10 ms·

So for new tech people getting started in their careers, make sure you save up 4-6 months of income so you don't have to put up with this garbage. They say mone

So for new tech people getting started in their careers, make sure you save up 4-6 months of income so you don't have to put up with this garbage. They say money is power, but before that, it's freedom. Don't allow yourself to be pushed around. If you aren't strong enough mentally yet to do it for yourself, do it for the other people in the field who aren't strong enough. If they offer to pay you to train your replacement, tell them to pound sand and walk out. Be prepared financially. If they try to force you to sign a non-compete, be willing to walk away until they make it fair and reasonable. If they try to get you to sign away all your IP, tell them no. Companies don't expect you to read that contract you are signing, and most of them just pull a boilerplate contract off the internet. Almost all of them are grossly one sided to the company. This includes taking ownership of anything you've developed in the past on your own. All of this is easy if you have 4-6 months of income saved up. You are in high demand; companies will wither on the vine without good, efficient systems running them. Now, but even more so in the future.

mgkimsal 9y ago
> You are in high demand maybe. it may just be people willing to sign one-sided agreements are in high demand.
- Clubber 9y ago
  I guarantee the majority of companies don't even know what's in that contract. They just pulled it off the internet because someone said, "Oh crap, we need an employee agreement. Google one." or "Find someone else's contract agreement." If they go through all the trouble of recruiting you, interviewing you and deciding they want you, they'll be willing to consider revising it, especially since they probably didn't give it much thought in the first place. Just raise your concerns in an intelligible way and don't be an asshole about it. I just did that for a contract. I said, "I can't give you all my inventions, I have a ton of them." They didn't even realize that was in the contract and they revised it. Poof. I got a fair agreement.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    This has not been my experience at all. At every place I've ever worked, when I pointed out things in the employment agreements that I objected to, I was given a very stern and unambiguous "Sign it unmodified or GTFO." I've pretty much stopped asking. There's always a line out the door of people who are in equal need of the job and will sign whatever is put in front of them.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      All the ones I've ever signed had an exception list for previous IP. You can sign it as is, just make sure your exceptions include all your previous work. You try something like, "Excluding any work or IP made or started before employment with xyz." "Excluding any work not explicitly requested by company xyz, etc." That way you can sign it as is but use the exceptions section. You have to ask yourself, is working for that company worth giving them explicit rights for all your prior work you've done for yourself? That's exactly what they are asking for in most cases. Let's say you make it big with something you wrote before you even started working there and they find out. They can take it right from under you if you sign that contract without exceptions. Just know what you are getting into and what they are really asking you to commit to. I actually left a job because I wanted to start a new project and I had signed a similar document without an exception. I didn't want them to have any claim with the IP. Also know, any investors will probably shy away from you if you've signed away your IP rights like that.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >I guarantee the majority of companies don't even know what's in that contract. They just pulled it off the internet I worked for one of those companies once. He apparently didn't read his bank statements either, hence I didn't get paid for a significant chunk of the work I did. Nobody before or since has acted surprised about the contents of their own contract. I'd view it as a major red flag.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Companies use these highly one-sided contracts with IP provisions and such because they can and because it's not any more difficult to include it in their boilerplate contract than to not include it, not because it often makes a material difference for them. Except for the non-compete clauses. Those are materially important and likely to affect a large proportion of total employment contracts (whereas IP clauses are rarely relevant).
nnutter 9y ago
Even if you save up the money to not be desperate in these situations they still have a very high cost. Say you’re 30 and invest in a big index mutual fund. Having to use these funds means shaving 8x as many months off your retirement.
- Clubber 9y ago
  I have an account specifically for "rainy days" like this that is separate from my retirement. That way I'm more comfortable with it.
  - ajmurmann 9y ago
    All you are doing is changing the label. The cost is still the same.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      What's the cost? Opportunity cost? You can still put it in a money market account when it's inactive.
      - ajmurmann 9y ago
        If you put money for example into one of Vanguard's "Retirement 20xx" funds you can make some pretty good returns that you can use to retire earlier. If you are in your 30s by the time you retire the money would have increased about eightfold as the grand parent said. Since you will have to pay taxes on those gains if it's not a 401k you will likely only end up with like 4-6x of what you have right now. So one month off due to these shenanigans could be 4-6 months of earlier retirement.
        Clubber 9y ago
        That is all true but it still doesn't negate the fact that you should have a rainy day account and having said account has a high cost because: 1. Those 401K's and IRA's have a yearly cap, so anything above that cap doesn't apply. 2. Saving your "rainy day" account is a one time thing. Once you reach 4-6 months of income, you are done. 3. Like we agree, you can put it in a non-tax sheltered fund. Also, not sure if you are going to get 8x return in 30 years. Maybe 50 years ago. When I was in college you could expect to double your money ever 7 years. I don't believe that's still the case.
SCAQTony 9y ago
…Or move to California — Job Hopping, A California Right and Non Compete Agreements: http://www.rhdtlaw.com/job-hopping-california-right/ http://www.rhdtlaw.com/job-hopping-california-right/
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  Yea, that's not enough. If it isn't enforcable in your state, demand they rip it out of your contract. This isn't going to go away otherwise.
- austincheney 9y ago
  Or move to Texas where laws make non-compete agreements are really hard to enforce, as in the employer has to prove harm not associated with loss of labor. Cost of living is about 3-10x cheaper in Texas. https://www.texasnoncompetelaw.com/articles/noncompete-agreements/ https://www.texasnoncompetelaw.com/articles/noncompete-agree...
  - CalChris 9y ago
    > Cost of living is about 3-10x cheaper in Texas Idaho is cheaper than Texas. And no, Texas is not 3-10x cheaper than even California. In addition, you get paid less in TX than in CA.
    - chrnic27 9y ago
      Then why are there more Californians moving to Texas than vice versa? You really need to step out of your tech bubble. Remember how Donald Trump won the US election? If you were in the Bay area, I bet you would've never fathomed that since it's a bubble. Source: live in Mountain View
    - austincheney 9y ago
      http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fort-worth-tx/los-gatos-ca/150000 http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fort-worth-tx/los-g... TX doesn't have state income tax, but CA does. TX has close to the cheapest fuel prices in the country while the bay area has the most expensive fuel prices in the country. Food costs less in TX and there is no sales tax on retail food purchases in TX. Yes, you get paid less in TX. For an average software developer you tend to get paid about 40-60% less. Since the cost of living is probably 3x more in CA getting paid a little less in TX still puts you at a huge financial advantage. I am not guessing at this. I am looking at the numbers and performing very simple arithmetic.
brightball 9y ago
I still don't understand the almost violent resistance to noncompetes. If they are "you can't work otherwise" then sure... it if it's literally that you can't go work for a direct competitor or take their clients to start your own I don't see the issue. That's more a matter of ethics than anything else and seems perfectly reasonable for a limited period of time (6 months to a year).
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  I still don't understand the almost violent resistance to noncompetes. It's not "violent". It's the exact opposite of that, in fact.
- Clubber 9y ago
  That's the problem is they are so unfair. What if you worked for some huge conglomerate like GE. What industry does GE not compete in? Or Microsoft? Walmart? Amazon? Also, their duration is typically 2-4 years. So you can't work in any major industry that GE competes in for 4 years and you get zero compensation for it. How is that anywhere close fair or reasonable? Non-competes also include no hiring. That further limits my potential employment. If me and my buddy quit because we're sick, or bored of a place, we can't hire either other or recommend hiring each other for 2-4 years. Guess what? If you have people who can't find employment and a good chunk of their opportunity is blocked because of non-competes, guess who pays for it? Also, here's the crux of the hypocrisy. Companies are all about free market, but only when it benefits them. In a free market, I should be free to work anywhere for anyone. The only restriction would be not to divulge IP or trade secrets. I'm perfectly fine with that, but chances are, that's not what you are signing.
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    When I was younger, I used to think that non-compete meant that the company would continue to pay you the same salary as before for the duration of the non-compete. It just sounded like common sense. I was young and naive. I am not that young anymore but I still think this needs to be a nationwide law. If you want me to not work (in an industry) for a particular length of time, you ought to pay me to not work about as much as what I would have made by working. Sure, put a ceiling at 50x minimum wage (so currently $725k a year https://www.google.com/search?q=7.25*2000*50 https://www.google.com/search?q=7.25*2000*50 ) or something but this is just common sense that if you want to prevent me from working, you should pay me for the duration that I am not working.
koolba 9y ago
While I agree to most of these, I can't imagine hiring someone and not owning the resulting IP of anything that's developed. If you're referring to something outside the scope of work then sure if it's unrelated (think side project vs competitor), but if I'm paying you to work, I own what you built, both the end result and the IP.
- Clubber 9y ago
  I would fully accept that and that's completely reasonable, but that's not what most contracts I've read say. I just read one the other day that stated the company owned all IP and inventions created prior to hiring and any created during employment regardless of whether or not it was written for the company or on company time. I'm surprised they didn't include any future IP as well.
  - koolba 9y ago
    > I just read one the other day that stated the company owned all IP and inventions created prior to hiring ... Haha. Okay that's seriously ridiculous. I'd have a field day berating any org that tried to push that on me. > ... and any created during employment regardless of whether or not it was written for the company or on company time. I'd disagree with you on the non-company time. Depending on the nature of the work whether it happens on the clock or not isn't clear cut. Hence the default of the company owning everything while you're doing work for them as an employee. The best defense for this as an employee is to get a written exemption for anything non-company related that you're working on, or a generic exemption as a matter of company policy for things like off-clock FOSS contributions. Just about every large scale FOSS project requires contributors to attest to IP ownership and assign copyright of contributions. Most also explicitly ask if your employer has granted you permission to offer you contribution. There are many stories of projects that don't do this trying to track down individuals years after the fact to facilitate relicensing. Now in a more specific work for hire (i.e. contracting / consulting) situation, it does need to be tightened to reflect the actual work at hand. Otherwise you can't work on anything else > I'm surprised they didn't include any future IP as well. Be even funnier if they did and also required to actually create some too. Instead of a golden parachute it'd be lead anchor.

mgkimsal 9y ago

> You are in high demand maybe. it may just be people willing to sign one-sided agreements are in high demand.

Clubber 9y ago
I guarantee the majority of companies don't even know what's in that contract. They just pulled it off the internet because someone said, "Oh crap, we need an employee agreement. Google one." or "Find someone else's contract agreement." If they go through all the trouble of recruiting you, interviewing you and deciding they want you, they'll be willing to consider revising it, especially since they probably didn't give it much thought in the first place. Just raise your concerns in an intelligible way and don't be an asshole about it. I just did that for a contract. I said, "I can't give you all my inventions, I have a ton of them." They didn't even realize that was in the contract and they revised it. Poof. I got a fair agreement.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  This has not been my experience at all. At every place I've ever worked, when I pointed out things in the employment agreements that I objected to, I was given a very stern and unambiguous "Sign it unmodified or GTFO." I've pretty much stopped asking. There's always a line out the door of people who are in equal need of the job and will sign whatever is put in front of them.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    All the ones I've ever signed had an exception list for previous IP. You can sign it as is, just make sure your exceptions include all your previous work. You try something like, "Excluding any work or IP made or started before employment with xyz." "Excluding any work not explicitly requested by company xyz, etc." That way you can sign it as is but use the exceptions section. You have to ask yourself, is working for that company worth giving them explicit rights for all your prior work you've done for yourself? That's exactly what they are asking for in most cases. Let's say you make it big with something you wrote before you even started working there and they find out. They can take it right from under you if you sign that contract without exceptions. Just know what you are getting into and what they are really asking you to commit to. I actually left a job because I wanted to start a new project and I had signed a similar document without an exception. I didn't want them to have any claim with the IP. Also know, any investors will probably shy away from you if you've signed away your IP rights like that.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >I guarantee the majority of companies don't even know what's in that contract. They just pulled it off the internet I worked for one of those companies once. He apparently didn't read his bank statements either, hence I didn't get paid for a significant chunk of the work I did. Nobody before or since has acted surprised about the contents of their own contract. I'd view it as a major red flag.
CydeWeys 9y ago
Companies use these highly one-sided contracts with IP provisions and such because they can and because it's not any more difficult to include it in their boilerplate contract than to not include it, not because it often makes a material difference for them. Except for the non-compete clauses. Those are materially important and likely to affect a large proportion of total employment contracts (whereas IP clauses are rarely relevant).

nnutter 9y ago

Even if you save up the money to not be desperate in these situations they still have a very high cost. Say you’re 30 and invest in a big index mutual fund. Having to use these funds means shaving 8x as many months off your retirement.

Clubber 9y ago
I have an account specifically for "rainy days" like this that is separate from my retirement. That way I'm more comfortable with it.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  All you are doing is changing the label. The cost is still the same.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    What's the cost? Opportunity cost? You can still put it in a money market account when it's inactive.
    - ajmurmann 9y ago
      If you put money for example into one of Vanguard's "Retirement 20xx" funds you can make some pretty good returns that you can use to retire earlier. If you are in your 30s by the time you retire the money would have increased about eightfold as the grand parent said. Since you will have to pay taxes on those gains if it's not a 401k you will likely only end up with like 4-6x of what you have right now. So one month off due to these shenanigans could be 4-6 months of earlier retirement.
      - Clubber 9y ago
        That is all true but it still doesn't negate the fact that you should have a rainy day account and having said account has a high cost because: 1. Those 401K's and IRA's have a yearly cap, so anything above that cap doesn't apply. 2. Saving your "rainy day" account is a one time thing. Once you reach 4-6 months of income, you are done. 3. Like we agree, you can put it in a non-tax sheltered fund. Also, not sure if you are going to get 8x return in 30 years. Maybe 50 years ago. When I was in college you could expect to double your money ever 7 years. I don't believe that's still the case.

SCAQTony 9y ago

…Or move to California — Job Hopping, A California Right and Non Compete Agreements: http://www.rhdtlaw.com/job-hopping-california-right/ http://www.rhdtlaw.com/job-hopping-california-right/

throwaway91111 9y ago
Yea, that's not enough. If it isn't enforcable in your state, demand they rip it out of your contract. This isn't going to go away otherwise.
austincheney 9y ago
Or move to Texas where laws make non-compete agreements are really hard to enforce, as in the employer has to prove harm not associated with loss of labor. Cost of living is about 3-10x cheaper in Texas. https://www.texasnoncompetelaw.com/articles/noncompete-agreements/ https://www.texasnoncompetelaw.com/articles/noncompete-agree...
- CalChris 9y ago
  > Cost of living is about 3-10x cheaper in Texas Idaho is cheaper than Texas. And no, Texas is not 3-10x cheaper than even California. In addition, you get paid less in TX than in CA.
  - chrnic27 9y ago
    Then why are there more Californians moving to Texas than vice versa? You really need to step out of your tech bubble. Remember how Donald Trump won the US election? If you were in the Bay area, I bet you would've never fathomed that since it's a bubble. Source: live in Mountain View
  - austincheney 9y ago
    http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fort-worth-tx/los-gatos-ca/150000 http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fort-worth-tx/los-g... TX doesn't have state income tax, but CA does. TX has close to the cheapest fuel prices in the country while the bay area has the most expensive fuel prices in the country. Food costs less in TX and there is no sales tax on retail food purchases in TX. Yes, you get paid less in TX. For an average software developer you tend to get paid about 40-60% less. Since the cost of living is probably 3x more in CA getting paid a little less in TX still puts you at a huge financial advantage. I am not guessing at this. I am looking at the numbers and performing very simple arithmetic.

brightball 9y ago

I still don't understand the almost violent resistance to noncompetes. If they are "you can't work otherwise" then sure... it if it's literally that you can't go work for a direct competitor or take their clients to start your own I don't see the issue. That's more a matter of ethics than anything else and seems perfectly reasonable for a limited period of time (6 months to a year).

kafkaesq 9y ago
I still don't understand the almost violent resistance to noncompetes. It's not "violent". It's the exact opposite of that, in fact.
Clubber 9y ago
That's the problem is they are so unfair. What if you worked for some huge conglomerate like GE. What industry does GE not compete in? Or Microsoft? Walmart? Amazon? Also, their duration is typically 2-4 years. So you can't work in any major industry that GE competes in for 4 years and you get zero compensation for it. How is that anywhere close fair or reasonable? Non-competes also include no hiring. That further limits my potential employment. If me and my buddy quit because we're sick, or bored of a place, we can't hire either other or recommend hiring each other for 2-4 years. Guess what? If you have people who can't find employment and a good chunk of their opportunity is blocked because of non-competes, guess who pays for it? Also, here's the crux of the hypocrisy. Companies are all about free market, but only when it benefits them. In a free market, I should be free to work anywhere for anyone. The only restriction would be not to divulge IP or trade secrets. I'm perfectly fine with that, but chances are, that's not what you are signing.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  When I was younger, I used to think that non-compete meant that the company would continue to pay you the same salary as before for the duration of the non-compete. It just sounded like common sense. I was young and naive. I am not that young anymore but I still think this needs to be a nationwide law. If you want me to not work (in an industry) for a particular length of time, you ought to pay me to not work about as much as what I would have made by working. Sure, put a ceiling at 50x minimum wage (so currently $725k a year https://www.google.com/search?q=7.25*2000*50 https://www.google.com/search?q=7.25*2000*50 ) or something but this is just common sense that if you want to prevent me from working, you should pay me for the duration that I am not working.

koolba 9y ago

While I agree to most of these, I can't imagine hiring someone and not owning the resulting IP of anything that's developed. If you're referring to something outside the scope of work then sure if it's unrelated (think side project vs competitor), but if I'm paying you to work, I own what you built, both the end result and the IP.

Clubber 9y ago
I would fully accept that and that's completely reasonable, but that's not what most contracts I've read say. I just read one the other day that stated the company owned all IP and inventions created prior to hiring and any created during employment regardless of whether or not it was written for the company or on company time. I'm surprised they didn't include any future IP as well.
- koolba 9y ago
  > I just read one the other day that stated the company owned all IP and inventions created prior to hiring ... Haha. Okay that's seriously ridiculous. I'd have a field day berating any org that tried to push that on me. > ... and any created during employment regardless of whether or not it was written for the company or on company time. I'd disagree with you on the non-company time. Depending on the nature of the work whether it happens on the clock or not isn't clear cut. Hence the default of the company owning everything while you're doing work for them as an employee. The best defense for this as an employee is to get a written exemption for anything non-company related that you're working on, or a generic exemption as a matter of company policy for things like off-clock FOSS contributions. Just about every large scale FOSS project requires contributors to attest to IP ownership and assign copyright of contributions. Most also explicitly ask if your employer has granted you permission to offer you contribution. There are many stories of projects that don't do this trying to track down individuals years after the fact to facilitate relicensing. Now in a more specific work for hire (i.e. contracting / consulting) situation, it does need to be tightened to reflect the actual work at hand. Otherwise you can't work on anything else > I'm surprised they didn't include any future IP as well. Be even funnier if they did and also required to actually create some too. Instead of a golden parachute it'd be lead anchor.