3 ms·
I don't like the language of "below is what our lawyers require we tell you". The lawyers didn't decide that the offer is contingent on a background check, or t
by dmurray 11y ago
I don't like the language of "below is what our lawyers require we tell you". The lawyers didn't decide that the offer is contingent on a background check, or that the employment is at will. You decided that, the government insisted that you communicated it to your prospective employee, and the lawyers informed you of that requirement. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but it would leave a better taste in my mouth if the company is took responsibility for those decisions.
Other than that, the letter is great and shows a wonderful commitment to transparency.
- epicureanideal 11y agoAgreed. I personally would prefer if offers had, as a standard, 2 weeks or 4 weeks severance. If the company is not hiring a high percentage of people it needs to fire or lay off, it's not a problem. This of course provides more security to their employees. All the tech companies are talking about a shortage of skilled workers, but outside of management the terms of employment are still biased toward minimizing the company's potential costs. If there were a real shortage we'd see contractual changes.
- kemitchell 11y agoMade my day.
- hodgesrm 11y agoYep, that line is pretty lame, especially if the letter is signed by the CEO as seems to be the case here. Either they are not being straightforward or somehow don't have control of the legal folks. There are various reasons for the latter case, some of them potentially quite negative. To be fair this letter seems to be making an effort to be transparent, so I get what they are trying to do. As I noted in another comment though this is a tough trick to pull off successfully without seeming insincere.