5 ms·

"It's OK to do a couple of those jobs when you're starting out" I don't think it's OK at all. Some people will, for various valid reasons, need to work for sit

"It's OK to do a couple of those jobs when you're starting out" I don't think it's OK at all. Some people will, for various valid reasons, need to work for sites like this for a long time or indefinitely. Even for those who only have to rely upon sites like this for a short time this kind of exposure to risk is not ok. It shouldn't be allowed. Contracts that totally indemnify a company in a situation like this shouldn't be enforceable. I've been fortunate in my consulting, I take it you have too. Not everyone can rise above the rat race like we have and pick our clients to our liking. Furthermore, this is the future of work. The majority of new jobs added to the economy during the recession (sorry I can't find the gov't report) were considered "non-standard". This is the fastest growing sector of labor in the west. Ultimately workers doing "freelance" work deserve protections. Until congress reacts to this change in the labor force I believe it's incumbent on people like us to expose and push back on predatory contracts.

ekidd 10y ago
> Contracts that totally indemnify a company in a situation like this shouldn't be enforceable. I definitely agree that as more people find themselves freelancing, we need to establish better legal protections for freelancers. Lots of indemnity clauses are just ridiculous. Here's how to get over-broad indemnity clauses removed: "Hey, I noticed you had some unusually strong indemnity clauses in your contract, which would require my company to cover your costs in situations X, Y and Z, which are outside of our control. As a general rule, we're not in the insurance business—we leave that to Lloyd's of London (laugh). But if this is important to you, I can look into purchasing a special insurance rider to cover these issues. This will delay the start date a bit and will obviously have an effect on the costs; I can get you a quote if you're interested. If not, we could replace this with <suggest standard, fair language here>." If they're not willing to either (a) pay extra for the insurance they want, or (b) swap out the indemnity clause for something more neutral, then you walk. The only way to work for good clients is to discipline yourself to walk away from the bad ones. (Also, charge more, require a payment up front, and always quote daily or weekly rates, never hourly. This will improve the quality of your clients dramatically.) Anybody who insists on broad indemnity clauses should be paying enterprise rates and the contracts should be reviewed by lawyers for both sides. Another good approach is to pay to have your own standard contract drafted (without anything obnoxious in it), and send it to the client.
Bartweiss 10y ago
> "Contractor agrees to indemnify Gigster from any and all claims, damages, liability, settlement, attorneys’ fees and expenses, as incurred, on account of the foregoing or any breach of this agreement" There's no way that's legal, right? Like, you can have a broad indemnity clause, even for willful malfeasance. You can have a clause forcing arbitration. But Gigster's clause says "as part of this contract, you have no recourse if we intentionally violate this contract". Surely that's not legal, in the same sense that you can't sign a contract which flows entirely one direction. It literally states that Gigster can't be treated as having signed the contract they are currently signing.

ekidd 10y ago

> Contracts that totally indemnify a company in a situation like this shouldn't be enforceable. I definitely agree that as more people find themselves freelancing, we need to establish better legal protections for freelancers. Lots of indemnity clauses are just ridiculous. Here's how to get over-broad indemnity clauses removed: "Hey, I noticed you had some unusually strong indemnity clauses in your contract, which would require my company to cover your costs in situations X, Y and Z, which are outside of our control. As a general rule, we're not in the insurance business—we leave that to Lloyd's of London (laugh). But if this is important to you, I can look into purchasing a special insurance rider to cover these issues. This will delay the start date a bit and will obviously have an effect on the costs; I can get you a quote if you're interested. If not, we could replace this with <suggest standard, fair language here>." If they're not willing to either (a) pay extra for the insurance they want, or (b) swap out the indemnity clause for something more neutral, then you walk. The only way to work for good clients is to discipline yourself to walk away from the bad ones. (Also, charge more, require a payment up front, and always quote daily or weekly rates, never hourly. This will improve the quality of your clients dramatically.) Anybody who insists on broad indemnity clauses should be paying enterprise rates and the contracts should be reviewed by lawyers for both sides. Another good approach is to pay to have your own standard contract drafted (without anything obnoxious in it), and send it to the client.

Bartweiss 10y ago

> "Contractor agrees to indemnify Gigster from any and all claims, damages, liability, settlement, attorneys’ fees and expenses, as incurred, on account of the foregoing or any breach of this agreement" There's no way that's legal, right? Like, you can have a broad indemnity clause, even for willful malfeasance. You can have a clause forcing arbitration. But Gigster's clause says "as part of this contract, you have no recourse if we intentionally violate this contract". Surely that's not legal, in the same sense that you can't sign a contract which flows entirely one direction. It literally states that Gigster can't be treated as having signed the contract they are currently signing.