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

An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

andychase.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 271 posts

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#81

Post by dqv »

salvar wrote: post #73
dqv wrote: post #24

I'm not trying to defend gigster (broad indemnification clauses are bad news), but if someone framed those questions to me that way, I would also be hesitant to respond to them. It raises the "I'm going to be a handful" alarm. So, I understand why they were hesitant to respond and didn't want to comment on it.

How would you have framed the questions? The seem reasonable to me.

"Hi, I am in receipt of the contractor agreement.

Can developers negotiate the terms of this contract? I was concerned about some of the terms and how they'd affect my other projects."

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#82

Post by angus-prune »

zoner wrote: post #61
shshhdhs wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't they be able to find that out from LinkedIn or social, for perhaps the majority of tech people? Not saying that you use social media, but it's possible they find out.

Why advertising something like I have been working on this project for the last 5 years would benefit me in any way? They could guess that I didn't create it in the last two weeks, but then good luck proving it in court. I have much better relationship with my employer now, If I hadn't I would quit tomorrow.

In almost every case you're correct. If its a hobby project, or it allows you to make a normal living you're likely to be fine. The danger comes when you end up founding the next facebook and there is some real money involved. Then you might have the Winklevii suing you based on the clause in the contract.

They could get expert testimony about the amount of time it took to create, find old stack exchange questions let alone get court ordered access to git etc. They may not end up winning, but you could settle just to avoid the cost.

On the other hand, this definitely counts as "nice problem to have" and probably isn't worth actually worrying about.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#83

Post by pjc50 »

gurgus wrote: post #11

That classic "well, nobody else has had a problem, so you must be the problem" response. I remember at one of my first jobs, myself and another programmer were working on a side project (outside of work hours, not using company resources in any way) that were considering monetising. Our contracts stated that the company we worked for owned all of our code produced in and out of working hours. We got to the business e…

The ambiguous IP clause is very common in UK programmer employment contracts. I've had two experiences with it. Most recently, I was able to insert a clarifying clause that said "work not related to company's business and not done on company time/equipment doesn't count".

Previously, I was working at a startup that didn't have this clause and employed a number of people who were Debian developers in their spare time. They introduced new contracts containing this IP clause. We discussed them and the whole department (dozen or so of us) simply politely refused to sign them. The situation quietly stalemated for months until the company ran out of runway and almost all of us were made redundant.

Collective action can work, guys. Few companies can afford to lost a lot of devs at once.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#85

Post by nraynaud »

koolba wrote: post #67
StavrosK wrote: post #39

My standard reply to "oh we've never asked for someone's IP even though it's in the contract" is "great, then you won't mind me taking that term out, since you weren't using it anyway". Remember, if it's in the contract, it's what's happening. Let no amount of promises persuade you.

I give a similar reply when being asked to remove an interest penalty clause for late payment. " We always pay our bills on time so there's no need for that! " " Great! In that case you don't have to worry about every paying it either so we'll leave it in! "

Here in France the minimal penalty rate is set by law, and it's mandatory to put it on every bill, with the payment terms now. It's part of a crackdown on big companies crushing the smaller ones with unreasonable payment times.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#86

Post by bsharitt »

gurgus wrote: post #11

That classic "well, nobody else has had a problem, so you must be the problem" response. I remember at one of my first jobs, myself and another programmer were working on a side project (outside of work hours, not using company resources in any way) that were considering monetising. Our contracts stated that the company we worked for owned all of our code produced in and out of working hours. We got to the business e…

I was considering taking a job recently(would have been 100% remote) that had the same kind of vague "everything you do is ours" clause(also had a similarly vague non-compete) in the contract when I received the job offer. I brought it up and mentioned I can't sign this contract because these issues. The most I could get out of the guy was, I can't think of it every getting forced so sign the contract and don't worry about it. If were out of work and really needed a job I probably would have, but I ended up turning down the offer.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#88

Post by jenkstom »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #78
TamDenholm wrote: post #32

I do contract work a lot in the UK through recruitment agencies. I very often provide feedback like this, especially when i'm asked to opt-out of the agency regulations. I never opt out, every single time i get the a response along the lines of "In my 20+ years of recruiting we've never had any problems with the contractor not opting out of the agency regulations, you're the first person to ever do that. Can i ask wh…

I don't think I ever signed an agency contract without heavily adjusting some clauses. I would simply state I can't sign as is. The only times I got pushback (rare) an annotated letter from accountant or PCG (now IPSE I think) contract review and the agency buckled. I also demanded proof that the agency-client contract matched on IR35 terms. Was never once caught by it. Does the agent want to lose commission? Does th…

This. In a business law class my instructor told me you should never sign a contract you are offered. Change it however you like and send it back as an offer. Or if you are being asked to sign something on paper mark it up with your pen, initial each change, and THEN sign it. If they don't like it they don't have to sign it.

Or better yet, if they send it to you electronically, change it however you like, sign it and send it back. If they don't read it it's kind of their problem.

I once got out of a compete clause because the recruiter told me that I should go to the fedex store, pick up this contract, sign it immediately and fedex it back. I asked about having time to read it and he told me not to bother. So I didn't.

When I was hired away by a competitor and he was yelling at me on the phone I reminded him of this. It helped that my new employer had indemnified me and was willing to pay the court costs to fight it for me.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#89

Post by ryanmarsh »

ekidd wrote: post #42

I've worked as a consultant for years. I occasionally employ a lawyer to review contracts with my clients. As a general rule of thumb, I'll only work for a client under one of three circumstances: 1. The client's standard contract is reasonable. This is rare. 2. The client's standard contract is unreasonable, but they're willing to cross-out or rewrite the objectionable bits before signing. This is very common. 3. It…

"It's OK to do a couple of those jobs when you're starting out"

I don't think it's OK at all. Some people will, for various valid reasons, need to work for sites like this for a long time or indefinitely. Even for those who only have to rely upon sites like this for a short time this kind of exposure to risk is not ok. It shouldn't be allowed. Contracts that totally indemnify a company in a situation like this shouldn't be enforceable.

I've been fortunate in my consulting, I take it you have too. Not everyone can rise above the rat race like we have and pick our clients to our liking. Furthermore, this is the future of work. The majority of new jobs added to the economy during the recession (sorry I can't find the gov't report) were considered "non-standard". This is the fastest growing sector of labor in the west. Ultimately workers doing "freelance" work deserve protections. Until congress reacts to this change in the labor force I believe it's incumbent on people like us to expose and push back on predatory contracts.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#90

Post by dqv »

theli0nheart wrote: post #60
dqv wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If anything, developers who ask questions are the ones you want most. One of the worst traits in a developer is the tendency to say yes to everything. I didn't say that. I said that I disagree with the way he framed his questions.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Could you explain how the way he framed his questions was disagreeable to you? From my reading they were perfectly reasonable.

>So gigster can do something really awful and I can't seek damages?

The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful".

The over all tone of the writing is offensive rather than defensive. In other words, the email is not written like he wants questions answered, but rather that he'd like to jump to conclusions.

The responses to his inquiries leave much to be desired as well.

Post reply on HN