Live data from Hacker News

An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

andychase.me

151–160 of 271 posts

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#151
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…

Along with the classic "not at this time" response.

Meaning, as it always does, "We won't answer your questions, ever."

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#152
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> "work not related to company's business and not done on company time/equipment doesn't count" We would have similar terms but sometimes people work at home not on company equipment or within normal working hours, so it's normal for this term to be a bit broader, but in general most companies would agree that you can keep the rights to work not related to company business (if you ask and they are reasonable).

I don't remember if it was mentioned in my contract, or if I just looked up state law. I remember when I had a job in Nevada, state law effectively said that work done on my own time, off premises, using my own equipment was mine. I realized that it would be possible to do work on my own time, with their equipment, etc. and I figured if I wanted to avoid a headache it would be my responsibility to make sure I clearly checked all the boxes before I tried to claim ownership.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#153
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't. He didn't have to respond at all. However, he expressed, through his language, an unwillingness to negotiate the contract. That's why he ended up not negotiating the contract. It's also why when people address me or my employer the way he did, I just don't engage at all.

Oh, so not only would you be impolite enough to send such a contract, when questioned on it you would also be so embarrassingly impolite to not even answer that you stand by your previous insult. Gotcha.

(1) it's possible that they didn't know the language could be used to hurt someone in that way. You won't give them the benefit of the doubt and instead would rather give that benefit to the person who was actually impolite.

(2) Again, as I said before, I don't agree with those terms. That doesn't mean I'd be an ass hole about it. To my benefit, I'd politely negotiate and have a much higher likelihood of negotiating the contract to my liking.

(3) If someone posed the same concerns to me in a polite and professional manner, I would go out of my way to correct the contract (hey boss person, this contract might be bad for developers!). On the other hand, if someone is an ass hole, they're going to an "ass hole" response.

Try it. Try being polite in a situation where you'd like to be an ass hole. You're going to be surprised at the end result.

Edit: wording

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#154
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not putting words in his mouth. He postured his question to be rhetorical. It's not even really a question at all. It doesn't seek clarification. It seeks a specific response: to get that person to admit to something they might not feel is true (that the company is awful or can do awful things). It's not nice and it's not an appropriate way to attempt to negotiate a contract. He made things into a me vs you situa…

The company can do awful things. This is not a simple fact. It is a truth . > He made things into a me vs you situation No. They did. By not including the mirror of that clause indemnifying him against them, the contract was the first to state "you could do awful things", so they have no standing whatsoever to complain about anything.

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this point? I'm not refuting that the company could do awful things. I'm explaining that if you're an ass hole to the person who can change it and make sure it stays changed for everyone in the future, it's not going to happen.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#155
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.

If you think anyone that wants to negotiate a contract as a "handful" you are the problem.

Contracts are negotiations, if you are unwilling to negotiate your side of the contract YOU are the handful... and probably worth not working with.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either they're bluffing completely or you're extremely junior. We often spend $10k-$30k on each new hire. If you make it through that pipeline and they try to strong-arm you on the first day... they're going to have a rough time.

I don't think they were bluffing but I was not going to roll the dice and find out. Not a junior level guy either. I think these places that actually let you negotiate your employment contract must be relatively few, very small companies, with one HR person and lawyer and a lot less formality. EDIT: Also, to be cynical: $30k is nothing for many companies, and likely less than the benefit of having IP rights to everyt…

No, for senior people I almost always expect a strange contract negotiation. Juniors just sign.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#157
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful". That's a completely bullshit attack and putting words into his mouth. Gigster has the potentional to possibly to do something awful in the future due to being a company made of different people, with there being no guarantee that the people you're talking to one day are still there the next. And trust is only possib…

I'm not putting words in his mouth. He postured his question to be rhetorical. It's not even really a question at all. It doesn't seek clarification. It seeks a specific response: to get that person to admit to something they might not feel is true (that the company is awful or can do awful things). It's not nice and it's not an appropriate way to attempt to negotiate a contract. He made things into a me vs you situa…

In the short history of the "gig economy" many companies have screwed over their "gigers" many many times. It's not theoretical.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#158
There is a lot of legal misinformation in this thread, as is common on HN, both on the substance and practice-in-fact. For readers in a similar contractual pickle, take things read here with a grain of salt. Most assume very specific things about your information and bargaining position which may not apply.

In general, the applicability and effect of broad catch-all employment agreement's clauses will vary between jurisdictions - This is part of why they're drafted in a hyper-defensive manner. No small business is going to shell out for legal to obtain 300+ jurisdiction specific form agreements.

There may be very clear bright-line rules dealing with your issues as raised which put you in the clear, but you won't know unless you consult an expert. Because of the nature of the employment bar, you can get straightforward accurate advice for very little investment - if you approach obtaining advice properly.

Take the time to draft an email to local employment counsel setting out your concerns, attaching the proposed agreement and setting out the scope of review you would like him to perform. Ask for a quote. Repeat until you find a good fit.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#159

I interviewed to be a Gigster about a year and a half ago, and was accepted, but the more I considered it and saw how gigs were distributed (at that time mostly via Slack messages) I got a bad feeling, like I was a dog in a pack, fighting over meat scraps. It was then I realized the gig economy is not all sunshine and roses. All that to say, this doesn't surprise me, that Gigster doesn't have its workers best interes…

Same here. I worked on one project, that was a trash fire. I took a month away to kinda clear my head. I go back, and there really isn't anything available, except for React gigs.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, people. Not "we are working on", but "if I were to start working".

Please don't advocate for making willfully misleading statements to one's employer which might have legal repercussions (IANAL, etc).

One's employer is unlikely to be so forthright with their future plans. It should not be misleading to reveal only the minimum information necessary to a potentially hostile actor (speaking culturally, not legally).
Post reply on HN