321–330 of 378 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No apologies needed, but thanks! I learned some valuable lessons.
The lessons you learned then are the ones I'm learning now.
Oh, and people in other industries have told me it's par for the course everywhere.
This is why networking is so important. That's my main advice to give. Meetups, user-groups, etc... get involved in them and do your best to learn, interact, and "level up" (to steal a brilliant recruitment/marketing slogan from the big A)
Non-disparagement clauses can be seen as a throwaway item, a suffocating burden, an essential protection, or a damned nuisance, each according to taste or context. To begin with, lawyers tend to see these clauses as essential protections and they are sometimes right. But, right or wrong, they tend to insist upon them, especially in the employment context. This explains their prevalence but, of course, does not necess…
You said context is critical and this is interesting because a friend of mine is currently dealing with how to handle termination for a contract job (1099 not W2) they were performing. They had worked for this company for about about half a year now and every single itemized invoice, which should have been paid in X days, was paid over over 4 times X days late every time and the CEO was unresponsive to emails address…
It may be appropriate for small claims court, then.
> Some of the work performed should have been paid out of the CEO's pocket instead of the company's funds.
Not your friend's problem. That's between the CEO and the board. Maybe they want the CEO to have a personal assistant take care of minor but time-consuming personal matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps they'll initiate less meaningless smalltalk with me once they realize that I prefer to engage in honest, substantial conversations. Don't want to know what I think? Don't ask me.
They'll probably initiate less talk of any kind with you after pulling that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've pushed back on contract terms with a large company that had included a non-compete clause not enforceable locally. Turns out they had an alternate contract which met local statute, and had used it in previous hires / mergers. Still makes me itchy to sign such terms. When Marissa Meyer was hired by Yahoo, I found it interesting that her employment contract included some pretty familiar language: https://www.sec.g…
In the fictional novel "Lost Boys" (the author's name tends to start flamewars on HN so I'm not mentioning it), a software developer travels across the country with his family to a new job and is presented with a horrible IP contract. He sweats and is nervous and anxious about it all weekend, and on Monday he tells his boss he won't sign it. The boss shrugs and pulls an alternate contract out of a drawer and hands it…
Yeah, some good books, but pity about the person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't sign a contract that sells you into slavery because of the 13th Amendment. Why can you sign a contract that limits your freedom of speech in spite of the 1st Amendment? Yes, I realize the law is complicated and there are many years of precedent distinguishing the two. But it's incorrect to argue that this isn't even in spirit related to the 1st Amendment.
> You can't sign a contract that sells you into slavery because of the 13th Amendment. Because the 13th Amendment doesn't prevent Congress from making a law to make people slaves, it prohibits slavery from existing. In law, words make a difference. > Why can you sign a contract that limits your freedom of speech in spite of the 1st Amendment? Because restricting such a construct -- preventing you from trading speech…
Also, I will note that you point out that the specific words are important in your first point, but miss it your second. You mention that the First Amendment is about not allowing the government to regulate speech. But the actual text says that Congress is not allowed to "abridge" freedom of speech. Abridge means to limit, shorten, or cut off. Clearly, a law that invalidated contractual limits on speech would not in any way be abridging that speech.
And I was soon informed that the president wished to assure me that there is nothing unusual about such clauses Whoop whoop whoop! This sets off giant alarm bells in my head. It might be totally normal. That doesn't mean you should sign it. It's also an older-than-dirt salesman tactic to say that something you just made up is "totally common." Of course, the company can attach whatever clauses it wants to a separatio…
Just wondering - particularly as I have no experience of the US employment market - but is it common for soon-to-be employees to negotiate a standard severance package into their contract of employment?
Non-disparagement clauses can be seen as a throwaway item, a suffocating burden, an essential protection, or a damned nuisance, each according to taste or context. To begin with, lawyers tend to see these clauses as essential protections and they are sometimes right. But, right or wrong, they tend to insist upon them, especially in the employment context. This explains their prevalence but, of course, does not necess…
A couple employers ago I was leaving a job to found a startup and talking to a lawyer about unrelated things and casually brought up the termination agreement they had asked me to sign. His response was "Unless you need the money, I don't see what reason you would ever have for signing that." The lightbulb that went off in my head was that every legal document you sign is basically a business transaction: you give up…
That's why if someone asks you to sign it, you can either ignore it or demand some sort of consideration (e.g., compensation) in return for signing it. Otherwise, it's unenforceable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say you want the right but never expect to use it. If that is the case it is probably not worth very much. Perhaps they can pay you something for it... You don't have to sign severance agreements that give your rights and employers don't have to pay you severance over what is required by law. If those rights are worth more to you than the severance don't sign.
You say you want the right but never expect to use it. If that is the case it is probably not worth very much. I know you mean well, so I say this without trying to be antagonistic and start up a "debate." The thing is, this is from the world of principles, and despite what you may have been told incessantly, there is no direct way to value a principle. The whole idea of selling this principle breaks down immediately…
I think you (and the NYT piece author) take a somewhat extreme position but I certainly support your right to take it. I hope you would allow others to see this differently and sign these agreements if they prefer the money.