4 ms·

Quitting a job is a major, life-changing event for many devs and the question is whether such a clause in the contract is worth the trouble. That said, I disagr

Quitting a job is a major, life-changing event for many devs and the question is whether such a clause in the contract is worth the trouble. That said, I disagree strongly with these intellectual property clauses in dev contracts.

geofft 10y ago
Yes. That's why collective action is so important: a company can avoid the loss of a single employee much more than the single employee can afford the loss of a job, but a company can't avoid the loss of even a single department quite as easily, let alone all employees of a certain type. It's insurance for bad management decisions, effectively. It's useful for all the reasons insurance is useful.
- mhneu 10y ago
  If you are interested in collective action to combat clauses like this, follow Maciej Cejlowski.
  - danielweber 10y ago
    Follow him how?
    - sulam 10y ago
      He's at 3rd and Market right now. Head on over. (Or try here: https://twitter.com/baconmeteor https://twitter.com/baconmeteor )
mikeash 10y ago
If you already have the job and they try to make you sign something like this, don't quit, but say no. You may not be prepared to quit over such a clause, but it's also likely that they're not prepared to fire you over it. They will probably tell you that you must sign it, or else terrible consequences will ensue. If those consequences involve the company, brush it off, because that's not your problem. If they involve you, then see if they're actually willing and able to carry them out before you make a decision. I've heard many stories of attempted unilateral changes in employment terms like this where employees refused to sign. In some cases, they got mildly harassed for a while and then it petered out. In some cases, nobody even followed up. In some cases, they were able to negotiate the language to everybody's satisfaction. I haven't heard of anybody getting fired for it. (I'm sure it has happened, it just doesn't seem all that common.)
- Tenhundfeld 10y ago
  I've been counseled that an employer cannot compel you to sign a new contract after starting a job, unless there is an incentive to offset any rights/benefits being forfeited. There's a huge gray area in terms of incentive/benefit value, but it's clearly illegal if there are no advantages offered by the new contract and it only benefits the employer. In other words, it would be clearly illegal for an employer to say simply, "Here's the new employment contract identical to existing but with a new, more aggressive IP ownership clause; sign it or you're fired." Contracts signed under these circumstances have been struck down in court. However, it would be legal for an employer to say, "Anyone who signs the updated employment contract (with aggressive IP changes) gets free lunches and can work from home 2 days a week." I don't understand the caselaw enough to know what would happen if they provided the incentive and added "or you're fired." In general, I think the idea is that you have a lot of freedom with new employee agreements, but you cannot just change out an employment agreement on existing employees to strip them of rights. *IANAL, and it may vary by state.
  - pjschlic 10y ago
    Counterpoint: my sister is an NP in Illinois and her employer did effectively this. She was asked to sign a new contract with strictly less benefits after having worked there for 9 months (specifically I think they wanted to reduce the vacation). She countered with requesting some compensation increase to offset the decrease in vacation, and they fired her. IANAL, but I'm also assuming that in at-will employment cases, this might be allowed. Again, I don't live in Illinois, so I'm not sure about how employment law is there, but while it might be shady, it might not be 'clearly illegal'.
    - Tenhundfeld 10y ago
      Yeah, I'm sure it depends on the state.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > I've been counseled that an employer cannot compel you to sign a new contract after starting a job, unless there is an incentive to offset any rights/benefits being forfeited. I would consider new council. I'm fairly certain that continued employment is enough "incentive" to make the contract legally binding. If you're an at-will employee, they can fire you at any moment, so any new contract seems as enforceable as the first.

geofft 10y ago

Yes. That's why collective action is so important: a company can avoid the loss of a single employee much more than the single employee can afford the loss of a job, but a company can't avoid the loss of even a single department quite as easily, let alone all employees of a certain type. It's insurance for bad management decisions, effectively. It's useful for all the reasons insurance is useful.

mhneu 10y ago
If you are interested in collective action to combat clauses like this, follow Maciej Cejlowski.
- danielweber 10y ago
  Follow him how?
  - sulam 10y ago
    He's at 3rd and Market right now. Head on over. (Or try here: https://twitter.com/baconmeteor https://twitter.com/baconmeteor )

mikeash 10y ago

If you already have the job and they try to make you sign something like this, don't quit, but say no. You may not be prepared to quit over such a clause, but it's also likely that they're not prepared to fire you over it. They will probably tell you that you must sign it, or else terrible consequences will ensue. If those consequences involve the company, brush it off, because that's not your problem. If they involve you, then see if they're actually willing and able to carry them out before you make a decision. I've heard many stories of attempted unilateral changes in employment terms like this where employees refused to sign. In some cases, they got mildly harassed for a while and then it petered out. In some cases, nobody even followed up. In some cases, they were able to negotiate the language to everybody's satisfaction. I haven't heard of anybody getting fired for it. (I'm sure it has happened, it just doesn't seem all that common.)

Tenhundfeld 10y ago
I've been counseled that an employer cannot compel you to sign a new contract after starting a job, unless there is an incentive to offset any rights/benefits being forfeited. There's a huge gray area in terms of incentive/benefit value, but it's clearly illegal if there are no advantages offered by the new contract and it only benefits the employer. In other words, it would be clearly illegal for an employer to say simply, "Here's the new employment contract identical to existing but with a new, more aggressive IP ownership clause; sign it or you're fired." Contracts signed under these circumstances have been struck down in court. However, it would be legal for an employer to say, "Anyone who signs the updated employment contract (with aggressive IP changes) gets free lunches and can work from home 2 days a week." I don't understand the caselaw enough to know what would happen if they provided the incentive and added "or you're fired." In general, I think the idea is that you have a lot of freedom with new employee agreements, but you cannot just change out an employment agreement on existing employees to strip them of rights. *IANAL, and it may vary by state.
- pjschlic 10y ago
  Counterpoint: my sister is an NP in Illinois and her employer did effectively this. She was asked to sign a new contract with strictly less benefits after having worked there for 9 months (specifically I think they wanted to reduce the vacation). She countered with requesting some compensation increase to offset the decrease in vacation, and they fired her. IANAL, but I'm also assuming that in at-will employment cases, this might be allowed. Again, I don't live in Illinois, so I'm not sure about how employment law is there, but while it might be shady, it might not be 'clearly illegal'.
  - Tenhundfeld 10y ago
    Yeah, I'm sure it depends on the state.
- dpark 10y ago
  > I've been counseled that an employer cannot compel you to sign a new contract after starting a job, unless there is an incentive to offset any rights/benefits being forfeited. I would consider new council. I'm fairly certain that continued employment is enough "incentive" to make the contract legally binding. If you're an at-will employee, they can fire you at any moment, so any new contract seems as enforceable as the first.