161–170 of 284 posts
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…
Weird.
Treat contract negotiation as a trial run for your future relationship: Do they try to slip nasty stuff in there? Do they do stupid shit? Do they refuse to answer questions clearly? Is it a hassle trying to get them to make modifications? Are things vague, open to too much interpretation, or missing key information? How someone behaves during contract negotiations is an indicator of how they'll behave generally. If y…
Exactly! It has gotten to the point where I take any contract put in front of me as a statement of how the other party does business. If they contract is all one-sided to their benefit and/or has crazy escape hatches for them and/or penalties for my side, it's best to just walk away, even if it costs a lot. I've tried to negotiate such clauses into something reasonable, and it is just a waste of time. They've told yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(also worth taking into account whether clauses like an absurd non-compete are even enforceable...)
It is dishonorable to sign an agreement knowing you won't adhere to your end because it's unenforceable. After all, we make promises all the time that are unenforceable, but we keep them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Such a point could be made directly and respectfully, and without the sneering sarcasm. Engaging with such content rather than rejecting that behavior out of hand rewards it and demonstrates both to the poster and to any onlookers that lowering the level of discussion is welcome here.
I found their tone quite sneering and flippant, and so I parodied it (pretty mildly, I might add, the implications are right there in the comment I replied to).
Then it becomes an exchange of paper rather than sitting there with a highlighter handing it back and forth between, you, the recruiter, HR, and legal. I sign your contract, you sign my rider with everything I care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your having honor is not conditional on others having honor.
There is no honor is dying on an ER stretcher. For anyone in the US who needs regular healthcare beyond what's provided by Medicaid, the labor market is a war for (literal) survival. If the ownership class didn't want to return to an extremely adversarial relationship with labor, then they shouldn't have gutted the social safety net. And no, I'm not going to show my hand in an imperfect information game... it would b…
> To be honest, I always assume good faith from people who offer me to sign some documents
Sure. And most people asking you to sign documents are doing so in good faith. But the contents of the documents themselves overwhelmingly bias toward the interests of the organization who wrote the contract.
Additionally, while the party asking you to sign may be doing it in good faith, they may not be the ones who end up pursuing enforcement. A contract should be evaluated based on its contents and never based on your trust of the individuals you are negotiating with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly! It has gotten to the point where I take any contract put in front of me as a statement of how the other party does business. If they contract is all one-sided to their benefit and/or has crazy escape hatches for them and/or penalties for my side, it's best to just walk away, even if it costs a lot. I've tried to negotiate such clauses into something reasonable, and it is just a waste of time. They've told yo…
What? Every click wrap agreement online is very one sided. You think you're saving yourself trouble by not using any online software?
Contrast that to the open source pattern of making the license a header in the source files. You interact with the license by making common sense assumptions unless you need to know a detail, in which case you open a source file. Likewise you interact with the software by running on common assumptions unless you need to know a detail, in which case you open a source file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(also worth taking into account whether clauses like an absurd non-compete are even enforceable...)
It is dishonorable to sign an agreement knowing you won't adhere to your end because it's unenforceable. After all, we make promises all the time that are unenforceable, but we keep them.
> 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.