[HN Gopher] Pushing back against contract demands is scary but p...
___________________________________________________________________
Pushing back against contract demands is scary but please try
anyway
Author : pavel_lishin
Score : 151 points
Date : 2022-04-24 20:03 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.plover.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.plover.com)
| jonplackett wrote:
| Most of the time it just happens because a company is trying to
| save money and use a template that works fine for most people.
|
| Most people don't have a second job / blog / business / side
| hustle / whatever and don't care if the company owns everything
| they make.
|
| I've renegotiated the same clause as in the blog multiple times
| with no issues.
|
| Also had to do the same for a book I wrote taking out of
| copyright fairy tales and gender swapping them with an algorithm
| I made. The publishers contract (quite understandably) said the
| manuscript couldn't contain any work in the public domain, but
| the whole concept of the book was to gender swap a text exactly
| as is, to shine a light on the inequalities in the original. It
| was a bit of a battle to change it but I think more based on
| requiring more lawyer time than anyone trying to do anything
| untoward.
|
| Always ask to change it but always be nice about it. They
| probably aren't trying to screw you over!
|
| (But also don't let anyone screw your over just because they
| didn't mean to!)
| kemiller wrote:
| My two cents here: I read every contract we were offered and if
| there is one thing I learned it's that everything is negotiable
| despite how it's presented. If you can articulate a reasonable
| need, reasonable people will listen. Lawyers are paid to get the
| most favorable result so most companies, especially big ones will
| give you a very lopsided first pass and will tell you it's
| required. But you can totally push back. If they 100% won't budge
| walk away. They WILL be trouble. Good luck out there.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| I wish a lawyer would write up some standard verbage the industry
| could all agree on for this common clause in contracts. Put it on
| a pretty webpage with an explanation of how it's fair and
| protects both parties. Include some horror stories people can
| point to to disarm the "it doesn't matter" argument.
|
| I'd rather see the contract say that work delivered to the
| company belongs to the company, no exception. This protects the
| companies future interests, they clearly own everything their
| employees have delivered. A conflict-of-interest clause, a NDA,
| and a clause stating I can't take company data to use elsewhere
| can cover all other concerns without limiting my ability to be a
| free individual in my free time.
| satisfice wrote:
| I can't run a consulting company unless I get to own the ideas
| I produce. However, I offer a non-exclusive license to the
| client. And of course anything that is outright confidential
| stays with them.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Fair. I was thinking more about standard W2 employees who
| rarely think about contracts, they're the ones that need a
| simple website for reference and help. Consultants are
| familiar with contracts and can make educated contract
| decisions on their own.
| rhubarbcustard wrote:
| I travelled a fair distance to sign a contract with a third-party
| that I was contracting though for a major bank. They handed me a
| bunch of documents to sign and left me in a room for a while, I
| read them all thoroughly (took hours) and flagged up several
| things that were just plain wrong, stuff that made no sense and,
| similar to the OP, some clauses that suggested they wanted my
| first-born.
|
| They were happy to change the details to fit what I wanted and we
| all went away happy. The thing that surprised me was when their
| intiial response was, "No-one has ever mentioned these before and
| we've been using these for years". I mean, the wording of the
| contracts could have gone very badly for me if things had gone
| south and we ended up in court.
|
| Kind of makes me wonder if anyone actually bothers to read what
| they are signing.
| toast0 wrote:
| > Kind of makes me wonder if anyone actually bothers to read
| what they are signing.
|
| Generally, no. Everyone always expresses real surprise when I
| actually read a contract before signing. Usually, I just end up
| signing because there's not often room for negotiation, and I
| want to do the thing that requires the contract, and whatever,
| but I'd rather know. I've gotten some contracts changed, but
| often it's not worth the effort, IMHO.
| [deleted]
| mooreds wrote:
| > Kind of makes me wonder if anyone actually bothers to read
| what they are signing.
|
| Nope, not typically, in my experience. I'm one of the folks who
| does, and it usually catches the other folks by surprise.
|
| I signed a contract for a blog post I was writing and in the
| contract it said I couldn't mention that I was working with
| said company. But they were going to put my name on the blog
| post? I asked the person who sent me the contract, "should I
| not share this blog post?".
|
| They changed the contract with no issues, but it showed me that
| they were just using a standard contract that no one ever
| bothered to read.
| nkrisc wrote:
| > Kind of makes me wonder if anyone actually bothers to read
| what they are signing.
|
| A lot of times, no. It happens to me even. I'm not a lawyer and
| I'm asked to sign contracts written by lawyers for other
| lawyers. I'ma reasonably smart guy and I can usually put two
| and two together in a contract, but often it's written in a way
| that simply very difficult for me to understand and I can't
| really tell what the contact is saying.
|
| It's a burden. If the stakes are small I might just sign it.
| Otherwise I might ask for clarification but most times you're
| asked to sign something it's assumed you'll just take a minute
| to sign it so now you've thrown everything off.
|
| I understand why contacts need precise language but I think
| it's a bit unfair to expect lay people to sign contracts
| without a lawyer present much of the time.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > often it's written in a way that simply very difficult for
| me to understand and I can't really tell what the contact is
| saying.
|
| My experience is that contracts are easy to read - much
| easier than code. For one thing, contracts are written to be
| completely unambiguous to a human (a judge), a goal which few
| coders attempt.
|
| The challenge is knowing and applying what isn't in the
| contract: The outcome depends on the contract & the law & the
| court. The latter two apply many rules, many of which are
| complex or require judgment, and many also require
| anticipating how a judge might rule. You can write whatever
| you want in a contract - 'if Employee leaves Employer less
| than 10 years from the date this contract is signed, Employee
| must amputate Employee's left leg.' (And the last sentence
| brings demonstrates first point about the importance of non-
| ambiguity: If it said '... their left leg', whose leg is it?)
| vmception wrote:
| This makes me wonder about having an app on the phone that
| reads the contract and does this flagging for you
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Good time to remember that saving money isn't only for making a
| big purchase one day. Having money saved, money that just sits
| there doing nothing, is power in these situations.
| eertami wrote:
| If the problematic contract clause is completely unenforceable by
| law then I usually don't bother arguing about it.
|
| People like to write all kinds of weird things in contracts, but
| you can't legally sign away your rights (in Europe, USA may be
| different?). I quite happily break unlawful contracts, no company
| with a functional legal department is ever going to be stupid
| enough to take it to court.
| [deleted]
| satisfice wrote:
| I always have a contract when I teach my classes or consult. I
| always protect my IP. They can pay me for ideas or coding, but I
| only grant full ownership to IP that pertains uniquely to their
| business. Anything "generic to software testing" is an idea I own
| and grant them a non-exclusive and perpetual license to.
|
| I also push back on drug tests and insurance requirements and
| background checks, although for the right money I will relent.
| mpettitt wrote:
| This is such a good point. I've been pushing back for quite a
| while, and have generally had a positive response where the
| company revises the contract wording to a more acceptable level.
|
| I feel that the principle of least privilege would be a good
| point for employment contracts to start, rather than the current
| approach of "try get control over everything employee might think
| of whilst employed, even if it's during their own time and
| unrelated to the business"
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| > "try get control over everything employee might think of
| whilst employed, even if it's during their own time and
| unrelated to the business"
|
| That is illegal in California, and California contracts I've
| seen have mentioned that.
| ccleve wrote:
| There are a couple of techniques that I have used in the past
| that have worked well.
|
| First, don't edit the proposed contract itself. Instead, add a
| rider that specifically overrides the provisions you don't like.
| Something like "Intellectual Property. Work produced by employee
| shall be considered work-for-hire. 'Work" is defined as..." Then
| add a line to the bottom of the rider that says "If any portion
| of this rider is in conflict with the main contract, the terms of
| the rider will override the terms of the contract." The benefit
| of this approach is that you avoid the back-and-forth niggling
| over particular words in the main contract, and you often
| overcome the other party's resistance to changing the language
| their lawyers said had to be there. It's stupid, but it works.
|
| The second technique is simply to say, "this contract isn't large
| enough to justify these provisions. If you would like to bump the
| contract, we can talk. Otherwise, no." This has worked for me in
| negotiating software licenses. I haven't tried it in an
| employment situation. It works because it forces the other side
| to acknowledge that their demands have costs, and they can have
| what they want only if they pay for it. They never do.
|
| I am not a lawyer. Heed this advice at your own risk.
| NSMutableSet wrote:
| This feels like a good opportunity to tell (or remind) people
| that something on a rental lease isn't binding just because you
| signed it, and signing a lease entitles you to tenant
| privileges even if the lease does not mention them. I did not
| know these things before the pandemic, and I think the vast
| majority of people don't, even landlords themselves.
|
| There is a difference between what is written on the lease, and
| what can actually be enforced. The lease is not just one giant
| legal document. It's a series of hundreds or even thousands of
| individual components.
|
| Let me give you my real-life example:
|
| A few years ago, I signed a lease for a rental in California.
| Two things (clauses? not sure what the legal term is) in the
| lease are the key points for my anecdote:
|
| - A lease break fee equal to half a month of rent
|
| - Something about tenants being responsible for any legal fees
| incurred by the landlord/property owner
|
| I broke my lease, and the half month of rent was taken out of
| my deposit. I moved out a day early. My landlord had
| immediately found a new tenant who wanted to move in that day,
| so it worked out for both of us.
|
| Then my landlord did two things which really upset me and led
| to me spending ~20 hours over the next month or two reading
| about real estate laws and consulting multiple lawyers.
|
| - He charged me for lightbulbs that had been burnt out when I
| first moved in. I replaced them with my own, then swapped them
| back. I told him this, and he still took it out of my deposit.
|
| - He did not refund my deposit for nearly a month. When he did,
| it was $150 short of the reduced amount that I had expected. He
| didn't have an explanation for why, and wouldn't send it.
|
| This led me to lots of googling, and discovery of the
| following:
|
| 1. The idea of a "lease break fee" does not exist in California
| landlord/tenant laws. It is not legally enforceable. If a lease
| has one, it doesn't actually mean anything. If I had broken my
| lease without the landlord's permission, he would not have been
| entitled to any damages, since he filled the vacancy
| immediately at an equal or greater monthly rate.
|
| 2. Landlords must return a portion of the security deposit
| within 21 days, with itemizations and deductions. If nothing is
| returned within 21 days, they must return the full amount, even
| if deductions are justified. If the matter goes to court, the
| concept of "treble damages" comes into play. A tenant could get
| up to 3x their deposit back, depending on how the judge feels
| (probably a gross oversimplification of small claims, but maybe
| not).
|
| 3. The clause about being responsible for legal fees actually
| goes both ways. My landlord would have been responsible for my
| legal fees on top of treble damages if we went to court. There
| is no way to know this based on just reading the contract, and
| not having an understanding of laws as they are on the books
| AND legal precedents for prior similar cases in California.
|
| My landlord did not budge on returning my money when I texted
| him summaries of the above and links to evidence. He did budge
| after receiving a letter from a lawyer explaining everything in
| a more threatening tone.
|
| I was ultimately not out anything but time, since I have a
| legal plan that I pay for on an annual basis. This was the
| perfect situation to use it, but it was still more work.
|
| I do want to note something about the legal fees clause. I am
| pretty sure I am the first tenant who ever pushed back on it to
| my landlord. I don't know what the term for this is, but that
| clause has a very strong implication. At first glance, it seems
| to say "even if you're in the right, if you take me (the
| landlord) to court, you will have to pay for my lawyer, whether
| I win or lose".
|
| This is what I thought it meant, and I wonder how many tenants
| who have been wronged in the past see a clause like that, and
| it just eliminates any ideas they may have about trying to
| enforce their tenant rights because they see it as financially
| impossible.
|
| If I had to pay out of pocket for lawyer consultations and the
| letter, it wouldn't have really been worth it either. I would
| have roughly broke even. I would have done it anyways, though.
| I hope my former landlord will get deposits back to people on
| time in the future. Though I suppose he might not be willing to
| let people break their leases anymore, either.
|
| I'm pretty sure he was overcharging on utilities, but I didn't
| push it at the time. I've been considering reporting him to the
| IRS because he illegally declared the home as his primary
| residence while not residing in it, which I found out from the
| title report. I'm not sure if anything would come out of it. I
| would bet a limb that he wasn't reporting any of his rental
| income.
|
| Which leads me to a final thought: leases in California
| primarily benefit the tenant. You should never be afraid to
| break one IF the following is true: you know the landlord will
| be able to fill the vacancy if they put actual effort into it
| (they will need to prove as such to collect from you if they
| want to be lazy or spiteful), and the amount of time and money
| you would potentially spend in the worst case is less than
| whatever you would be responsible for in a scenario where they
| don't fill your vacancy, and they convince the judge that they
| tried really hard and they just couldn't do it (unlikely).
| jdotjdot wrote:
| What is the legal plan you have on an annual basis? That
| sounds like something incredibly useful to have, where can
| you find one of those and how much do they cost? What do they
| cover?
| MarkSweep wrote:
| Here is an example:
|
| https://www.legalplans.com/
|
| At a previous employer this was one benefit you could sign
| up for along with health insurance. I never used their
| services, so I can't say if they are good or bad.
| jjeaff wrote:
| Prepaid legal is a whole bucket of worms, usually sold by
| multilevel marketing type organizations. I'm sure there are
| some options that aren't a scam, but many are.
| willhinsa wrote:
| This sounds like great advice. Thank you for the ideas!
| hodgesrm wrote:
| #2 is absolutely great. It's particularly useful to justify
| limitations of liability.
| [deleted]
| Buttons840 wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, and don't know how the first suggestion would
| work with contracts that say things like "this represents the
| entire contract, any additions or addendums are void".
|
| If the main portion of the contract says "all additions are
| invalid", and an addition says "this addition overrides the
| main contract", which one wins?
| ohyoutravel wrote:
| This is called an Integration Clause and is meant to
| basically remove extra outside agreements from being
| considered, such as an additional verbal agreement not
| reflected in the contract language itself. Riders are
| considered part of the contract bell and exist before signing
| the entire contract, and are covered by the integration
| clause as part of the whole contract.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Riders are considered part of the contract bell
|
| Bell?
| ccleve wrote:
| They have to sign the rider as well. Have a signature block
| on it. Also, in the signature block on the main contract,
| hand write in something like "agreed, as modified by the
| rider." That way you've made it clear that you haven't agreed
| to the main contract alone.
|
| You obviously can't do this if everything is electronic.
| You've got to reject electronic-only contracts outright.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _in the signature block on the main contract, hand write
| in something like "agreed, as modified by the rider_
|
| This seems excessive. Yes, incorporation is a thing. But if
| you're getting a rider with a supremacy clause signed at
| the same time as the main contract, the company is going to
| have a hell of a time arguing the latter is moot.
| thaeli wrote:
| Yeah, but "misplacing" the addendum happens.
| TYPE_FASTER wrote:
| I have used tactic #2 successfully to get indemnity clauses
| removed.
| ISL wrote:
| I have pushed back against contract clauses. Sometimes it works,
| sometimes it doesn't. The most important outcome is the
| communication itself. Done well, the discussion builds mutual
| respect. Both sides want to enter into an agreement that is
| healthy for them as individuals and, in the best case, for the
| relationship itself.
|
| An example: I've always looked very skeptically at NDAs. I pushed
| pretty hard for a sunset clause on one once. The other side
| pushed back. I ultimately decided to sign, as everything else
| about the arrangement was very acceptable. Once privy to the
| information on the other side, I understood their reluctance.
|
| Also, there are some states with reasonable worker IP
| protections. Those change the foundations of some contracts for
| the better.
| ssss11 wrote:
| This is a good answer. It forces the dialogue about the issues,
| and you either align or realise the relationship for what it is
| - one way. It hopefully helps build mutual trust but does also
| risk the relationship failing if you can't agree on important
| things.
| steelframe wrote:
| I walked away from a company I really wanted to work for because
| the terms of their interview NDA were "everything and forever."
| IANAL, but I did take an IP law class when I was in graduate
| school, and I recall the professor saying that one of the key
| takeaways from the Listerine case is that any lawyer who allows
| their client to enter into contract with no term limit is
| basically incompetent. I lived outside California, and tech
| workers in my state had been successfully enjoined by a former
| employer on multiple occasions. I wasn't about to put my ability
| to earn a living in jeopardy.
|
| I made it a few interviews into the loop while steadfastly
| refusing to sign the NDA, and I even told the recruiter that I
| objected to the scope of the contract. The recruiter indicated
| that they had absolutely no leeway on the NDA, and it was "take
| it or leave it." So after passing several interviews in the loop
| with flying colors, I called off the remainder of the interviews.
| They freaked out because I had been doing so well and wanted to
| know why on earth I wouldn't at least let them draw up an offer.
| "Your NDA is inequitable" was my responses, which really seemed
| to confuse them, because they were so used to tech workers
| dreaming of stock options in states with more worker-friendly
| legal environments like California just signing whatever they
| shoved at them. Their recruiting department still had the nerve
| to pester me a couple of times to sign the NDA after I terminated
| the interviews because I objected to the NDA.
|
| *Edit: I previously called California a "right-to-work" state,
| which is something I've heard a lot of people say, but I guess
| it's not technically correct.
| doktorhladnjak wrote:
| California is not a right-to-work state. Right-to-work laws
| prohibit employers from requiring you to join a union.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Right-to-work laws have several consequences. Weakening
| unions is why companies like them, but invalidating non-
| compete clauses often comes along. In some places it is
| actively illegal to write in even an unenforceable non-
| compete clause. You might be able to get damages after, even
| when they don't try.
|
| Some states are actively hostile to workers. Some are
| actively hostile to black workers. Only a local lawyer can
| tell you how things are.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Note that in many jurisdictions, eternal contract provisions
| are treated very skeptically. Often you can terminate them
| after a reasonable time just by writing to the company and
| saying so: "In the absence of further consideration..."
|
| It is common for state law to make non-compete clauses wholly
| unenforceable. They put them in anyway, hoping you will be
| fooled.
|
| New York investment banks are used to paying former employees
| to _do nothing_ for a year after they leave, before they are
| allowed to, in effect, compete. Without paying, they would have
| no grounds to object to anything.
|
| Consult a lawyer first: "Many" is far from "all". It is always
| better to have all this nailed down up front.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Let's talk about "unlimited PTO" -- I'm seeing more of this in my
| half-hearted job search and I'm really wary about it. I'd like to
| get my prospective employer to agree in writing to a certain
| number of days that would be considered normal/acceptable PTO, so
| I don't a) feel guilty for taking that amount and b) get shafted
| in performance assessments for taking a normal amount.
|
| Has anybody had any luck getting a prospective employer who
| advertises "unlimited PTO" to do this in contract negotiation
| phase? Basically I don't want to just rely on the goodwill of
| said new employer to treat me respectfully for taking a good
| chunk of said PTO, and I want to define what is reasonable
| expectations up-front.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| It helps to understand what employers are looking for when they
| advertise unlimited PTO. In many cases it's because they don't
| want to accumulate liability on the books for unused PTO/sick
| time, which they then have to pay out if you leave. They are
| less concerned about how much you take. (That's true for my
| company, certainly.)
|
| So it's perfectly reasonable to ask for clarification about how
| much time off is reasonable, what are the terms for approval,
| etc. A decent employer will be glad to explain their policies
| and even put them in writing if they have not already.
| Dyac wrote:
| It's telling that you don't tend to see this in Europe, where
| leave is more generous and people actually take it. (Typically
| around 6 weeks, including public holidays).
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Yeah it's pretty foreign here in Canada, too. A Silicon
| Valley import. Prospective employer (US-ian) seems to be
| doing this, though. But it remains to be seen what they'll do
| for an offer to a Canadian. Guess I'll find out.
|
| Before I quit Google I had 5 weeks PTO + a whole pile of
| unpaid "flex" days if I wanted them. It could get hard to use
| all 5 weeks sometimes.
| rebeccaskinner wrote:
| A lot of places have a "mandatory minimum" and that might be
| the phrase to ask about.
| gruez wrote:
| >b) get shafted in performance assessments for taking a normal
| amount
|
| I suspect a contractual guarantee isn't going to protect much
| from that. If you're taking 4 weeks but everyone else on your
| team is taking 2, there's going to be an impression that you're
| less "hard working" (warranted or not) than everyone else.
| However, if you get passed up for a promotion it's going to be
| hard to prove that was the reason behind it.
|
| edit: the mandatory minimum that the sibling comment talks
| about fixes this.
| mooreds wrote:
| This isn't contractual, but I always ask "so, how many days did
| you take last year" or "how many days does the leadership team
| take" or "how many days does the team take on average".
|
| Give me a feel for what I'm walking into.
|
| I don't know if a company with unlimited PTO would put it in a
| contract, because that might put them on the hook for a payout
| for unused vacation when you leave. IANAL.
| dapids wrote:
| In some countries like Canada you have to pay out unused
| vacation regardless, its the law.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Well, that's the other thing. I'm in Ontario, and I'm not
| even 100% sure on the legality of "unlimited PTO" here.
|
| Presumably it's basically, legally, _no_ contractual paid
| PTO but then they let you take PTO anyways? Because if they
| put N days in writing, well, then it 's just the same as
| always. A liability on their books, etc.
| pletsch wrote:
| Also in Ontario with unlimited PTO. They have to pay out
| the minimum provincially required amount of vacation if
| you don't take it, so two weeks.
| mooreds wrote:
| At this point, I'd ask a lawyer.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Yes, that is usually the motivation for not specifying
| vacation time. People mostly don't take vacation not
| allotted.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > In some countries like Canada you have to pay out unused
| vacation regardless, its the law.
|
| But this is a totally incoherent statement. The company
| offers unlimited PTO. When you leave, they have to pay you
| an infinite amount of money? That obviously is not the law,
| no matter how much you say it's the law.
| grumpitron wrote:
| Could be that not having a set number of days avoids the
| payout, as I believe is the case in the US. Another
| charitable interpretation of their comment might be
| "Unlimited PTO is at odds with Canadian law, so
| potentially could be illegal."
| ukoki wrote:
| In the UK there is a statutory minimum of 21 days
| holiday. If you quit or are fired from a company with an
| unlimited PTO policy and haven't yet used your statutory
| minimum (calculated pro rata) you will be paid for those
| extra days in your final salary payment.
| orblivion wrote:
| An amusing thing comes to mind. The example in the article was
| about a clause that, if taken literally, would hurt the
| employee. In this case it seems to be the opposite (putting
| aside the concerns you bring up, which I share). Technically
| you could just give proper notice for a vacation after 2 weeks
| at the job and never return.
|
| I don't know where to go with that, it's just funny.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Yeah, I mean, it's pretty clear that "unlimited PTO" is...
| not. It leaves judgement in the employers hands, rather than
| in a written agreement.
|
| Seems to me it's a way of removing contractual obligations
| for PTO from the employment agreement and turning them into
| something that is fundamentally at the whim of the employer.
| While it's saying "you can take as much as you want", it also
| does not contractually enshrine anything, and there's nothing
| on the books to pay out at termination time, either.
| macksd wrote:
| This is a good idea. I've had two employers with "unlimited
| PTO". One of them explicitly set an expectation that I was
| expected to take at least 4 weeks per year. And it wasn't in
| writing, but everyone was told this, so there's "witnesses"
| which is better than nothing. This actually worked really well,
| and everyone seemed to take an appropriate amount of time, but
| no one was explicitly keeping track or expecting you to fill
| out paperwork just to take a break.
|
| Another employer said you needed to talk to your manager and
| justify time off with regards to results, and the timing of
| your break, relative to releases, etc. In this scenario I
| hardly took any time off, but folks who clearly didn't care
| about their manager took SO MUCH. Learn from me, though: they
| never gave me the promotion I was chasing anyway.
| joezydeco wrote:
| _One of them explicitly set an expectation that I was
| expected to take at least 4 weeks per year._
|
| That's interesting. In my state, you are owed accrued unused
| vacation time on your departure. One of the biggest reasons
| for going "unlimited PTO" is that there's no accrual,
| therefore they owe you nothing.
|
| Does explicitly saying "4 weeks" put them back in the hook
| for that, or does saying "expect" get them back off the hook
| again?
| cagey wrote:
| > One of the biggest reasons for going "unlimited PTO" is
| that there's no accrual, therefore they owe you nothing.
|
| IMO that's the _only_ reason for employers to offer
| "unlimited PTO" schemes.
|
| > Does explicitly saying "4 weeks" put them back in the
| hook for that, or does saying "expect" get them back off
| the hook again?
|
| Hmm, at my most recent employer, I heard passdown from my
| manager that "the man above" (VP) had "guided" that 5 weeks
| was the ceiling for "unlimited" and that TPTB would look
| askance at anyone taking more. But this was all "off the
| record".
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Frankly, over my 20 year career, I've learned the best way to
| get promotions is to switch jobs.
| metadat wrote:
| The hook strategy works great in the beginning of a career.
|
| My experience later on is once you want Director or VP
| level roles at a noteworthy company, prospective employers
| are only keen to hire you at whatever level you've actually
| achieved. The jump from Senior Engineer to Tech Lead is
| orders of magnitude easier, totally doable by bailing to
| the next gig.
| doktorhladnjak wrote:
| I wouldn't index on this too much. I've worked for companies
| with unlimited PTO where I took 6-8 weeks a year while still
| getting stellar performance reviews and companies with a fairly
| generous fixed number of accrued vacation days where people
| rarely took off and performance was all about your impact with
| no consideration for vacation used.
|
| The only thing you can count on is if you live in a state that
| requires payouts for unused vacation, you'll at least get more
| money if you don't take vacation.
| sircastor wrote:
| I've often got the impression that unlimited PTO is really a
| tool to get workers to forget that they have promised time off.
| When PTO is a scarce resource, workers plan ahead to use what's
| available. Without knowing how much you have, you're left to
| plan abstractly, trying to navigate the question of "am I
| overstepping my boundaries by asking for this much time off?"
| Thus you take less time.
| drdec wrote:
| I think it is more to avoid having to pay out accrued
| vacation time when an employee leaves.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Works out to the same thing. They get more work time from
| the employee for the money they spend.
| maxerickson wrote:
| That's an advantage of it, but I sort of expect it wouldn't
| be that popular with companies if it lead to people taking
| significantly more time off.
|
| California labor law regarding vacation time is relatively
| generous compared to other states, that's probably another
| part of it (my state allows use it or lose it, for
| example).
| hnxs wrote:
| It's both. There's literally no downside for the employer.
| Someone who abuses it is underperforming. You just fire
| them if it becomes a problem.
| sonofhans wrote:
| I've seen the ambiguity in "unlimited PTO" as well. At $job
| we're starting to talk about "mandatory minimum PTO" instead.
| Everyone's required to take at least one contiguous week every
| quarter, and hopefully more besides.
|
| At other gigs I've seen the same things you fear, where
| "unlimited" means "as little as possible."
| rebeccaskinner wrote:
| I've been pushing back against these IP ownership clauses for
| years, although the last couple of years they seem to have gotten
| much less common. Generally, most companies I've talked to have
| been very happy to make a change to the contract, but you have to
| explicitly ask them to do it. If you simply bring up that there's
| a problem with the contract, most recruiters and hiring managers
| default to empathy-but-inaction. I think that it doesn't really
| occur to people that you _can_ change the contract unless you
| specifically ask about it.
|
| I also think it's helpful to realize that for a lot of companies,
| they are pretty happy to change an employment contract, you can
| make the process a lot nicer for everyone if you given them a
| heads up early in the process that you intend to review the
| documents and might ask for changes. Most recruiters I've worked
| with have been happy to send over all of the standard documents
| well ahead of a final offer so that I have time to review them,
| and it gives them a chance to get changes made before you
| actually sit down to fill out the final versions of all of the
| paperwork (but still review the version you are actually
| signing).
|
| I will say that while my experiences negotiating these things
| have generally been good, I've also specifically avoided larger
| companies that have a reputation for overreaching IP ownership
| clauses. If a startup has an overly broad ownership clause, it's
| quite likely that they are just using a form contract and didn't
| think too much about it. If large company with thousands of
| developers has a similar clause, I'm much more likely to assume
| it's intentional and simply not interview to save myself the
| trouble of trying to negotiate with a behemoth.
| akhmatova wrote:
| My hard-won experience on this matter is: If an employer/client
| tries to pressure you to "c'mon, just sign it, it doesn't really
| mean that / isn't enforceable anyway" -- especially when the
| contract unambiguously _does_ really mean what they say it doesn
| 't really mean ...
|
| From that fact the transaction is pretty much destined to not be
| particularly fruitful anyway, and (unless you're short on cash or
| otherwise in some kind of a corner), you're best cutting your
| losses and moving on.
| mooreds wrote:
| So important to do!
|
| Make sure you exclude anything you have previously written or
| thought about writing.
|
| Make sure you understand the employee handbook, which is often
| included by association.
|
| It seems fair to me that anything I do 'off the clock' on
| hardware I own is mine, though of course you need to respect any
| confidentiality agreements you sign too.
| drawkbox wrote:
| Never sign a non-compete. Non-competes, the most anti-innovation,
| anti-skilled worker, anti-free market, anti-business and anti-
| American thing in working today.
|
| Non-competes are protectionism for larger businesses over
| small/medium businesses and try to own employees skills that they
| may have brought to the company or client themselves.
|
| As a freelancer, contractor and self-employed business
| owner/worker, please make these illegal, tired of these.
|
| The worst part about non-competes is they are blanket
| protectionism usually and up to 2+ years of non-compete, this
| sometimes happens on a job that is only 1-3 months. You have to
| laugh at those types of situations. Usually the client will push
| them aside or lower the time to the job plus some time, but both
| non-competes and arbitration agreements are horrible for workers
| in today's economy where people change jobs frequently and many
| are self-employed/freelancing/contracting. NDAs are plenty enough
| to protect companies from clients and work done specifically for
| the projects.
|
| After SCOTUS upheld arbitration agreements [1] I am worried if
| non-competes become fully legal which they are not in extreme
| cases except in California [2]. The FTC is looking into non-
| competes now and they should be illegal [3].
|
| We need to move the way of California and make non-competes null
| and illegal, it hasn't stopped innovation in CA and may be a big
| reason why so much innovation goes on in Cali.
|
| The non-compete should not exist. At the core, removing
| competition from skilled workers in our economy is bad all
| around, unless you are one of the current big fish.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/business/supreme-court-
| up...
|
| [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/business/noncompete-
| claus...
|
| [3] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2020/01/non-
| competes-...
| throwaway69123 wrote:
| I always offer to sign non competes with an amendment that says
| they must pay me for the time that it's in effect, usually they
| remove it because it isn't that valuable to them. I find almost
| universally asking for compensation for strict contract clauses
| sees them removed fast
| esel2k wrote:
| I agree and want to emphazise that especially desperate job
| seeker might sign it just to get a job in the given industry to
| a few years down the line hit a wall when getting a great offer
| at the competitor...
|
| I went through this with a lawyer and she told me it is
| unlikely they would sue me, but they could make my life
| miserable. That was enough for many to be too scared to go to
| the competitors. - My experience is from Europe; but I will
| never ever sign a non compete anymore and so fo I recommend go
| anyone.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| I saw something here about California banning arbitration
| agreements a while back:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17849490
|
| I don't know what the scope of it is though. I wonder if anyone
| has pushed back at arbitration clauses successfully. I got
| screwed by one once, I'm pretty sure.
| listenallyall wrote:
| I find that contractual language covering "ownership" of IP is
| likely ineffective and doesn't match reality. If I'm paid by a
| company to write some code while employed, sure the employer owns
| it. But it also exists in my brain. Do they own that too? Can I
| write it again for myself or for another employer? If not, how
| much needs to change? If I wrote it in Python originally, would a
| functional equivalent in JavaScript remain "owned" by the
| original employer? I'm surprised contract disputes surrounding
| this concept aren't quite common.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| Always push back on terms in contracts that you don't like. I
| deal with a lot of Master Services Agreement and Statement of
| Work markups. 75% of the time people just put out changes without
| really being very tied to them. If they want to do the deal, hire
| you, etc., they will make changes.
|
| Here are some tips that have worked for me. I am _not_ a lawyer
| but I 've spent a decade plus reading all kinds of contracts.
| It's kind of a hobby.
|
| 1. Read the entire contract carefully.
|
| 2. Consult a lawyer if there are things you don't understand. My
| biggest single disaster was because of failing to do this on a
| partnership agreement. It almost tanked a company acquisition
| deal. I always go back to counsel whenever something new pops up.
| You can think of it as paying lawyers to teach you how to take
| care of yourself.
|
| 3. If you see something you don't like, you can ask a question
| like the following: "I see you put X in the contract. What's the
| problem you are trying to solve here?" It sets up a conversation
| about how to rewrite it in terms that are more acceptable.
|
| 4. Provide alternative language whenever you can. This is better
| than forcing the other side to go back to their lawyers who may
| be motivated to cover their butts / show they are putting in the
| time rather than finding a real solution.
|
| There are things that counterparties see as vital so at some
| point you'll hit things where they simply won't budge. At that
| point you can make an informed decision whether you want the
| overall deal. Meanwhile you get the other stuff that's important
| to you.
|
| Places I tend to be _really_ careful: matters related to IP,
| liability, and indemnification. These are all areas that can get
| really painful if things go south. There are a number of tricks
| to do end runs around liability in contracts. Check with counsel
| if you have _any_ doubt and push back hard.
|
| Places where I'm more flexible: terms for payment, length of
| termination period, governing law, venue for resolution of
| disputes (e.g., arbitration vs. courts), etc.
|
| Again I'm not a lawyer and your experience may be different.
| pydry wrote:
| >One employer asked me to yield ownership of my entire work
| product during the term of my employment, including things I
| wrote on my own time on my own equipment, such as these blog
| articles. I think the employer should own only the things they
| pay me to create, during my working hours.
|
| >When I pointed this out to them I got a very typical reply: "Oh,
| we don't actually mean that, we only want to own things you
| produced in the scope of your employment." What they said they
| wanted was what I also wanted.
|
| I still view this as a huge red flag. The companies I've come
| across that had fuck-you clauses like this inserted by
| overzealous lawyers usually had a toxic culture to match.
|
| A company that will default to "we get first dibs on everything
| coming out of your brain" will probably not treat you with
| respect even if certain individuals who work there are reasonable
| human beings.
|
| The worst company I ever worked for not coincidentally had the
| worst contract (e.g. they had 8-7 working hours followed by a
| verbal "dont worry nobody actually works that").
|
| Contractual clauses are an underrated window into company
| culture. It's the one place where honesty prevails.
|
| These days I dont push back on unreasonable clauses or give the
| opportunity for the hiring manager to say "whoops _so sorry_ our
| lawyers tried to fuck you ". When a company tries to tell me who
| it is I believe them - first time.
| dboreham wrote:
| My experience has been that almost all contracts end up being
| edited. Whoever gives the impression that "they never change the
| contract" is lying.
| joshjdr wrote:
| > If the employer is a good one, they want the contract to be
| fair, and if the contract is unfair it's probably by accident.
|
| This is an optimistic, and perhaps productive perspective, but
| often the legal advice suggests writing the template language in
| the employer's favor, knowing it may be negotiable.
|
| The advice is good... read agreements before signing, and
| negotiate reasonable points.
| phsource wrote:
| > If the employer is a good one, they want the contract to be
| fair, and if the contract is unfair it's probably by accident.
|
| This definitely sounds about right -- I'm pretty sure most places
| I worked and most other Y Combinator companies in my batch just
| took the standard forms from somewhere (e.g., the Orrick forms
| library) and used them, without thinking too much about the
| terms. [1]
|
| If there's something in the terms that actually seem
| objectionable, it's likely the hiring manager, recruiter, and
| other people in your recruiting process have never thought about
| it either. By pointing it out, you're often educating them too on
| what the offer letter says, and providing valuable feedback for
| the recruiting process.
|
| [1] https://www.orrick.com/en/Total-Access/Tool-Kit/Start-Up-
| For...
| djbusby wrote:
| So, it's a bug and counter-party are testers?
| hodgesrm wrote:
| Also, good contracts are difficult to write. There are
| templates for most contract types but it can take a while to
| work out the kinks. IP clauses around open source, for
| example, are incredibly hard to get right. We've had multiple
| iterations on this topic at my company.
| phsource wrote:
| Yeah, that's pretty much it -- usually nobody stress-tested
| this before they just sent it out in a rush to employee #1,
| who's probably a referral anyways
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-24 23:00 UTC)