181–190 of 271 posts
Hey, I thought their answer was absolutely great!!! My thinking, reading ONLY the dev's original email, was the same as what they wrote: then I read their reply and found their phrasing MUCH better. Here's all you would have gotten from me: ------------------------------------ answer email I would have written ------------------------------ >Some questions I have about with this contract: (allowed for by section 11.5…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. That's why collective action is so important: a company can avoid the loss of a single employee much more than the single employee can afford the loss of a job, but a company can't avoid the loss of even a single department quite as easily, let alone all employees of a certain type. It's insurance for bad management decisions, effectively. It's useful for all the reasons insurance is useful.
If you are interested in collective action to combat clauses like this, follow Maciej Cejlowski.
Hey, I thought their answer was absolutely great!!! My thinking, reading ONLY the dev's original email, was the same as what they wrote: then I read their reply and found their phrasing MUCH better. Here's all you would have gotten from me: ------------------------------------ answer email I would have written ------------------------------ >Some questions I have about with this contract: (allowed for by section 11.5…
Sean Spicer, is that you?
If I received such an email in response to my own question I would be reassured.
I'm not towing/toeing the company line here. There's simply nothing wrong here.
--
EDIT: in reply to your followup, no, I googled and it's some Trump spokesperson? (communications director). Basically I took it (in this comment I added this edit to) that you were saying I'm being counterfactual and spinning things, but I wouldn't have an issue receiving that email, as a developer, to a place I applied to. It would reassure me. I don't think it's spin - I think the original developer we're reading about is off-base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've actually tried that cute "Strike out clauses from your employment agreement you don't like and sign THAT document" tactic with several past employers, and each of them pulled me aside my first or second day of work and gave me a stern and clear "Sign it unmodified or GTFO" talk. In my experience nothing in an employment contract is in any way negotiable. I don't even bother anymore--it's futile.
Either they're bluffing completely or you're extremely junior. We often spend $10k-$30k on each new hire. If you make it through that pipeline and they try to strong-arm you on the first day... they're going to have a rough time.
If you are willing to lose your job, I applaud anyone who does this fight. But lots of people are not able to do the same fight.
What does work is demanding to see the employment contract before joining the company. They can present you with a different contract on day one, but contract law requires a meeting of minds, and if they snuck a new clause in without calling it out, there wasn't a meeting of minds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps I'm missing something. Could you explain how the way he framed his questions was disagreeable to you? From my reading they were perfectly reasonable.
>So gigster can do something really awful and I can't seek damages? The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful". The over all tone of the writing is offensive rather than defensive . In other words, the email is not written like he wants questions answered, but rather that he'd like to jump to conclusions. The responses to his inquiries leave much to be desired…
In what other context does it make sense to talk about the right to sue someone other than "doing something awful"? These are not the rules for the office's Secret Santa, this is a legal contract which details what would happen precisely if either party "does something awful"
People don't sue each other because they think they are doing wonderful things, they sue them when they think they've done "something awful".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either they're bluffing completely or you're extremely junior. We often spend $10k-$30k on each new hire. If you make it through that pipeline and they try to strong-arm you on the first day... they're going to have a rough time.
They might be bluffing. But considering you've just left your old job, most people are not willing to take that chance.
> does not contain any third-party software, including without limitation, “open source,” “copy left,” “public” or other similar code or anything derived from or based on any of the foregoing (unless approved by Gigster in writing) So is a Gigster developer contractually obligated to build everything from zero and take advantage of no OSS whatsoever? This seems like asking to handcuff your developers into writing ter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful". That's a completely bullshit attack and putting words into his mouth. Gigster has the potentional to possibly to do something awful in the future due to being a company made of different people, with there being no guarantee that the people you're talking to one day are still there the next. And trust is only possib…
I'm not putting words in his mouth. He postured his question to be rhetorical. It's not even really a question at all. It doesn't seek clarification. It seeks a specific response: to get that person to admit to something they might not feel is true (that the company is awful or can do awful things). It's not nice and it's not an appropriate way to attempt to negotiate a contract. He made things into a me vs you situa…
My response to you: "You're being overly aggressive with your attacks. That's not nice. You could have asked a question if you had one, but you're not even asking me a question, this is just an aggressive rethorical question. It's clear that you don't even want clarification. That's not nice and it's not an appropriate way to negotiate a contract"
Would that make any sense to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree in the slightest. If anything, developers who ask questions are the ones you want most . One of the worst traits in a developer is the tendency to say yes to everything.
Besides that, you're endangering the contractness of your contract if the other party cannot negotiate any of its terms, and indicates any confusion over just what it is he or she may be agreeing to--especially if they express their confusion in a document that can later be produced in court . If I were to sign that "contract", I would certainly send the other party a written "signing statement" that interprets all p…
Them hiring you counts as consideration.