7 ms·

I'm actually an engineer :-) I used "smartass" because it's a move that superficially seems clever, but is actually completely futile when you look at the broa

I'm actually an engineer :-) I used "smartass" because it's a move that superficially seems clever, but is actually completely futile when you look at the broad picture - as my comment shows. I don't know if us engineers have "low social status", but we certainly don't have as much negotiating power as some of us may fancy, certainly not against a huge mega-corporation.

logfromblammo 8y ago
All other things being equal, businesses will hire the candidate that they can potentially abuse before the one that may righteously push back. So if you are one who would negotiate the terms of a non-compete, you will not even get the opportunity until all those who will just blindly sign it have been given the chance to do so. The smart-ass part is signaling that you're less-abusable before the decision is made on hiring you. The devious move would be to play dumb in the domain of HR paperwork, and delay signing anything. Just say you need to review it in private and make a copy, pocket the paper, and never give it back, or even bring it up again. Or mark up the document to completely pull its teeth, sign that, and turn it in with a stack of other paperwork. HR will probably just file it and tick their checkbox for it, without even flagging it for review by legal.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  How do you do this when the signature happens online rather than on paper?
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Try sending them physical documents? Maybe they have a fax machine.
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      If they don't have a fax, they still have a mailing address. If you can print out the document, you can alter it before sending it back. But going outside the normal workflow invites human scrutiny, so anything you do there has to be above-board. You could always add some words to your digital signature, like "this is not a contract", or "I refuse these terms", if that's the only way you could otherwise edit the document. If it's an automated system, it's likely that there is no human review until the documents are actually needed for some legal reason. By that time, you'll already have your money. You could also try hacking the document system. The worst that could happen is that you don't get to work there. Second worst is that months or years into your new job, some HR person notices a discrepancy, and wants you to sign a fresh copy, or you're fired immediately. Try sending back a document that has lorem ipsum generated text or Markov chain text with the appropriate paragraph lengths? They're probably counting on you just clicking the buttons, maybe typing out your full legal name, and automatically filling the checkboxes with green checkmarks. Putting all of it into an automated system is already a means of cutting corners on legal paperwork. You can easily outsmart the computer, if there's no human helping it.
  - rectang 8y ago
    I hated how Zenefits made my employment contract like a click through software license agreement. It's not like I'm accepting the iTunes terms of service here -- this is a crucial document and much more likely to have life-altering consequences.
- ascar 8y ago
  The main contract may have a clause it's only valid, if you also sign the NCA and NSA agreements. At least mine had.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that any good one would advise you not to agree to anything you haven't read first. This is why you show contracts to lawyers before signing. You have to avoid unnecessary warranties, contingent agreements, hidden addendums, and other traps for the unwary. The contract should be the whole agreement, and ideally should also say that it is the whole agreement. Just cross that clause out with your pen, and if questioned, say that you haven't seen the documents they were trying to incorporate by reference. If they are contract terms, they can appear as clauses in the contract, and you should be able to negotiate reasonable compensation for them. Few companies have ever tried such trickery with me, but then again they have operated almost entirely without lengthy contracts--basically, just starting date, starting rate of pay, and the "at will" clause. Those that did push documents at me early enough got to see my editing pen. But my smartass resistance to their dubious documents never got me to an offer or a real negotiation, either. I am especially fond of crossing out the part of a background check clause that allows them to keep the 3rd-party report secret from me, while also sharing it with any other parties they please. Ordinarily, I'd just walk out, but I figure that crossing that part out puts the ball back in their court.
    - ascar 8y ago
      Not sure why you jumped to trickery. I got them handed at the same time, actually in the same DocuSign pdf. They were basically an addendum mentioned in the contract that required a separate signature, even though the signing was required by the main work contract and non-optional. I guess it's just a way to create a better overview like we split stuff in multiple files in programming. The thing is you don't have much way to negotiate this stuff with companies of a certain size. It's done by their lawyer and everyone gets the same stuff. Just changing we wording on the relocation and signing bonus (because the original wording made absolutely no sense in my case) took over a week of mailing stuff between lawyers and the headquarters in a different country. It's take it or leave it. Crossing stuff out with your pen or not handing in some documents might even get you sued for deception. Sure this is different for small companies without a big HR department that is hiring on a daily basis and without complicated legal department processes. There is a good chance they just skip the NDA/NSA if you object (seen it happen), when they think you are the best man for the job.
- grigjd3 8y ago
  When I was given an nca, it was on my first day and I was put in an empty room with the materials and told I can't take them from the room. I tell you, when you're needing the job to provide for your family, there isn't much you can do there. EDIT: fortunately, the company made a very niche product so it would be hard to argue anywhere was competing with them.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    If you ever tell a judge that the company refused to let you negotiate terms, review the documents with professional legal counsel, or make a copy for your own reference, I'm sure that will go over well in court for the company trying to pretend that they represent contracts~ Then you can discuss whether you actually received anything of value specifically for signing any particular document. Smartass or not, if you are asked to sign anything that you are not allowed to show to a lawyer, the company is trying to abuse you, so feel free to mark it up a bit. Cross out single words that completely change the meaning of clauses that would put an obligation on you. Likely candidates are "not", "must", "shall", and "but". Write on it "This is not a contract" in small, hard-to-read print above your signature. Photograph it with your phone. Anonymously let other people know the company is doing this. Chances are, if you asked any question at all about non-competes during the interview, you never would have made it to the empty room where they showed theirs to you.
    - grigjd3 8y ago
      I recognize the ideal there, but as stated, I had to support my family and I needed the income. I was not exactly in a place where I could argue. I realize this would likely get thrown out in court, but that people get put in this position at all is ridiculous.
      - logfromblammo 8y ago
        So many things already have to be going wrong for these to exist, that no single individual can possibly fight them. - The legislature has to not care about laborers. - The laborers can have no effective means of cartelizing amongst themselves. - The businesses have to employ people who think it is okay to require uncompensated non-competes. - They also have to be willing to sue ex-employees. - The court/arbitration system has to side with the employer in some of the cases.
- StillBored 8y ago
  The devious move would be to play dumb in the domain of HR paperwork, and delay signing anything. Just say you need to review it in private and make a copy, pocket the paper, and never give it back, or even bring it up again. I did exactly that at a smallish company ~20 years ago. It actually worked, and caused quite a ruckus a few years later when they discovered it. At that point they didn't really have any leverage because I wasn't working for them. I seriously doubt this would work anywhere that isn't 30-80 employees. Small enough to not have an completely automated HR system, but large enough for things to slip through the cracks.

logfromblammo 8y ago

All other things being equal, businesses will hire the candidate that they can potentially abuse before the one that may righteously push back. So if you are one who would negotiate the terms of a non-compete, you will not even get the opportunity until all those who will just blindly sign it have been given the chance to do so. The smart-ass part is signaling that you're less-abusable before the decision is made on hiring you. The devious move would be to play dumb in the domain of HR paperwork, and delay signing anything. Just say you need to review it in private and make a copy, pocket the paper, and never give it back, or even bring it up again. Or mark up the document to completely pull its teeth, sign that, and turn it in with a stack of other paperwork. HR will probably just file it and tick their checkbox for it, without even flagging it for review by legal.

mehrdadn 8y ago
How do you do this when the signature happens online rather than on paper?
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Try sending them physical documents? Maybe they have a fax machine.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    If they don't have a fax, they still have a mailing address. If you can print out the document, you can alter it before sending it back. But going outside the normal workflow invites human scrutiny, so anything you do there has to be above-board. You could always add some words to your digital signature, like "this is not a contract", or "I refuse these terms", if that's the only way you could otherwise edit the document. If it's an automated system, it's likely that there is no human review until the documents are actually needed for some legal reason. By that time, you'll already have your money. You could also try hacking the document system. The worst that could happen is that you don't get to work there. Second worst is that months or years into your new job, some HR person notices a discrepancy, and wants you to sign a fresh copy, or you're fired immediately. Try sending back a document that has lorem ipsum generated text or Markov chain text with the appropriate paragraph lengths? They're probably counting on you just clicking the buttons, maybe typing out your full legal name, and automatically filling the checkboxes with green checkmarks. Putting all of it into an automated system is already a means of cutting corners on legal paperwork. You can easily outsmart the computer, if there's no human helping it.
- rectang 8y ago
  I hated how Zenefits made my employment contract like a click through software license agreement. It's not like I'm accepting the iTunes terms of service here -- this is a crucial document and much more likely to have life-altering consequences.
ascar 8y ago
The main contract may have a clause it's only valid, if you also sign the NCA and NSA agreements. At least mine had.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that any good one would advise you not to agree to anything you haven't read first. This is why you show contracts to lawyers before signing. You have to avoid unnecessary warranties, contingent agreements, hidden addendums, and other traps for the unwary. The contract should be the whole agreement, and ideally should also say that it is the whole agreement. Just cross that clause out with your pen, and if questioned, say that you haven't seen the documents they were trying to incorporate by reference. If they are contract terms, they can appear as clauses in the contract, and you should be able to negotiate reasonable compensation for them. Few companies have ever tried such trickery with me, but then again they have operated almost entirely without lengthy contracts--basically, just starting date, starting rate of pay, and the "at will" clause. Those that did push documents at me early enough got to see my editing pen. But my smartass resistance to their dubious documents never got me to an offer or a real negotiation, either. I am especially fond of crossing out the part of a background check clause that allows them to keep the 3rd-party report secret from me, while also sharing it with any other parties they please. Ordinarily, I'd just walk out, but I figure that crossing that part out puts the ball back in their court.
  - ascar 8y ago
    Not sure why you jumped to trickery. I got them handed at the same time, actually in the same DocuSign pdf. They were basically an addendum mentioned in the contract that required a separate signature, even though the signing was required by the main work contract and non-optional. I guess it's just a way to create a better overview like we split stuff in multiple files in programming. The thing is you don't have much way to negotiate this stuff with companies of a certain size. It's done by their lawyer and everyone gets the same stuff. Just changing we wording on the relocation and signing bonus (because the original wording made absolutely no sense in my case) took over a week of mailing stuff between lawyers and the headquarters in a different country. It's take it or leave it. Crossing stuff out with your pen or not handing in some documents might even get you sued for deception. Sure this is different for small companies without a big HR department that is hiring on a daily basis and without complicated legal department processes. There is a good chance they just skip the NDA/NSA if you object (seen it happen), when they think you are the best man for the job.
grigjd3 8y ago
When I was given an nca, it was on my first day and I was put in an empty room with the materials and told I can't take them from the room. I tell you, when you're needing the job to provide for your family, there isn't much you can do there. EDIT: fortunately, the company made a very niche product so it would be hard to argue anywhere was competing with them.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  If you ever tell a judge that the company refused to let you negotiate terms, review the documents with professional legal counsel, or make a copy for your own reference, I'm sure that will go over well in court for the company trying to pretend that they represent contracts~ Then you can discuss whether you actually received anything of value specifically for signing any particular document. Smartass or not, if you are asked to sign anything that you are not allowed to show to a lawyer, the company is trying to abuse you, so feel free to mark it up a bit. Cross out single words that completely change the meaning of clauses that would put an obligation on you. Likely candidates are "not", "must", "shall", and "but". Write on it "This is not a contract" in small, hard-to-read print above your signature. Photograph it with your phone. Anonymously let other people know the company is doing this. Chances are, if you asked any question at all about non-competes during the interview, you never would have made it to the empty room where they showed theirs to you.
  - grigjd3 8y ago
    I recognize the ideal there, but as stated, I had to support my family and I needed the income. I was not exactly in a place where I could argue. I realize this would likely get thrown out in court, but that people get put in this position at all is ridiculous.
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      So many things already have to be going wrong for these to exist, that no single individual can possibly fight them. - The legislature has to not care about laborers. - The laborers can have no effective means of cartelizing amongst themselves. - The businesses have to employ people who think it is okay to require uncompensated non-competes. - They also have to be willing to sue ex-employees. - The court/arbitration system has to side with the employer in some of the cases.
StillBored 8y ago
The devious move would be to play dumb in the domain of HR paperwork, and delay signing anything. Just say you need to review it in private and make a copy, pocket the paper, and never give it back, or even bring it up again. I did exactly that at a smallish company ~20 years ago. It actually worked, and caused quite a ruckus a few years later when they discovered it. At that point they didn't really have any leverage because I wasn't working for them. I seriously doubt this would work anywhere that isn't 30-80 employees. Small enough to not have an completely automated HR system, but large enough for things to slip through the cracks.