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

CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 182 posts

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#172

Post by Salgat »

pests wrote: post #115
Salgat wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salary in this case would serve as the consideration for the work they perform, but lawyers love making things as explicit as possible (understandably).

You already get salary though. They can't just keep adding contracts and terms and say it's covered by previous payments.

They already paid you for the code, so it's already theirs, they are just making it explicitly stated. If you don't sign it, they end your employment. And the odds of them willing to lose employment over this and trying to claim the company's code as their own and that getting to court is near non-existent. But again as I said, lawyers like to make it explicit.

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#175

Post by frognumber »

Beijinger wrote: post #131
borski wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are assigning me some rights or an entire piece of IP, I must provide you with some consideration (monetary compensation) for that to be a valid contract. You cannot simply “gift” it to me. So I would, as part of the contract, hand over $1 or $20 to establish that I have skin in the game and have paid for this contract be valid. The consideration could be stock and other things, but it can’t be null.

At arm's length mean, it must be an adequate amount. For example, I can sell a 10 Million dollar home in most jurisdictions to you for 1 USD. While this contract may be valid, it may create tax liabilities because the tax authorities will say this was not a sale, this was a gift. As a counter example: In many jurisdictions, a work contract that specifically request lots of overtime or forbids working for a competitor…

You're confusing domains of law.

* Contract law does not require arm's length. A contract for $1 is okay.

* Tax law may require arms length.

* I've never heard of arm's length in employment law, but there are laws which lead to what you describe (e.g. mandatory overtime pay, minimum wage, etc.). In some jurisdictions, there are limitations on how much an employer can change the terms of employment. If you hire me for $100k, and after I quit my old job a week into the new one, you give a pay cut to $80k and otherwise change the terms of the deal, that might not be okay.

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#176

Post by amy-petrik-214 »

indigodaddy wrote: post #2

‘ On Wednesday, some of the people who posted about the gift card said that when they went to redeem the offer, they got an error message saying the voucher had been canceled. When TechCrunch checked the voucher, the Uber Eats page provided an error message that said the gift card “has been canceled by the issuing party and is no longer valid.”’

Same thing happened to me, but when I tried to redeem the gift card, the checkout computer crashed and entered a reboot loop

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#178

Post by pests »

Salgat wrote: post #172
pests wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already get salary though. They can't just keep adding contracts and terms and say it's covered by previous payments.

They already paid you for the code, so it's already theirs, they are just making it explicitly stated. If you don't sign it, they end your employment. And the odds of them willing to lose employment over this and trying to claim the company's code as their own and that getting to court is near non-existent. But again as I said, lawyers like to make it explicit.

I agree with all of this, just my objections was to claiming the consideration being "the salary you already agreed to in order to sign your employee agreement" would not work therefore the token $20 amount.

Re: CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

#180

Post by frognumber »

lucianbr wrote: post #40
frognumber wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's what I suspect happened: Any contract requires consideration. Without it, it's not a valid contract. It doesn't require fair consideration, so a clause giving e.g. $1 is typical for many contracts. They were nice and bumped it up to $20. I suspect your work DID belong to the company already, under work-for-hire doctrine, but an explicit contract avoids that ambiguity. Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensive,…

You think the $20 was consideration, and yet you think they were not paying for the code? Aren't these the same thing? > Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensive If the corporation had some ambiguity in their favor, I expect they would call it "value" and ask for as much as they could get to remove it. But if the ambiguity is in favor of an employee or client, let's remove it for a token $20. Ugly society this one is…

The ambiguity is not in the favor of anyone except lawyers. As an employee, you can:

1) Spend $100k in litigation to discover your boss owns the code

2) Get $20

Fights don't benefit anyone. Some companies would act like dicks and "ask for as much as they could get to remove it," but in most cases, that's not what happens either. A company like that would never get repeat business. Coincidentally, some employees do the same, with similar consequences. And there are employers everyone knows not to work for.

Resolving this sort of thing for a buck -- in the way a court would rule -- is really standard common-sense practice.

Post reply on HN