An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster • Hacker News Board

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#131

Post by sandworm101 » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 6:08 PM UTC

gurgus wrote: post #11

That classic "well, nobody else has had a problem, so you must be the problem" response. I remember at one of my first jobs, myself and another programmer were working on a side project (outside of work hours, not using company resources in any way) that were considering monetising. Our contracts stated that the company we worked for owned all of our code produced in and out of working hours. We got to the business e…

No. This is the classic case of someone needing legal advice but not bothering to contact an expert. These IP clauses are not that bad if you are someone reading contracts daily. They arent asking for the world, certainly not for outside material. (Note the capital C in Customer.)

Seek legal advice. Not here. Not your buddy who reads supreme court cases and thinks he knows copyright from tradesecret. Go to someone with a license hanging on the wall. It wont cost any more than a filling by a dentist and probably less than your monthly cellphone bill.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#132

Post by mgkimsal » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 6:08 PM UTC

gurgus wrote: post #11

That classic "well, nobody else has had a problem, so you must be the problem" response. I remember at one of my first jobs, myself and another programmer were working on a side project (outside of work hours, not using company resources in any way) that were considering monetising. Our contracts stated that the company we worked for owned all of our code produced in and out of working hours. We got to the business e…

If it's too expensive to check ahead of time, it'll probably be considered too expensive to check afterwards too, no? Not if they smell money, I bet. :/

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#133

Post by dqv » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 6:10 PM UTC

Mithaldu wrote: post #121

dqv wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an appropriate way to be clear on what the problem is and an inappropriate way to be clear on what the problem is. My initial point is that he did not raise his objections in an appropriate way. I completely understand why he objected and I would have objected as well, but I would have done so in a more appropriate way.

Why is there any onus on him to conduct himself in any kind of appropiate manner if the contract sent to him was in turn wildly appropiate (and not even accompanied by a polite set of words)?

There isn't. He didn't have to respond at all. However, he expressed, through his language, an unwillingness to negotiate the contract. That's why he ended up not negotiating the contract.

It's also why when people address me or my employer the way he did, I just don't engage at all.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#134

Post by tracker1 » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 6:10 PM UTC

embwbam wrote: post #91

bsharitt wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was considering taking a job recently(would have been 100% remote) that had the same kind of vague "everything you do is ours" clause(also had a similarly vague non-compete) in the contract when I received the job offer. I brought it up and mentioned I can't sign this contract because these issues. The most I could get out of the guy was, I can't think of it every getting forced so sign the contract and don't worry…

What I usually do in this case is redline the contract and sign it. (Meaning, edit the clauses you don't like in an obvious fashion. Tell them you've done this.) They will often not want to go to the trouble of going back and forth with the contract and will just accept it.

That's been my experience as well. I won't sign these types of clauses and haven't had issue with lining out offending portions, or adding them in...

Some of the docu-sign sites even have tools for this.. others don't.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#135

Post by Clanan » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 6:13 PM UTC

sidchilling wrote: post #128

This is not just for contracts. Gigster does that even when recruiting. After three rounds of interview, I got a canned response that they are unable to take my application forward. I asked them for feedback and got the same reply that they can't provide any feedback (even after 3 rounds of interviews). I reached out to the developer who interviewed me and after a couple of days, he replied back saying that Gigster d…

This is true of practically every company. It's a liability issue - companies are afraid that feedback will be used in a lawsuit, so their favored course of action is to say nothing.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#136

Post by mijoharas » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 6:14 PM UTC

pricechild wrote: post #74

ex_amazon_sde wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ex Amazon employee here: Amazon requires employees to obtain written permission even to contribute in your free time and this makes many developers unhappy. However the company does not claim copyright or patents on work-unrelated ideas and (closed-source) projects.

What happens if you don't obtain permission? Do you get fired, or do they claim ownership?

Ex Amazon: You are in breach of contract which is grounds for termination.

I doubt that would happen in practice though, unless you were creating an open source competitor to something they do or somesuch.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#137

Post by pbnjay » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 6:15 PM UTC

I did a pre-screening with toptal and literally had these same questions... And they basically had the same responses. No thanks!

I understand especially with the race to the bottom they'll always have someone new enough to sign these types of agreements, but everyone I know with experience or seniority avoids the platforms because of how ludicrous these restrictions are.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#138

Post by huebnerob » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #132

gurgus wrote: post #11

That classic "well, nobody else has had a problem, so you must be the problem" response. I remember at one of my first jobs, myself and another programmer were working on a side project (outside of work hours, not using company resources in any way) that were considering monetising. Our contracts stated that the company we worked for owned all of our code produced in and out of working hours. We got to the business e…

If it's too expensive to check ahead of time, it'll probably be considered too expensive to check afterwards too, no? Not if they smell money, I bet. :/

That's precisely what's so nefarious about this widely accepted set of terms: your company will be fine with you loosely interpreting your employment contract, up and until you become successful.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#139

Post by mikeash » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

janwillemb wrote: post #92

pjc50 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ambiguous IP clause is very common in UK programmer employment contracts. I've had two experiences with it. Most recently, I was able to insert a clarifying clause that said "work not related to company's business and not done on company time/equipment doesn't count". Previously, I was working at a startup that didn't have this clause and employed a number of people who were Debian developers in their spare time.…

Quitting a job is a major, life-changing event for many devs and the question is whether such a clause in the contract is worth the trouble. That said, I disagree strongly with these intellectual property clauses in dev contracts.

If you already have the job and they try to make you sign something like this, don't quit, but say no. You may not be prepared to quit over such a clause, but it's also likely that they're not prepared to fire you over it.

They will probably tell you that you must sign it, or else terrible consequences will ensue. If those consequences involve the company, brush it off, because that's not your problem. If they involve you, then see if they're actually willing and able to carry them out before you make a decision.

I've heard many stories of attempted unilateral changes in employment terms like this where employees refused to sign. In some cases, they got mildly harassed for a while and then it petered out. In some cases, nobody even followed up. In some cases, they were able to negotiate the language to everybody's satisfaction. I haven't heard of anybody getting fired for it. (I'm sure it has happened, it just doesn't seem all that common.)

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#140

Post by Mithaldu » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

dqv wrote: post #133

Mithaldu wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there any onus on him to conduct himself in any kind of appropiate manner if the contract sent to him was in turn wildly appropiate (and not even accompanied by a polite set of words)?

There isn't. He didn't have to respond at all. However, he expressed, through his language, an unwillingness to negotiate the contract. That's why he ended up not negotiating the contract. It's also why when people address me or my employer the way he did, I just don't engage at all.

Oh, so not only would you be impolite enough to send such a contract, when questioned on it you would also be so embarrassingly impolite to not even answer that you stand by your previous insult. Gotcha.