3 ms·
I look for policies like this to see how I'm likely to be treated by a company in general. Even more critical are terms of employment. Over the past few decade
by blagie 8y ago
I look for policies like this to see how I'm likely to be treated by a company in general.
Even more critical are terms of employment. Over the past few decades, companies often went from a healthy relationship (long-term employment, companies own IP in the domain of employment created on work hours) to a rather unhealthy one (3-year stints combined with abusive terms -- overreaching non-disclosures, non-competes, IP ownership, etc., digging deeply into my personal life).
Then there's background checks. These went from reasonable due diligence (I got my degree and worked where I claimed) to digging into past salaries and using those in negotiations (salaries get shared through data brokers like Equifax, often in violation of state laws), looking at credit records, etc.
There are policies around emergencies -- what happens if a relative dies and similar?
And there's the practical: How often do employees get legally threatened or sued on the way out? I've now had this happen to several friends; it's surprisingly common. In all cases, they settled on the company's terms (which were always without merits) since litigation would have cost years of life and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
A job is kind of like a marriage. Even if they don't effect you directly, these are pretty good indicators of whether you're getting into a healthy or abusive long-term relationship.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago> I look for policies like this to see how I'm likely to be treated by a company in general. Policies like this are no assurance that you'll be treated well by a company. It's still roulette. Maybe they care, maybe they can't get talent in the door.
- pjc50 8y ago> sued on the way out Extraordinary - on what alleged grounds?
- blagie 8y agoIn one case, an employee was going to work for a startup developing a new (completely novel) product in the same industry as former company. There was a non-compete clause in the employment contract. It was cheaper to wait a year before joining the startup than to litigate. I know both companies, and the claim of competition was tangential at best. In another case, an employee hadn't signed the current employment agreement which was far more overreaching than the terms of employment they originally agreed to (but which were needed for the organization to pursue its new -- somewhat sleazy -- business model). The organization fabricated criminal allegations and told the employee they would press charges if the employee didn't sign away their rights. That's criminal extortion, but if such threats are verbal, it's not something you can really prove. Best case outcome for employee was a (very public) mud throwing match against an organization with an extensive PR/press department. A lawyer took that one pro bono, but I think that cost that employee 3-6 months of their life, and in the end, they gave up on their next startup too (which was, again, in the same industry as their former employer, and difficult to do with new terms). Both were big organizations (ones you would have heard of, and one of which is held in extremely high esteem as an 'ethical' organization). Both settlements involved signing away rights to talk about those settlements.