5 ms·

Random thoughts: It's nice to hear about a situation closer to most startup outcomes. When Matthew notes that someone sent him the acquisition terms and the f

by x0x0 11y ago

Random thoughts: It's nice to hear about a situation closer to most startup outcomes. When Matthew notes that someone sent him the acquisition terms and the founders made out well while line level / low level managers basically got nice severances, it's something everyone here should keep in mind. It's great if founders make out well as long as everyone else does too; it's when those outcomes diverge that it rankles. If a potential employer tries to put nonsense like a 2-year noncompete -- during which of course they don't pay you -- plus ownership of side projects into your contract, it's a sign you're dealing with assholes. If you can, you should just walk away. Many of us live in CA, so some of this can't happen, but a startup here tried something similar: their 16 page (!!!) employment contract specified that if I used my personal media device or laptop for any business purpose, they had the unlimited right to inspect/search them on demand. By my reading, even something as tenuously related as two factor auth on work gmail being sent to my personal cell, or taking a business call on my cell would have counted. The founder tried to blame it on boilerplate their lawyers inserted; he couldn't even take responsibility for what was, after all, the contract he was asking me to sign. I walked away. Read those contracts.

tajen 11y ago
Re non-compete/IP ownership: I wonder whether I should say where I worked or how illegal was their employment contract... Can't do both, it's protected by their confidentiality clause ;)
- fredgrott 11y ago
  in USA it depends on your State Location..if in CA see a lawyer as you may not be aware of certain rights you have
adamc 11y ago
These are the kinds of things you would hope would get reported on a site like glassdoor. (I have no affiliation.) I realize they often don't, but if they did, it would generate more pressure to clean up their act.
- x0x0 11y ago
  I thought about that, but frankly, I don't want to get sued. And the founder certainly remembers the candidate who told him "lawyers work for the company, not the other way around, so stop your bullshit".
- speedkills 11y ago
  This really resonated with me. It was almost exactly my experience after 13 years at my last "startup". Everything went to hell there and bad reviews pile up in glass door but they actively push the ratings back up with fake reviews so all reviews are either 1 star or 5 stars (that should be a sign to anyone reading the reviews). Funny how when you are going through it it feels like you are uniquely suffering, then you read someone else write down thoughts that feel pulled from your own mind.
spydum 11y ago
Full agree on the non-compete. However, the search of personal devices after you've conducted business seems legitimate to me. If they need to investigate the evidence to understand the exposure/whatever in the event a situation arises where you used your personal device, they obviously need access. They are simply trying to neutralize the excuse that "its your personal device and you have no authority to search it", by getting your consent ahead of time. I do agree, they are often extremely vague, but I'm not sure it's reasonable for them to spell out every possible use case where it should or should not apply. Simply don't use personal equipment when acting on behalf of the business (everyone should be happy there), OR get an exception written up by your own legal and get their sign off on the situations which you object to (they might not be so flexible). I don't think there is malice in the intent there though.
- exelius 11y ago
  If they want access to my personal equipment, they can get a subpoena. No way does any company get to examine my personal stuff without due process.
  - ska 11y ago
    It really is as simple as that iff you never use your personal device for any business purpose. [update] This was unclear: I'm saying this relationship is simple if and only if you have not used your devices for business purposes. If you have, you need only hope that none of the clauses in your agreements (you did have a lawyer review these?) cover it.
    - exelius 11y ago
      Even if I used it for work purposes occasionally, they can go to court and prove that in the process of getting a subpoena and I'll happily comply. Due process exists for a reason; if you let any company examine your personal devices/data outside of a court order, they can use it for any purpose they want. Subpoenas are limited in scope, and everything is documented.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
MichaelGG 11y ago
I received a buyout offer with the terms of being prohibited to do anything that "directly or indirectly competes with <company>". Indirectly? So if I take a contract from a competitor and work on improving a DB engine, well that's indirect. It transitively closes over essentially everything. Especially difficult as I contribute to some OSS projects that a lot of businesses in that industry use. I just kept refusing that part and eventually they gave in; it's not like they intended to prohibit everything, they just needed tighter language that wouldn't harm me. My favourite part is when people say part of a contract is "just there" but it'd never be used. OK well in that case, let's just remove it and I'll just agree to be nice.
- scurvy 11y ago
  Indeed. I cross out sections of contracts, initial there, and then hand it to the other party to sign. Most of them agree that what I've crossed out is BS and will initial. If they don't, it's a good sign that they're actively trying to screw you one way or another.
colechristensen 11y ago
I think you may be over-attributing actions to malice instead of incompetence.
shostack 11y ago
Often times companies/vendors don't find it worth it to pay legal to make these changes on edge cases, particularly if they have enough hungry people willing to work for them. There's also the worry that word will get around and more people will ask for exceptions (same or other). So it is in fact easier and more cost effective to say "take it or leave it." Not saying the clause is justified, because that was ridiculous, but it is interesting to get at the root of why they won't change it, and often pushing back consistently will get them to that point fairly quickly.

by x0x0 11y ago

tajen 11y ago

Re non-compete/IP ownership: I wonder whether I should say where I worked or how illegal was their employment contract... Can't do both, it's protected by their confidentiality clause ;)

fredgrott 11y ago
in USA it depends on your State Location..if in CA see a lawyer as you may not be aware of certain rights you have

adamc 11y ago

These are the kinds of things you would hope would get reported on a site like glassdoor. (I have no affiliation.) I realize they often don't, but if they did, it would generate more pressure to clean up their act.

x0x0 11y ago
I thought about that, but frankly, I don't want to get sued. And the founder certainly remembers the candidate who told him "lawyers work for the company, not the other way around, so stop your bullshit".
speedkills 11y ago
This really resonated with me. It was almost exactly my experience after 13 years at my last "startup". Everything went to hell there and bad reviews pile up in glass door but they actively push the ratings back up with fake reviews so all reviews are either 1 star or 5 stars (that should be a sign to anyone reading the reviews). Funny how when you are going through it it feels like you are uniquely suffering, then you read someone else write down thoughts that feel pulled from your own mind.

spydum 11y ago

Full agree on the non-compete. However, the search of personal devices after you've conducted business seems legitimate to me. If they need to investigate the evidence to understand the exposure/whatever in the event a situation arises where you used your personal device, they obviously need access. They are simply trying to neutralize the excuse that "its your personal device and you have no authority to search it", by getting your consent ahead of time. I do agree, they are often extremely vague, but I'm not sure it's reasonable for them to spell out every possible use case where it should or should not apply. Simply don't use personal equipment when acting on behalf of the business (everyone should be happy there), OR get an exception written up by your own legal and get their sign off on the situations which you object to (they might not be so flexible). I don't think there is malice in the intent there though.

exelius 11y ago
If they want access to my personal equipment, they can get a subpoena. No way does any company get to examine my personal stuff without due process.
- ska 11y ago
  It really is as simple as that iff you never use your personal device for any business purpose. [update] This was unclear: I'm saying this relationship is simple if and only if you have not used your devices for business purposes. If you have, you need only hope that none of the clauses in your agreements (you did have a lawyer review these?) cover it.
  - exelius 11y ago
    Even if I used it for work purposes occasionally, they can go to court and prove that in the process of getting a subpoena and I'll happily comply. Due process exists for a reason; if you let any company examine your personal devices/data outside of a court order, they can use it for any purpose they want. Subpoenas are limited in scope, and everything is documented.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

MichaelGG 11y ago

I received a buyout offer with the terms of being prohibited to do anything that "directly or indirectly competes with <company>". Indirectly? So if I take a contract from a competitor and work on improving a DB engine, well that's indirect. It transitively closes over essentially everything. Especially difficult as I contribute to some OSS projects that a lot of businesses in that industry use. I just kept refusing that part and eventually they gave in; it's not like they intended to prohibit everything, they just needed tighter language that wouldn't harm me. My favourite part is when people say part of a contract is "just there" but it'd never be used. OK well in that case, let's just remove it and I'll just agree to be nice.

scurvy 11y ago
Indeed. I cross out sections of contracts, initial there, and then hand it to the other party to sign. Most of them agree that what I've crossed out is BS and will initial. If they don't, it's a good sign that they're actively trying to screw you one way or another.

colechristensen 11y ago

I think you may be over-attributing actions to malice instead of incompetence.

shostack 11y ago

Often times companies/vendors don't find it worth it to pay legal to make these changes on edge cases, particularly if they have enough hungry people willing to work for them. There's also the worry that word will get around and more people will ask for exceptions (same or other). So it is in fact easier and more cost effective to say "take it or leave it." Not saying the clause is justified, because that was ridiculous, but it is interesting to get at the root of why they won't change it, and often pushing back consistently will get them to that point fairly quickly.