51–60 of 284 posts
> the best thing we as engineers can do is be aware of the types of contracts we're signing I'd argue that the best thing we can do is to not just make generalizations about what is OK to sign or not. Confidentiality agreements and non-competes are fine if they are narrowly focused, fair, and your compensation is sufficient to make it worth the restrictions. Because that is what a contract really is - a balancing act…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> many-to-most of these clauses are in every boilerplate contract Contracts are entirely negotiable. If there's a job you want, but the contract contains an objectionable clause, tell them that you're willing to accept if they strike that clause. If you're at the point in the hiring process where they're showing you the contract, that means that they've sunk resources into you that they don't want to throw away. And…
> because nobody involved in the hiring process consciously chose to put that clause in and they probably don't really give a damn. Yes but I think I didn't convey my point enough. Nobody involved in the hiring process cares, and if it's a good company they probably agree with you. But this standard contract is what they paid attorneys good money to comb over with a fine tooth comb for liability, and eventually sign…
I mean in principle, I agree with all of these points. But in reality if you stick to these rules hard and fast, you'll basically never accept a job offer. That's clearly an exaggeration, but many-to-most of these clauses are in every boilerplate contract. Whether it's a small startup that's using a generic contract they've gotten from the internet or their lawyers, up to massive corporations, they're all going to in…
> many-to-most of these clauses are in every boilerplate contract Contracts are entirely negotiable. If there's a job you want, but the contract contains an objectionable clause, tell them that you're willing to accept if they strike that clause. If you're at the point in the hiring process where they're showing you the contract, that means that they've sunk resources into you that they don't want to throw away. And…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The second half of your argument here appears to be saying something that the commenter never mentioned.
But in this case, I think they are identifying an implication of "not making generalities" which I find to be perfectly appropriate. It reminds me of the robolending scandal, and how companies involved tried to deflect systematic criticism by suggesting each instance of robolending needed to be reviewed on a case by case basis without drawing why systematic conclusions.
It's meant as a criticism of how "don't make generalizations" can be used to deflect important and appropriate criticism, and I don't think it's just a case of someone changing the subject randomly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make that pen available to me under these conditions? Sure. If you "just give" me something without any conditions then no, you could definitely not claim that story. But if you make that pen, your property, available to me explicitly only for work and nothing else? It's your property, not mine. I only have whatever rights you grant me to it.
Only if you sign the contract!
For example a one year non-compete after separation might be unreasonable by itself, but coupled with one year of full severance pay is a different story, although there is still the "what am I supposed to do with my time?" issue.
If you are a founder/early employee with significant equity then a non-compete clause when being acquired will likely be acceptable to you.
Another candidate gets an offer and sees the non-compete clause (which is the same across all of Acme Corp's 10k employees) and asks for that to be removed. As the hiring manager, what do I do? My boss leads a division but doesn't have authority to change boilerplate contracts. Neither does her boss. So we need to go to Legal. But who do I reach out to there? The company's general counsel doesn't have time to deal with this. So I guess I start emailing around? Who do I go to who actually has the authority to change this? It becomes too much of a hassle and I turn candidate #2 away. Oh, and by the way, had candidate #2 signed the contract, they would have been banned from working for any other company whose business is primarily selling Fancy Widgets to people named Bridgette who have 11 fingers. It probably wouldn't have been an issue anyway.
My point is that people sometimes overthink this. Yes, non-competes are bad. I'd argue that they are immoral and certainly bad policy. But not every non-compete is created equally and sometimes maybe you'd be better off negotiating for other things that might be easier to negotiate on and would be more useful anyway. If you are a software engineer, it's often unlikely that you'd find yourself working for a direct competitor anyway.
Also verify that anything you're signing when you leave matches what you signed when you were hired. I recently left a company where, when I was hired, I had agreed in "Appendix C" not to recruit any of their employees away from them for a period of 12 months after separation. When I actually separated after more than two years, the "Appendix C" they wanted me to sign and presented as the one I had agreed to at hire…
> because why believe people are malicious when they could just as well be careless? When your job is to be careful, being careless is nothing but malicious.
Also verify that anything you're signing when you leave matches what you signed when you were hired. I recently left a company where, when I was hired, I had agreed in "Appendix C" not to recruit any of their employees away from them for a period of 12 months after separation. When I actually separated after more than two years, the "Appendix C" they wanted me to sign and presented as the one I had agreed to at hire…
I can believe that they're careless and used the wrong copy of a document but I'm not sure I understand why you're signing an agreement like that on exit: you've signed it on hiring so that regardless of the outcome of your employment, you're bound to the anti-poach. The only reason I can think that they'd ask you to sign the agreement again on exit is that they wanted to bind you into something new -- what explanati…
Some wrinkle of "the law" probably works that way?