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

Contracts you should never sign

vadimkravcenko.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 284 posts

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#81

Post by mytailorisrich »

smeej wrote: post #21

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…

It works both ways. Maybe you cross a term you don't like in the employment contract before returning it to them signed and they never notice...

It happens.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#82

Post by pc86 »

kibwen wrote: post #19
secondstring wrote: post #16

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…

They don't give a damn, but every time I've asked for changes to contracts, including positions I was actively recruited for by the hiring manager, once even by the owner of the company, I'm told to sign it or no job. In the case of the owner asking me to apply, they literally said "My lawyer says to leave it in, you're not a lawyer, it's staying in."

I'm sure some people have negotiated these things but I've tried multiple times - to shorten noncompete lengths, to remove the "anything you do on our machine is ours for all time" stuff, etc - but never had any success.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#83

Post by nhchris »

7steps2much wrote: post #30
amelius wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computers are just office equipment, just like pens. If I gave you a pen and you wrote some story with it, then could I claim the rights to that story? I think not.

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.

> If you make that pen available to me under these conditions? Sure.

Let's leave aside whether the law (in whatever country) permits such a one-sided contract, and ask - should it permit it? There are plenty of contract terms that are illegal (i.e. not backed by law), such as usury [1] or various anti-competitive practices, because their enforcement is seen as either unfair, or a detriment to society, regardless of whether they were entered freely. Contracts are not and should not be above the law.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Usury_law

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#84

Post by haswell »

glenstein wrote: post #54
no-dr-onboard wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second half of your argument here appears to be saying something that the commenter never mentioned.

Normally I 100% agree and this is, to me, one of the most important things that separates comments that are constructive from ones that are unfocused and all over the map. A lot of my own comment history is me making that same criticism. 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…

All of which are ideas that are communicated more clearly when they aren’t dripping with sarcasm so thick that it obscures the ideas behind it.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#85

Post by wepple »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #63
tjoff wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now I have to lug around two of everything (laptop, phone etc) just because I might want to do something unrelated to work? It is completely unreasonable as a blanket statement.

Three. My employer's laptop, my current client's laptop (I'm in a consulting branch of a large corporation), and my personal laptop. Pre-Covid I lugged them on airplanes every week. I enjoy HN for many reasons, one of which is to encounter approaches and perspectives that I would not ever even remotely consider. I would not use my employer's laptop for personal, let alone a side-gig purpose, with a 10 foot pole. It's…

Big +1 on that. I assume a model where my work laptop screen is being directly mirrored into a room with 100 people watching it 24x7, basically. Entirely impossible, but every organization has some level of monitoring between zero and my theoretical scenario, so I carry a personal device and completely sidestep the entire issue.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#87

Post by wirthjason »

Do non-competes include money? The ones I’ve seen include your salary for that period of time. It sounds fair. You ban the employee from job prospects but compensate them in pay. Maybe this varies by industry, geography, etc.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#88

Post by meowfly »

adrianmsmith wrote: post #61
meowfly wrote: post #5

The only time I've been burned by my contract is from relocation expenses. I went to a company to take a job and not long into it a reorg moved me to a different team. I left the company and they demanded I pay back my relocation expenses. When I protested that they changed my role to something not what I was expecting, I was told that according to my contract it doesn't matter. The temporary housing I was put in was…

Even signing bonuses sometimes have to be repaid if you leave the company too quickly.

For sure. I sort of get the company not wanting spend money to sign me and then I immediately quit.

The relocation management company racked up a bill I would have never incurred if I allocated the money myself.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#89

Post by b112 »

Ensorceled wrote: post #68
BurningFrog wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it's a reminder, so you can't claim you forgot about it. Some wrinkle of "the law" probably works that way?

> I guess it's a reminder I would happily sign a 1 page document that said, "I acknowledge that I have been reminded of my obligations under the document signed April 1, 2004 and been provided with paper copies of said agreement."

I probably wouldn't be happy, because what? Are we children?

Part of the issue is that lawyers get too free of a hand sometimes. We signed, agreed, that part is over.

Frankly I have never attended an "exit interview", and never will.

That said, if someone want a reminder sign, as you say, I'd expect the corp to sign one too, and give me a copy, as well.

When signing contract between two entities, neither side is special.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#90

Post by wepple »

tjoff wrote: post #46
oytis wrote: post #26

> Anything you do with the company property, e.g., work computer, automatically belongs to the company, even if you do it on the weekends. That doesn't sound unacceptable to me. It's not that I'm that strict about e.g. reading personal emails etc. on my work computer, but if it's some side hustle, be it for money or for fun, I think it's honest to take your personal machine for that.

So now I have to lug around two of everything (laptop, phone etc) just because I might want to do something unrelated to work? It is completely unreasonable as a blanket statement.

> It is completely unreasonable as a blanket statement.

I personally find your position unreasonable: that you should be entitled to use property that is not yours how you see fit, because it’s more convenient to you.

In reality, any sane organization wouldn’t punish you for reading the news on your work computer, but to assert you should be given access seems unreasonable to me. You’re paid to do a job and they provide some tools for you to use to complete that job.

Post reply on HN