231–240 of 295 posts
I remember reading about these clauses in contracts as the "fear and loathing" clause https://books.google.com/books?id=nWWAGnBDzJEC&lpg=PA164&ots...
Is it worth the full read?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds very reasonable. And to take it a step further, if they want possession of ideas you have in your spare time, then they should pay for your spare time too! :)
Well, that's the basic idea behind being salaried. Theoretically you are not being paid for 40-hours a week, you're being paid for your productive output regardless of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unethical? It seems ethically equal to a company using their bargaining position to advantage themselves and disadvantage their prospective employees.
I agree that many companies behave unethically during negotiations with their employees. I disagree that excuses unethical behavior on the part of the employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unethical? It seems ethically equal to a company using their bargaining position to advantage themselves and disadvantage their prospective employees.
> It seems ethically equal to a company using their bargaining position to advantage themselves and disadvantage their prospective employees. You must be unfamiliar with the software development market. In which way do employers have massive market power which renders prospective employees vulnerable? If anything, it seems like developers have the upper hand (perhaps with the exclusion of game developers).
Take the agreement "to your lawyer" first, modify it, sign and return.
If a clause is widely regarded as unethical, it seems appropriate to respond unethically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a similar light, there are many places that ask you fill out your social security number among other items on paperwork. 9/10 times they will never ask you to fill in the blanks you left out...
If you leave off your social security number, your employer is presumably going to have difficulty paying taxes / social security / etc to you. Depending on work relationship (e.g. contract), they may not be doing this anyway. But there are some things they need it for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that many companies behave unethically during negotiations with their employees. I disagree that excuses unethical behavior on the part of the employees.
So you feel it's just for employees to hold themselves to higher ethical standards than their employer? To their own financial detriment? I'm being pointed here, but I feel that's a fair representation of what we're talking about. Specifically for all but the most specific competitor-worded non-competes, the company knows exactly what it's doing: retaining employees through a cheaper method than compensation.
Second, in this particular situation there is an above-board alternative, which is to reject the terms in a clearly-communicated fashion. Were there literally only two alternatives which were "lie by omission" and "starve" then this conversation would be different. But I think in the real world, there are more alternatives available. If there are ways of achieving the same ends without deceit, then the use of deceit is unjustified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the past, when I’ve tried to politely push back against these, the response has always been a firm “sign the agreement unmodified or GTFO.” When your employer has 500 lawyers, you do what they say or get back to the job hunt.
Yeah, if they're not going to let me have any say in matters that directly affect my ability to put food on the table for my family then I'm glad to walk. If your prospective manager isn't willing/able to go to bat for you on things like this it's a good bet they're not going to be willing/able to go to bat on lots of other things that matter while you are there. Not worth it. Or, if they really are your only option…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you be more specific? I am curious. Did not realize contracts could be implicitly signed.
Implicitly signed? Like verbal assent? Yes, some kinds of contracts do only require verbal assent of the parties in order to be executed. More specific about what? I can try.