9 ms·

"Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business." Wow. That statemen

"Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business." Wow. That statement alone tells you everything you need to know about that person and what kind of manager they are. The fact that it was the founder is just...wow. Since it was the founder, if I was in your shoes I would have asked this fool if they took that same approach when they ever worked for someone else - that they never did a single thing that was creative outside of work. Yeah, we know the answer. Also - "We'd never exercise that right. But we reserve the right." Don't believe that for a minute. My father once worked for a fortune 500 financial company (but he was an IT person) and his hobby was music. He self-produced an album. A little while later they let a bunch of people go who were all 40+. He declined their package so that he could sue them for what was clearly age discrimination. That company then tried to claim that everything he did in his free time was owned by the company and they counter-sued him for royalties related to album sales and public performances. Keep in mind his contract did not include any of the draconian language like what you turned down. The only thing it said was that he was an "on-call" employee who needed to make sure he was available on short notice for systems-related emergencies. So they used that to say that because he was "on-call" they therefore owned every single second of his existence. You can't make this shit up.

cmdrfred 10y ago
I'd counter with attempting to reclassify as non salary exempt. Most IT work isn't salary exempt and thus as I am perpetually "on call" I have to be paid for every second since I started working for you.
- Insomn3ak 10y ago
  If you're a programmer working in CA, you're more than likely already non-exempt (regardless of how your employer tries to classify you) thanks to Labor Code Section 515.5 https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2015/10/articles/advice-counseling/ca-raises-minimum-compensation-for-exempt-computer-software-professionals/ https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2015/10/ar...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
protonfish 10y ago
Was it Joel Spolsky? https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-pr...
- joncampbelldev 10y ago
  Am I misunderstanding or are you implying that Joel would disapprove of side projects?
  - protonfish 10y ago
    If you read is blog post I think it's pretty clear he thinks its fair to own all employee's side projects.
    - Zombieball 10y ago
      My takeaway from the post was it isn't so much that he thinks it's fair but a legal necessity to protect the company. More of a criticism towards how current IP law is structured.
      - timv 10y ago
        > he thinks it's [...] a legal necessity to protect the company Exactly, which is why his post is totally self-serving propaganda. Though he tries to present the post as "here's a totally objective explanation of how side projects interplay with employment law", ultimately his point comes down to Business owners have all these complicated issues to deal with, so just accept the fact that they're going to screw you over, while they make millions of dollars There's no credibility given to the fact that companies have choices here and there are other options that don't screw over the employees - those options are too hard, and they might introduce legal risk to the company, or (!gasp!) scare away investors. It's just accepted as given that business owners must do whatever it takes to protect their company's interests and employees should shut up and deal with it. Employees carry the legal and financial risk because it would be inconvenient for the company to do so. The company is simply acting in its own self-interest and it's not actually trying to screw you (probably), that's just an irrelevant side-effect that they might take advantage of in the future when they do want to screw you. Now that know that you understand that, you're totally cool with it right? It's just business. I don't think Joel is intentionally trying to be manipulative. I think he honestly believes all of that. As a business owner he's dealing with all those issues and he thinks he's making appropriate choices and has no particular intention to screw over his employees. The purpose of the post is so that everyone can see that he, and business owners like him, are not a bad guys - they're just acting rationally and you only thought you were getting a bad deal because you didn't understand the choices they're making.
yomly 10y ago
It never fails to astound me how such a perverted interpretation of the law can go unregulated. In the past people would coerce you into doing things by surrounding themselves with big strong men. All that's changed is the now they surround themselves with suits and it's supposedly legal.
- guelo 10y ago
  Hey we can't regulate the job creators, we have to make America great again.
johngalt 10y ago
> owned every single second of his existence Cool, so I get all those years of back pay with OT. Feel free to deduct the $10k royalties from the hundreds of thousands you owe me. Every time I thought about music, wrote music, played or practiced music, I was on the clock the entire time. Thanks!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
amyjess 10y ago
> The fact that it was the founder is just...wow. Eh, I can see it. Any company where potential new hires directly negotiate with the founder is one where the founder is waaaaaaay too hands-on for comfort. A founder who's that involved in the day-to-day is likely to be exploitative.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
odbol_ 10y ago
The thing is, my company probably doesn't want my side projects. I'm not just a programmer; I make music, photography, art, etc. If they owned that stuff, it would just wither away in a dark corner because they wouldn't have any use for it. Now extend that same concept to programming: I make games and digital interactive art in my spare time too. Should I really be forced to give it to my company where they will promptly throw it in the garbage? Or should I be allowed to make it and share it with the world independent of my corporate life?

cmdrfred 10y ago

I'd counter with attempting to reclassify as non salary exempt. Most IT work isn't salary exempt and thus as I am perpetually "on call" I have to be paid for every second since I started working for you.

Insomn3ak 10y ago
If you're a programmer working in CA, you're more than likely already non-exempt (regardless of how your employer tries to classify you) thanks to Labor Code Section 515.5 https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2015/10/articles/advice-counseling/ca-raises-minimum-compensation-for-exempt-computer-software-professionals/ https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2015/10/ar...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

protonfish 10y ago

Was it Joel Spolsky? https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-pr...

joncampbelldev 10y ago
Am I misunderstanding or are you implying that Joel would disapprove of side projects?
- protonfish 10y ago
  If you read is blog post I think it's pretty clear he thinks its fair to own all employee's side projects.
  - Zombieball 10y ago
    My takeaway from the post was it isn't so much that he thinks it's fair but a legal necessity to protect the company. More of a criticism towards how current IP law is structured.
    - timv 10y ago
      > he thinks it's [...] a legal necessity to protect the company Exactly, which is why his post is totally self-serving propaganda. Though he tries to present the post as "here's a totally objective explanation of how side projects interplay with employment law", ultimately his point comes down to Business owners have all these complicated issues to deal with, so just accept the fact that they're going to screw you over, while they make millions of dollars There's no credibility given to the fact that companies have choices here and there are other options that don't screw over the employees - those options are too hard, and they might introduce legal risk to the company, or (!gasp!) scare away investors. It's just accepted as given that business owners must do whatever it takes to protect their company's interests and employees should shut up and deal with it. Employees carry the legal and financial risk because it would be inconvenient for the company to do so. The company is simply acting in its own self-interest and it's not actually trying to screw you (probably), that's just an irrelevant side-effect that they might take advantage of in the future when they do want to screw you. Now that know that you understand that, you're totally cool with it right? It's just business. I don't think Joel is intentionally trying to be manipulative. I think he honestly believes all of that. As a business owner he's dealing with all those issues and he thinks he's making appropriate choices and has no particular intention to screw over his employees. The purpose of the post is so that everyone can see that he, and business owners like him, are not a bad guys - they're just acting rationally and you only thought you were getting a bad deal because you didn't understand the choices they're making.

yomly 10y ago

It never fails to astound me how such a perverted interpretation of the law can go unregulated. In the past people would coerce you into doing things by surrounding themselves with big strong men. All that's changed is the now they surround themselves with suits and it's supposedly legal.

guelo 10y ago
Hey we can't regulate the job creators, we have to make America great again.

johngalt 10y ago

> owned every single second of his existence Cool, so I get all those years of back pay with OT. Feel free to deduct the $10k royalties from the hundreds of thousands you owe me. Every time I thought about music, wrote music, played or practiced music, I was on the clock the entire time. Thanks!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

amyjess 10y ago

> The fact that it was the founder is just...wow. Eh, I can see it. Any company where potential new hires directly negotiate with the founder is one where the founder is waaaaaaay too hands-on for comfort. A founder who's that involved in the day-to-day is likely to be exploitative.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

odbol_ 10y ago

The thing is, my company probably doesn't want my side projects. I'm not just a programmer; I make music, photography, art, etc. If they owned that stuff, it would just wither away in a dark corner because they wouldn't have any use for it. Now extend that same concept to programming: I make games and digital interactive art in my spare time too. Should I really be forced to give it to my company where they will promptly throw it in the garbage? Or should I be allowed to make it and share it with the world independent of my corporate life?