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

271–280 of 291 posts

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

#271

Post by pvg »

mikeash wrote: post #266
pvg wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying you work in the US, as a full-time employee and you've never signed an AoI agreement? It's certainly possible but it sounds very unusual.

I don't believe I have. Certainly never anything as far-reaching as this one. I've never worked for a big company, partly for reasons like this.

Well, colour me surprised and I'll take your word for it. Take my word for it that AoI's are routine in companies big and small and that, in fact, nothing bad comes of them, statistically ever.

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

#272

Post by mikeash »

pvg wrote: post #271
mikeash wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe I have. Certainly never anything as far-reaching as this one. I've never worked for a big company, partly for reasons like this.

Well, colour me surprised and I'll take your word for it. Take my word for it that AoI's are routine in companies big and small and that, in fact, nothing bad comes of them, statistically ever.

Well, again, if they're not going to be used for what they say, then the wording can be changed. If the wording can't be changed then I can't trust them never to use it.

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

#273

Post by cactusface »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #191
cactusface wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It probably would have worked better if I phrased it in the present tense. Every single time a man abducts a child he is not in jail.

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

#274

Post by InclinedPlane »

mikeash wrote: post #267
InclinedPlane wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I mean that your edits won't be legally binding, but the rest will. It's natural to assume that any changes to a contract would be mentioned, it's unnatural to assume that the other party must pour over the contract for late revisions made in silence.

So something you crossed out and initialized would still be considered binding because the other party didn't also initial it? I don't understand how that could be. I could see that if you added clauses those new clauses wouldn't apply, but if it's clear that one party never agreed to a clause, how could it still be in effect?

They didn't receive confirmation of the contract changes, yet they still started their employment, which could be considered to be agreeing to the original contract.

Regardless, the employer almost certainly has a very high caliber legal team, and you? do you even have a lawyer? You think that you're going to get the better end of the argument in court based on an extremely tenuous thread? That's not the smart way to bet, you're more likely to get your ass handed to you. If you want to modify your employment contract you need to be upfront about it.

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

#275

Post by InclinedPlane »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #263
pc86 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a professional? If someone can't have a conversation about an employment contract any more politely than "no verbal response" I have to wonder how they ever get hired in the first place.

Yes. The "must disclose any existing inventions or ideas to the company now and that anything not enumerated belongs to them" is what does it. Almost none of my offers have ever included such a line. Any company trying to push that does not deserve a respectful response. I can have a conversation about the contract. But when the contract includes that, it is like being given a serious minimum wage offer.

So then you refuse that contract. If you are saying that the whole process is unserious then you're making a huge mistake since the legal system considers signing a binding contract to be a serious endeavor regardless of how you feel about it.

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

#276

Post by mikeash »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #274
mikeash wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So something you crossed out and initialized would still be considered binding because the other party didn't also initial it? I don't understand how that could be. I could see that if you added clauses those new clauses wouldn't apply, but if it's clear that one party never agreed to a clause, how could it still be in effect?

They didn't receive confirmation of the contract changes, yet they still started their employment, which could be considered to be agreeing to the original contract. Regardless, the employer almost certainly has a very high caliber legal team, and you? do you even have a lawyer? You think that you're going to get the better end of the argument in court based on an extremely tenuous thread? That's not the smart way to…

The only person in this thread who I see saying anything about not being upfront about it is you.

I'm curious as to how this would play out in court, though. They say you agreed to such-and-such in the contract. Asked to produce the original contract, they pull out a copy with your signature and the relevant clause crossed out and initialed by you. Is the court really going to say, "Well you didn't initial it, so even though you clearly saw this change and accepted the signed contract and said nothing about it over the X years that Bob worked for you, we'll say that it's still in force"?

I'd also like to know why "they still started their employment" would be considered to be implicitly agreeing to the employer's version of the contract, while "they still paid their employee" would not be considered to be implicitly agreeing to the employee's version of the contract.

I can see how you'd get in trouble with the tactic of just taking the contract and then ignoring it. But you get a contract, you counter, everybody shakes hands, you're on the payroll and somehow that implies that you agreed to theirs, and not vice versa? How could that possibly be?

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

#277

Post by chrisbennet »

smileysteve wrote: post #207
chrisbennet wrote: post #126

If an employer wants you to sign a new employment contract, wouldn't that imply they were re-negotiating your employment? "I assume from this new employment contract that we're renegotiating my employment. Let's discuss my new salary..."

As most states are At-Will, both the employer and employee can do this whenever they please.

That's orthogonal my point. My point was that when an employer gives you a new employment agreement you should recognized this for what it is - a renegotiation of terms. At that point, you should feel free to negotiate right back.

At-will simply means that they can fire you if you don't sign.

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

#278

Post by santaclaus »

kyllo wrote: post #195
USNetizen wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Right to Work is a euphemistic term for "employees cannot be required to join a labor union."

I thought forcing someone to join a labor union as a condition of employment was illegal under Taft-Hartley across the entire U.S.? One can be required to pay agency fees to unions for contract negotiations, however.

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

#279

Post by johnward »

jacquesm wrote: post #270
johnward wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HR is unable to produce it...

That's a weird situation to be in. If they can't reproduce it now they may not be able to produce it at all effectively they've just said they lost your contract which for any self respecting HR department is an absolute failure in their duty. Imagine, if they don't have it, what could have possibly happened to it? Of does 'unable to produce' translate to 'unwilling to produce'?

So far they told me that I should have a copy. My assumption is that they can't actually find it. Found a generic copy from around the same time period that should be similar.

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

#280

Post by mynameisvlad »

cactusface wrote: post #273
mynameisvlad wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It probably would have worked better if I phrased it in the present tense. Every single time a man abducts a child he is not in jail.

Yep, that would work better indeed, I would not be able to think of a counterexample. :)
Post reply on HN