue. Many states are both "At Will" and "Right to Work." All US states implement "At Will" employment but some states have exceptions to the rule.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#196

Post by jacquesm »

johnward wrote: post #194
tptacek wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have actually seen both crossing-and-initialing work, and, more often than that, simply not signing: take the paperwork, say you need to read it, and "forget about it". You can often slowroll things like this for awhile.

We had people refuse to sign after being acquired by IBM. They no longer work with us.

Your loss.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#197

Post by borski »

Silhouette wrote: post #32
borski wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's also true. It doesn't mean the company will accept the redlines or spend their counsel's time dealing with it, but completely appropriate to try and challenge it.

I've been doing this stuff professionally for some number of decades. To my knowledge, I have literally never encountered a company that stood by such a loaded term and lost their would-be new hire over it. On the few occasions I've had to raise the issue myself, the response has invariably been that the responsible manager thought it was a reasonable thing to negotiate and we quickly settled on a more balanced alter…

Oh, I agree. We would certainly rather negotiate / find a workaround than lose an employee. With that said, all I mean is it isn't required. I have seen companies not want to negotiate or find a workaround.

Honestly? Most employees just sign the damn thing. Including me, with the caveat that I posted in the above comment. It's easier than dealing with redlining a contract. 'patio11, below, seems to do something similar.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#198

Post by [deleted] »

wpietri wrote: post #177
rmc wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my state, employers can fire employees for any reason, so there was nothing stopping them from firing me for not signing. At will employment screws over us white collar, high end, knowledge worker. Here in many states in Europe, there's no at will, and if your employer is bought, then they have to give you a job on the same, or better, conditions. At will is bad for tech workers.

As a fellow tech worker, I'm fine with at-will. At least in the US, shitty bosses aren't particularly constrained by not being able to fire you; they can be shitty to you in plenty of other ways. E.g.: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2015/06/randy_henr... I'd much rather have an honest firing than a subtle, long-term shadow war with people for whom politicking is their job. (Note that I don't think it's as…

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#199

Post by johnward »

vacri wrote: post #70
calibwam wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the colleagues should start working in some kind of organization? Then they could get real political weight.

Heh, the idea of unionising IT folks often gives me a chuckle.

Why?

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#200

Post by johnward »

Symbiote wrote: post #97
URSpider94 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the USA, unions are mostly associated with "blue collar" labor -- typically employees paid by the hour. I'm not aware of any unions that represent programmers, who are typically salaried.

Sometimes they're called professional societies, or sometimes that's something a little different. Examples: http://www.ukape.org.uk/ https://www.prospect.org.uk/ Don't American doctors and teachers have a union?

Teachers sometimes. Doctors? Never heard of a union representing doctors in the US.
Post reply on HN