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

An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

andychase.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 271 posts

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#231

Post by Cyberspy »

dqv wrote: post #153
Mithaldu wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

(1) it's possible that they didn't know the language could be used to hurt someone in that way. You won't give them the benefit of the doubt and instead would rather give that benefit to the person who was actually impolite. (2) Again, as I said before, I don't agree with those terms. That doesn't mean I'd be an ass hole about it. To my benefit, I'd politely negotiate and have a much higher likelihood of negotiating…

So, what wording would you have used?

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#232

Post by maxlybbert »

hfsktr wrote: post #191
maxlybbert wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember if it was mentioned in my contract, or if I just looked up state law. I remember when I had a job in Nevada, state law effectively said that work done on my own time, off premises, using my own equipment was mine. I realized that it would be possible to do work on my own time, with their equipment, etc. and I figured if I wanted to avoid a headache it would be my responsibility to make sure I clearly…

So I've wondered this. If I use a work computer to update some person code on github or blog or whatever online, outside of business hours. Does that fall into their equipment or not? I always assumed yes but I can find arguments for either answer.

I can imagine arguments for either side. My point was that you generally want to avoid cases that could go either way. State law said that if I met three criteria, then my employer couldn't claim ownership. I figured that if I only met two criteria, I might or might not end up in a fight with the company. So the solution was to be sure I met all three conditions.

From the company's standpoint, anything I wrote in the scope of my employment, using their equipment, was theirs. And, really, anything I wrote and checked into their source control was obviously something I was saying they had a legal ability to use.

But there is a lot of ground between what is clearly theirs and what is clearly mine, and I believe the best approach is to either avoid that ambiguous ground, or come up with an actual agreement to clarify any vagaries. You want it in writing, but it doesn't have to be an overly-formal contract. It could be a signed letter (from somebody with the authority to give up the company's potential copyright interest; which is probably not your immediate manager).

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#233

Post by pjschlic »

Tenhundfeld wrote: post #210
mikeash wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 involv…

I've been counseled that an employer cannot compel you to sign a new contract after starting a job, unless there is an incentive to offset any rights/benefits being forfeited. There's a huge gray area in terms of incentive/benefit value, but it's clearly illegal if there are no advantages offered by the new contract and it only benefits the employer. In other words, it would be clearly illegal for an employer to say…

Counterpoint: my sister is an NP in Illinois and her employer did effectively this. She was asked to sign a new contract with strictly less benefits after having worked there for 9 months (specifically I think they wanted to reduce the vacation). She countered with requesting some compensation increase to offset the decrease in vacation, and they fired her. IANAL, but I'm also assuming that in at-will employment cases, this might be allowed. Again, I don't live in Illinois, so I'm not sure about how employment law is there, but while it might be shady, it might not be 'clearly illegal'.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#234

Post by dpark »

Tenhundfeld wrote: post #210
mikeash wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 involv…

I've been counseled that an employer cannot compel you to sign a new contract after starting a job, unless there is an incentive to offset any rights/benefits being forfeited. There's a huge gray area in terms of incentive/benefit value, but it's clearly illegal if there are no advantages offered by the new contract and it only benefits the employer. In other words, it would be clearly illegal for an employer to say…

> I've been counseled that an employer cannot compel you to sign a new contract after starting a job, unless there is an incentive to offset any rights/benefits being forfeited.

I would consider new council. I'm fairly certain that continued employment is enough "incentive" to make the contract legally binding. If you're an at-will employee, they can fire you at any moment, so any new contract seems as enforceable as the first.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#235

Post by ghurtado »

jjnoakes wrote: post #229
ghurtado wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. There's nothing willfully misleading about asking a hypothetical question 2. You do not have an "absolute transparency" duty to your employer about all aspects of your personal life. Please don't behave as if you do.

> There's nothing willfully misleading about asking a hypothetical question Except the person I replied to wasn't advocating for "asking hypothetical questions", they were advocating for "it doesn't matter if you started a side project or not, when you ask your employer about how to move forward, make all efforts to imply or directly say that you haven't started a side project yet". That's not right. > You do not hav…

You're using quotes to "quote" people saying things they never said, so this is not really a productive conversation any more.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#236

Post by hluska »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #226
adekok wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm just not sure what you would like them to do about it right now. The point is that when the contractor asked for changes, he got told to go stuff himself. It's only when there's larger publicity that they suggested the contract can change. And, TBH, it's ridiculous to construe my argument as they have to change right now . They were asked to change, and they refused. That's a problem. What part of that do you n…

I fail to see how I did anything to your argument. The original poster showed the email, the founder responded saying they're going to review the contracts because what's in there is not their intent, figure it out and then add a FAQ. You replied to the founder with a simple regurgitation of the issue and nothing more. The issue the founder just said they will be addressing in the comment you replied to. So I wasn't…

You seem to be so focused on making your point that you have stopped reading the comments you are replying to.

At no point did the parent say that Gigster had to change right now. Rather, the parent made some reasonable points:

A.) Smart developers would not sign shitty contracts.

B.) When a smart developer asked questions about the contract, his questions were flat out ignored.

C.) Now that there is an outcry, the founder claims he will 'review' the contract.

If the founder had gotten involved in the support case, the response would be reasonable. Now, it stinks of a founder doing damage control.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#237

Post by threepipeproblm »

ekidd wrote: post #42

I've worked as a consultant for years. I occasionally employ a lawyer to review contracts with my clients. As a general rule of thumb, I'll only work for a client under one of three circumstances: 1. The client's standard contract is reasonable. This is rare. 2. The client's standard contract is unreasonable, but they're willing to cross-out or rewrite the objectionable bits before signing. This is very common. 3. It…

But they have such a cool name.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#238

Post by jjnoakes »

ghurtado wrote: post #235
jjnoakes wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing willfully misleading about asking a hypothetical question Except the person I replied to wasn't advocating for "asking hypothetical questions", they were advocating for "it doesn't matter if you started a side project or not, when you ask your employer about how to move forward, make all efforts to imply or directly say that you haven't started a side project yet". That's not right. > You do not hav…

You're using quotes to "quote" people saying things they never said, so this is not really a productive conversation any more.

I'm not using quotes to quote anyone. I'm paraphrasing what was said more clearly so you could understand my point better.

The quotes are there to separate the paraphrased words being discussed from the words discussing them.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#239

Post by solidsnack9000 »

logicallee wrote: post #183
ghurtado wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sean Spicer, is that you?

There's nothing anti-developer in what I wrote. (Or the original reply.) 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 sa…

What is problematic about what you wrote, is that it requires absolute confidence in the good behavior of the company; that it affords no protection to developers from malicious behavior by the company; and that it does not afford developers the same trust on an equal footing.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#240

Post by solidsnack9000 »

dqv wrote: post #90
theli0nheart wrote: post #60

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…

How should he have asked that question?
Post reply on HN