4 ms·

Yet we consistently agree to "non solicitation" in our contracts. Even if people came over by their own desire, its hard to prove, and a pissed off company with

by zubie7a 10y ago

Yet we consistently agree to "non solicitation" in our contracts. Even if people came over by their own desire, its hard to prove, and a pissed off company with more resources may be more willing to pursue that on the offensive side than one on the defensive one.

WalterBright 10y ago
Agreeing to non solicitation, and doing it anyway while still employed on company time with company resources, is not an honorable thing to do. If you don't intend to abide by the terms of a contract, then don't agree to it. Nobody is making you work for Tesla. Besides, all contracts can be negotiated. Negotiate for the contract you want.
- harry8 10y ago
  if you don't agree with the laws and social norms of a country, do all your business elsewhere. Treating such clauses with utter contempt seems morally just fine to me.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    If you don't agree with the laws and social norms of a country, you're free to break them in protest and suffer the consequences. People nowadays seem to think that civil disobedience should not involve any sacrifices for the disobedient.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rwallace 10y ago
  An "agreement" made under duress is not actually an agreement, therefore not morally binding. A clause in your employment contract is only actually an agreement if: 1. Society defines having a job as an optional luxury. 2. The employer is willing to strike out that clause, and the candidate employee can reasonably know this. 3. Other employers are offering better terms. Were any of those true in this case?
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    What employer is willing to strike "Must perform assigned duties"? Or any of the many other clauses which are essential to an employment contract? There are always things in contracts which can't be struck out. You can always ask to strike it out, and declare your intention to find future employees at their company. From their point of view, you'd be saying that when you left you'd potentially take millions of $s of other employees with you and disrupt their operations. Why would they employ you? Not poaching your employer's employees within a certain timeframe is a perfectly normal and reasonable clause. You've got confidential information on their employees, namely which ones are good, which work well with you, etc., things you'd normally spend a lot of time + money finding out. And they spent a lot of money advertising, vetting, hiring, training and integrating those employees.
    - rwallace 10y ago
      > What employer is willing to strike "Must perform assigned duties"? Indeed, and many employees have found themselves assigned duties that were not at all what they expected, and damaging to their health or otherwise harmful, but hey, they "agreed" to perform assigned duties, right? Looks like my position isn't a popular one here. So be it but, if you live in a developed country, have you ever wondered why, for the last few decades, almost everyone has been getting poorer and more miserable every time the GDP goes up? Sometimes, astonishingly enough, beliefs do actually have real-world consequences.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        > they "agreed" to perform assigned duties, right? They aren't slaves. They can quit any time. No employer can force you to do anything - but they don't have to pay you if you don't do the assigned duties. Sounds fair to me.
      - mattmanser 10y ago
        Those duties are usually listed. If they start adding odious duties, in the UK we do have laws against that, you can refuse and if dismissed can argue "constructive dismissal". So if your employer asks you to start cleaning loos with a toothbrush...
- yrro 10y ago
  If a contract contains unlawful terms then as far as the law is concerned, the contract does not contain the terms in the first place. So you are well within your rights to ignore such terms. Put differently, my employer pays me to write code, not to review the validity of terms in their contract. If their legal department is incompetent then that's their problem not mine. If they expect me to perform (or not perform) actions on their behalf when I am not at work, and especially once my employment ends, then they are free to offer a consideration in exchange.

by zubie7a 10y ago

WalterBright 10y ago

Agreeing to non solicitation, and doing it anyway while still employed on company time with company resources, is not an honorable thing to do. If you don't intend to abide by the terms of a contract, then don't agree to it. Nobody is making you work for Tesla. Besides, all contracts can be negotiated. Negotiate for the contract you want.

harry8 10y ago
if you don't agree with the laws and social norms of a country, do all your business elsewhere. Treating such clauses with utter contempt seems morally just fine to me.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  If you don't agree with the laws and social norms of a country, you're free to break them in protest and suffer the consequences. People nowadays seem to think that civil disobedience should not involve any sacrifices for the disobedient.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rwallace 10y ago
An "agreement" made under duress is not actually an agreement, therefore not morally binding. A clause in your employment contract is only actually an agreement if: 1. Society defines having a job as an optional luxury. 2. The employer is willing to strike out that clause, and the candidate employee can reasonably know this. 3. Other employers are offering better terms. Were any of those true in this case?
- mattmanser 10y ago
  What employer is willing to strike "Must perform assigned duties"? Or any of the many other clauses which are essential to an employment contract? There are always things in contracts which can't be struck out. You can always ask to strike it out, and declare your intention to find future employees at their company. From their point of view, you'd be saying that when you left you'd potentially take millions of $s of other employees with you and disrupt their operations. Why would they employ you? Not poaching your employer's employees within a certain timeframe is a perfectly normal and reasonable clause. You've got confidential information on their employees, namely which ones are good, which work well with you, etc., things you'd normally spend a lot of time + money finding out. And they spent a lot of money advertising, vetting, hiring, training and integrating those employees.
  - rwallace 10y ago
    > What employer is willing to strike "Must perform assigned duties"? Indeed, and many employees have found themselves assigned duties that were not at all what they expected, and damaging to their health or otherwise harmful, but hey, they "agreed" to perform assigned duties, right? Looks like my position isn't a popular one here. So be it but, if you live in a developed country, have you ever wondered why, for the last few decades, almost everyone has been getting poorer and more miserable every time the GDP goes up? Sometimes, astonishingly enough, beliefs do actually have real-world consequences.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      > they "agreed" to perform assigned duties, right? They aren't slaves. They can quit any time. No employer can force you to do anything - but they don't have to pay you if you don't do the assigned duties. Sounds fair to me.
    - mattmanser 10y ago
      Those duties are usually listed. If they start adding odious duties, in the UK we do have laws against that, you can refuse and if dismissed can argue "constructive dismissal". So if your employer asks you to start cleaning loos with a toothbrush...
yrro 10y ago
If a contract contains unlawful terms then as far as the law is concerned, the contract does not contain the terms in the first place. So you are well within your rights to ignore such terms. Put differently, my employer pays me to write code, not to review the validity of terms in their contract. If their legal department is incompetent then that's their problem not mine. If they expect me to perform (or not perform) actions on their behalf when I am not at work, and especially once my employment ends, then they are free to offer a consideration in exchange.