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

131–140 of 284 posts

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#131

Post by nerdponx »

the_gipsy wrote: post #108
pc86 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Can you clarify if you walked away (and they let you) or not? Because if not, then it was just negotiating 101.

They will 100% let you walk over this. And then what? Your next offer will be the same, and so on. Market forces don't work if every agent on one side of the market does exactly the same thing.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#132

Post by riskable »

swader999 wrote: post #111
chadash wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> non-competes are fine if they are narrowly focused, fair, and your compensation is sufficient to make it worth the restrictions Yes! This is a particularly true for most software engineers. I have a friend who is a doctor whose contract says that if quits, he can't practice medicine within a 30-mile radius for 12 months. His only option would be to move to a different area, take a job with a horrible commute for a…

A lot of doctor and vet contracts are like that because they are likely to get a large local client following just by joining a practise that the practise has spent years cultivating.

There's an easy way to solve this problem without non-competes: Treat your employees better. Usually by paying them more.

The entire concept of going to work for someone else is that it's supposed to save you a lot of trouble having to sell your services on your own/run your own business. If it has become so much more profitable for doctors to leave and start their own practice then they should be doing that because you're not paying them enough! You're not "making good" on your end of the bargain that we offer in civilized society.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#133

Post by amelius »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #115
rubyfan wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you explicitly included a contract that stated how the pen was to be used and the ramifications before my acceptance of your pen then yes. Companies do include policies about how their equipment is to be used and for what and they do include how they think about ownership usually in your employment agreement or principles of employment policies. To write those off because “hey it’s only a generic piece of equipmen…

That last paragraph of yours is key the your whole post. It’s a good illustration of how a large enough difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.

If you use the company car for a side hustle in catering, then that perhaps gives the company the right to fire you or charge you for damages. However, they do not get to claim any intellectual property (recipes you invented for your catering side-job).

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#134

Post by Karunamon »

glenstein wrote: post #129
Karunamon wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a misread to point out that the comment was loaded with sarcasm and would have been better without it, neither is it one to point out that engaging with that content causes its proliferation.

It is a misread to equivocate between stylistic objections and a criticism that was not about stylistic objections and suggest that both were expressing the same idea. Endorsing the misread as the cost of doing business in order to reject a comment over stylistic objections signals that misreading is to be embraced as a community value.

Which I didn't do? Nobody misread anything. The comment is objectively nasty and sarcastic, against the rules of the site, and I asked you to consider that substantive comments are best addressed to other substantive comments.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#135

Post by thwayunion »

WalterBright wrote: post #127
RaCaS123 wrote: post #80

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.

It's even more dishonorable for a company with a legal team to offer up terms in a contract that are explicitly illegal, and then use those illegal terms to conduct unfair and deceptive business practices in the labor market.

In fact, that scenario is so dishonorable that in some states you can ask the court for triple damages if the employer tries to enforce the noncompete

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#137

Post by chasing »

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 you can't start building that trust right out of the gate... Red flag. Even if they're not trying to be devious and are simply being naive or sloppy.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#138

Post by WalterBright »

thwayunion wrote: post #135
WalterBright wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's even more dishonorable for a company with a legal team to offer up terms in a contract that are explicitly illegal, and then use those illegal terms to conduct unfair and deceptive business practices in the labor market. In fact, that scenario is so dishonorable that in some states you can ask the court for triple damages if the employer tries to enforce the noncompete

Your having honor is not conditional on others having honor.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#139

Post by claytonjy »

tallanvor wrote: post #100
codingdave wrote: post #13

> the best thing we as engineers can do is be aware of the types of contracts we're signing I'd argue that the best thing we can do is to not just make generalizations about what is OK to sign or not. Confidentiality agreements and non-competes are fine if they are narrowly focused, fair, and your compensation is sufficient to make it worth the restrictions. Because that is what a contract really is - a balancing act…

I agree. My contract says that my employer can choose to enforce a non-compete for 12 months after I leave, but if they do, they have to pay me during that time. It creates a strong incentive for them to not abuse the non-compete.

Are you in finance? That kind of compensated-non-compete seems common there, but rare elsewhere.

Re: Contracts you should never sign

#140

Post by NhanH »

riskable wrote: post #132
swader999 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of doctor and vet contracts are like that because they are likely to get a large local client following just by joining a practise that the practise has spent years cultivating.

There's an easy way to solve this problem without non-competes: Treat your employees better . Usually by paying them more . The entire concept of going to work for someone else is that it's supposed to save you a lot of trouble having to sell your services on your own/run your own business. If it has become so much more profitable for doctors to leave and start their own practice then they should be doing that becaus…

Sure, and if a doctor is good enough, he can just start his own practice from the start and never have to sign anything since he never join any practice except his own.

That line of reasoning goes both way. If you sign something, then it was worth it for you.

Post reply on HN