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

221–230 of 291 posts

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

#221

Post by BradRuderman »

irakli wrote: post #137

upcounsel.com is "uber for lawyers" U should never sign anything this serious without consulting a qualified lawyer. Money you will spend is worth it

I work at UpCounsel.com and we can definitely help your business or any business with legal needs. Although we are a marketplace, and we align with the on demand economy, the uber reference doesn't necessarily fit since it assumes the supply (drivers) are all created equal. With UpCounsel our supply (lawyers) are carefully curated, and we match you with a set of lawyers who meet your specific needs. Similar to uber, our lawyers must maintain a high rating while on the platform. Unlike Uber, once you find a lawyer who meets your needs you can continue to work with them on the platform, easily and on-going. Please email me with any questions, or if we can help you with your legal needs. My email is brad [at] UpCounsel.com

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

#222

Post by learnstats2 »

solve wrote: post #147
desas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your link: > However, if you put up with the change without > protesting, there is a good chance that you will > be viewed as having implicitly accepted the change, > losing your right to object to it. I'd be surprised if the US hasn't inherited implied contracts via common law.

No, don't quote out of context. That's ONLY if you already previously signed a contract with them, and that original contract specifically allowed them to make future updates without your permission.

With respect, you are wrong.

It's not automatic that a contract is implied, but a contract COULD be implied by action and conduct.

Specific examples where the unsigned contract has been upheld in court: http://www.jordanssolicitors.co.uk/resource/warning-unsigned... http://www.citation.co.uk/news/is-an-unsigned-contract-enfor...

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

#223

Post by nextw33k »

smcl wrote: post #95
tptacek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the crossing-out-and-initialing thing work. I've never heard of it causing a problem, but I've definitely heard of it not working.

There's a relatively famous (and admittedly extreme\unlikely) example of this working in Russia, where someone changed his bank contract who blindly accepted it: http://rt.com/business/man-outsmarts-banks-wins-court-221/

After reading that I would imagine he's going to jail for fraud.

If you disagree with sections you are to strike them out and initial them, additions or changes are appended to the bottom. This helps everybody know what's happening.

From reading the article it sounds like he didn't create his own agreement (for them to sign) but copied and then altered their agreement. If it contained their letter head and the terms as if they had written it not him, then it's clearly an attempt to trick the other party.

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

#225

Post by learnstats2 »

smitherfield wrote: post #188
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.

Tech workers over here are paid about twice as much (before taxes!) as tech workers in Europe, so I'm not terribly worked up about US employment law. All those regulations aren't free, and one way or another the cost comes out of your disposable income.

I understand your point of view, but I would point out the other side of the coin.

People who are not able to give their whole lives up to their employer's demands, for any number of reasons, are less able to work in tech in the USA - they're not good value with even if they have reasonable human needs. This contributes to a very unequal culture in the industry.

(Even if people on this forum might generally benefit from that)

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

#226

Post by throwaway549328 »

johnward wrote: post #201
throwaway549328 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (personally) wouldn't. The boilerplate text their lawyer originally wrote is inapplicable, but they're not bad people, it's just that that particular lawyer has never had an idea in their life. (Only someone who has never had an idea would think a person can list every idea they've had.) so besides crossing the inapplicable section unambiguously, it's not worth a comment. I wouldn't say I'm uncomfortable with it. I…

Any suggestions on Non-compete clauses that basically say you can't work for any competitors or customers. In a multi-national corp that is basically every possible employer.

If I were you and in California I would ignore anything related to non-compete without feeling any need to modify it, as I heard from multiple sources that they're totally unenforceable: http://ymsllp.com/news-and-publications/with-limited-excepti... and also against the cultural spirit people actually believe in. It's as though that stuff weren't present at all.

If you're outside California, I would in your position look at how people actually behave, as well as the law. Possibly I would choose to read the non-compete literally and just do the right thing afterward. For example, I might choose not to take a competitive position for the period outlined in the contract, and instead do something slightly different. It's largely a moral thing, I think.

If the non-compete were very broad (no job on Earth for a period of 18 months after termination of employment) I would just ignore it; what are they going to sue me? They wouldn't care.

I don't think I would push back to modify non-compete clauses, and I certainly wouldn't do it in the way I mentioned for IP, however. It depends on jurisdiction. It's quite a cultural thing.

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

#227

Post by rayiner »

learnstats2 wrote: post #225
smitherfield wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech workers over here are paid about twice as much (before taxes!) as tech workers in Europe, so I'm not terribly worked up about US employment law. All those regulations aren't free, and one way or another the cost comes out of your disposable income.

I understand your point of view, but I would point out the other side of the coin. People who are not able to give their whole lives up to their employer's demands, for any number of reasons, are less able to work in tech in the USA - they're not good value with even if they have reasonable human needs. This contributes to a very unequal culture in the industry. (Even if people on this forum might generally benefit f…

It's almost as if people with different cultures vote to create the kind of society they want to live in. :)

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

#228

Post by pc86 »

> Are there any "uber for lawyers" services online where I can pay to have someone with bonafides read through this for me?

I don't want to sound flippant but just go to a lawyer and pay them to read through it. There are too many gotchas and externalities, not the least of which is your state of residence, and even county or municipality.

As the top two comments in the top thread state, spend a few hundred dollars and don't take this into your own hands, or the hands of someone in a completely different jurisdiction.

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

#229

Post by danielvinson »

smitherfield wrote: post #188
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.

Tech workers over here are paid about twice as much (before taxes!) as tech workers in Europe, so I'm not terribly worked up about US employment law. All those regulations aren't free, and one way or another the cost comes out of your disposable income.

Do you have a source for that? I work for a large international company with engineering teams in many countries including European and American ones, and the workers in Europe generally make a bit more than the ones over here. Small sample size, but I feel like you are comparing a small subset of workers (Developers in SF/NYC) to a large one (Developers in all of Europe).

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

#230

Post by tptacek »

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.

Direct refusal to sign will probably never work, which is why I didn't suggest that.
Post reply on HN