14 ms·

Isn't it great when even something as huge and life-changing as a job is subject to a contract of adhesion with no negotiation allowed? I'm sure glad to live i

• willcipriano 6y ago
  I have no idea how those contracts are enforceable. Quit your job, move across the country and then on your first day here are nine contracts to sign, no you can't take them home we need them now. If you don't sign you are unemployed and we want that relocation money back. I used to ask potential employers when I got deep into interviews with them. "Is there any way I can see all the contracts I would need to sign on my first day?" and my experience is employers are very taken aback the question. How can you possibly talk remuneration when there also is some hidden contract that is part of it that you can't see until your first day?
  • realityking 6y ago
    I was un are of this system until I hired in the US. It blows my mind. Here (Germany) offer letters are used to outline the general terms of an offer however the next step will then be that you’re sent a contract (some of mine have been > 10 pages) outlining a lot of relevant things such: - role (ideally even with a job description but that is rare) - place of employment (city/country) - IP assignment - length of probation - length of notice period for both sides - expectation of work travel - vacation - compensation And a bunch of other things that I’m forgetting. Similar to the above story, there’s always some resistance from employers to customize terms. It’s operationally much simpler for a company to have unified terms. However at every company I’ve been at I’ve been able to secure changes to the IP assignment clauses. Of course all of this only works because these contracts are enforceable. There’s no such thing as at will employment here.
    • fogetti 6y ago
      If you want to know, the same system happens in Japan too. When you get the offer letter it's an outline only. Then you either accept the offer letter as it is, or walk away. Asking for the detailed contract (called 就業規則 in Japanese) will always end up losing your job offer, because you have no legal right to see the contract before you join the company. Some companies are so hostile (and this is the norm in my experience), that even very valid questions along the line of "Do I get severance pay if I am forced to retire?" or "How do stock options work?" will end your job application process right there because you will get labeled as overzealous. Also, Japanese law doesn't require to state in the contract the exact position that you are hired into. So you will often get hired with the job description: "engineering team member". Of course HR will tell you mealy-mouthed or mellifluously that you are a senior/principal engineer and/or a manager, but none of that will hold any legal water in a lawsuit since your contract doesn't say so. If you ask me, Japan and the US, some of the largest economies of the world are constant labor right abusers and the UN and other nations simply turn their head when this ever gets brought up.
      • rablackburn 6y ago
        I still remember the furore it caused when I asked for a copy of the 業務規則. (because the new overtime pay policy was paying ~$3/hr worked after 10pm and I wanted to see the section that covered that calculation) I just wanted to read the actual language around hours worked and overtime because it was never stated what the policy was. Turns out you couldn’t read it without a director sitting next to you, and it was in a binder that you weren’t allowed to touch. My conversation with the CEO: “Why would you need to read that?” “Because my contract says ‘in accordance with the 業務規則’ and I’d like to know what my contract is” “Well you can ask me a question and ill tell you if it’s in there” Glad I got off that sinking ship.
        • fogetti 6y ago
          I feel for you. I also had my fair share of labor rights abuse in Japan. My experience is that only foreigners are 'brave' enough to ever bring this up, which makes the whole situation even more miserable since you cannot expect any help from Japanese colleagues.
    • benhurmarcel 6y ago
      It varies by country, even in Europe. In France you also sign beforehand. But in Spain it's quite common to only sign the contract on the first day; before you can request a letter saying that they are contracting you and the salary, but not more.
  • MaximumYComb 6y ago
    It sounds legally like coercian. There are some porn producers who are going to jail for a very long time (their whole life) over this. Recruit girls for a photoshoot, tell them a couple days out that it's a porn shoot but it's for private collections, etc. When the girls arrive they're railroaded into signing documents, in a strange city with no money in their pocket, etc.
    • DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
      I'm surprised that the parent post was downvoted, because AFAICT it's a valid comparison. Is there something I'm missing?
      • cj 6y ago
        In the context of starting a job at Google, I highly doubt you sign your employment contracts the day you show up for work. Typically employment contracts are signed and settled well before you enter the building as an employee. I would be surprised if the OP’s anecdote regarding the Googler pulled on the 1st day is in line with reality. Edit: apparently I’m wrong, the downvotes were deserved! I run hiring at my company and we send people all contracts at the same time that we send the offer letter. No surprise paperwork on Day 1. I’m surprised to hear other companies wait until the start date to sort out legal
        • gwillen 6y ago
          I was hired right out of school by Google in 2007. I was absolutely presented with various contract documents on day 1 to sign. In fact, I was not even given paper copies of them; I was supposed to click my agreement in an intranet signing tool. (I couldn't say what fraction of my employment paperwork was handled in this way, but things like IP assignment were definitely included.)
          • philsnow 6y ago
            At one of my first jobs, one of the things I had to agree to was having read "the employee handbook".. but it was not a pdf or other document, it was part of an internal wiki or something, with in-links and out-links all over the place. I don't recall if I tried to figure out whether the strongly connected component that comprised the handbook was the same as "all pages on the wiki", but I was a little distressed at the time (this being one of my first jobs) that I was being asked to sign my name on something that I couldn't realistically read.
  • disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    I learned this the hard way, and now insist upon a contract before agreeing to move to a company (i.e. I dont tell my previous job or give a start date until I see a contract). So far, it hasn't been a problem.
    • waheoo 6y ago
      Isnt this job switching 101? you don't have a new job until you've signed. Your notice doesn't happen until you have signed.
      • kelnos 6y ago
        "Signed" isn't what you think it is. You can sign the offer letter, and possibly a couple other things, but most companies will also have more documents that you must sign on your first day of employment, and won't give them to you before then.
        • machinelabo 6y ago
          That hasn't been my experience in the US. When I joined, I signed everything along with the offer letter. Full 10-15 pages of contract. Nothing to sign on the first day.
        • waheoo 6y ago
          Interesting. That's not how it works in Australia at all. Here, salary expectations are given in the first screening call. If they can't meet the expectation or you won't be happy with their lower offer things end there. Interviews / code tests happen. Offer comes over phone or email. This includes salary. There is no signature at this stage and nothing is set in stone, its just an offer. If you accept the offer a contract is drawn up. Still nothing is certain. Changes to the contract can happen here. Once both parties sign. That is when you're "signed". This happens well before your start date, usually you would stipulate the start date in the contract, so if you need to give a month's notice to your employer your new contract with a start date from a month is signed before you even hand in your notice. There is a 3 month trial period on all employment where they can walk without much repercussions, but this is more of a concession on your part because employment is very well protected. Any weird IP bullshit or other conditions of employment that need signing would be in the contract you signed on for. They can't bait and switch like what you're discussing. Any NDA's are discussed up front and at least their existence is disclosed in the contract giving you a chance to see them early. Basically you can't put new conditions of employment on people after the fact, and if you did it wouldn't be valid in court anyway, contract law trumps contract content here no matter what. Things don't have to work exactly like this, you might want to leverage the offer for a higher pay at your current job, counter offering is commonplace here but I wouldn't ever accept one. They'll be looking for your replacement as soon as you accept.
  • youeseh 6y ago
    I'm guessing that you've only worked at / interviewed at large firms. They're large and your prospective role there wasn't senior enough for them to afford you special treatment.
    • willcipriano 6y ago
      I've only worked at small to mid sized firms. Either way, Knowing what the agreement is before I agree is special treatment? I'm not asking to modify the contract, merely to see it before I give notice and upend my families life.
      • youeseh 6y ago
        Anything outside of what they consider to be their norm is special treatment. There aren't enough lower level people who ask to see employment agreements ahead of time.
    • dvtrn 6y ago
      Why is it “special treatment” to want to read what you’re about to sign when it directly involves ones means of living?
    • ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Surely a contract can't be valid if one of the parties hasn't had a chance to read it. It's like if you bought a car, signed and paid, and discovered there is an extra agreement to actually use it, and that one says any ideas you have while driving belong to BMW.
  • marricks 6y ago
    Sounds like a great time to consider the differences between positive and negative liberty. Negative liberty: no one can get in my way of doing whatever I want! Google has the right to rootkit my life and I have the right to ignore it and work at a bodega because all tech giants eventually agreed this is a good practice for them Positive liberty: corporations can't infringe on my right to a private life and must protect my liberty to be a free unconstrained being I don't know about you but I'd much prefer a world where everyone is guaranteed certain freedoms than one where big companies can use positive liberty arguments to exploit people in new and novel ways.
    • MereInterest 6y ago
      I've heard it phrased the other way around. Positive liberty is about things that are guaranteed (e.g. health care, food, human dignity). Negative liberty is about things that may not be done (e.g. no punishment for speech, no limitations on buying guns, no environmental regulations). We are in agreement about which type is better, so this is solely a quibble about the names.
      • ByteJockey 6y ago
        I think you're thinking positive vs negative rights (which are like what you're describing).
      • marricks 6y ago
        I just flipped them, reading the wiki on the terms I see I had them backwards. My partner always corrects me and I think they have them wrong :P at least we agree on which one is better too
  • bitL 6y ago
    How about: "Hey, this is your first day, now you need to take this final difficult test and if you fail we will fire you"?
  • wyclif 6y ago
    I have always been the type to have a natural aversion to signing anything. Except for my marriage license, I've always done it under duress. But you know what's even worse? When employers or vendors ask you to sign lengthy contracts, and express a range of emotion from concern to outrage when you insist on reading what you are signing up to!
• sneak 6y ago
  If you don't like the way Google does business, you are free to not do business with them, either as an employee or customer. I don't understand your snark.
  • MereInterest 6y ago
    If you don't know the way Google does business, because you don't know the terms of the contract, then you cannot make an informed choice. You are not free to choose unless you have information to guide that choice.
    • lopmotr 6y ago
      You know that you will have to sign a contract. And even if you don't, they're in an "at will" state so they can fire you whenever they want (eg. on your first day) without giving a reason. You know all that going in and can choose to work in a state or country with stronger labor laws if you don't like it.
      • pretendscholar 6y ago
        Just move to a different country bro
      • MereInterest 6y ago
        Holy cow, that's some monstrous reasoning. To paraphrase, you're saying that going in, before even seeing a contract, you should be prepared to agree to anything because it is your role to agree to anything. And then you go on to say that it is their own fault for not moving to a location that forbids it. The choices are not just "like it or leave it". Another is to recognize that the options being presented are unreasonable, and that the entire situation should be changed to make it impossible. I agree that the solution is stronger labor laws. I disagree vehemently that people should be forced to relocate as a condition of those stronger labor laws.
  • munk-a 6y ago
    This is helpful information - the next time I'm working on promoting my website I'll remember that it's entirely optional whether my business thrives or I go destitute due to refusing to be indexed by their search index. Your statement is accurate when a healthy market and competitors exist but you are not free to avoid doing business with Google since they have an insane amount of market control.
• throwaway667555 6y ago
  The person redlined a contract instead of spending +$2000/yr (out of a likely $250,000+ salary) on a second personal phone. Such short-sidedness is a bad trait in an employee. Second, their protest is laudable. But their decision was consciously: "the legal department of this $xxx billion company (that spends $xx million maintaining this employment contract template) will bend to my will, or I will {quit OR relent}". If they'd quit? Job well done. If they'd relent? Then why try? You're screaming into a void, and if you didn't recognize this prior to redlining, you have a bad trait for an employee. All scenarios point to a competent red-liner achieving their desired outcome -- an ethical win in whatever case. Only an incompetent/shortsighted/kneejerk/low-critical-thinking red-liner would achieve an undesired outcome, because they didn't consider the game before playing.
  • emteycz 6y ago
    Agreed, this is not a factory job for a few dollars here and there.
  • MereInterest 6y ago
    Honestly, that is the sort of solution I would expect the legal department to suggest as a counter-offer, with Google paying the difference. Having the legal department review contract changes is something I would expect to be standard for them, not a deal breaker. It is the reason for having the legal department there in the first place.
    • throwaway667555 6y ago
      Some details of an offer & acceptance of employment are trivial and not worth spoiling good will. Me: "Hey manager, can I make an expense report for this work phone?" No matter the response, I'm ok with it, because I make Google money, and that's policy. I should work towards becoming management if I want that to change. But I probably have better things to do than such a trivial disagreement. I wish corporations were less psychopathic, too, but this is not the hill I'd die on. Or, I'd be damn sure ready to die if I redlined as a "nice to meet you" first act.
• gowld 6y ago
  What would "negotiation allowed" mean? Negotiation includes saying "no". The remedy for that is labor law, not some right to negotiate. An interesting labor law challenge is "one side repeatedly making assertions that don't accord with contract, and I rely on those assertions, or the other side should be punished for making statements that suggest bad faith."
  • kelnos 6y ago
    It's not much of a "negotiation" when the power imbalance is such that the employer can say no to your every request, but if you say no to any of theirs, you're unemployed.
    • MereInterest 6y ago
      Not only unemployed, but potentially unemployed in a new city, and liable for returning the relocation package. There is zero leverage in such a position if a company alters the deal, and tells you to pray they don't alter it further. Thankfully that that didn't happen to me, but it was in the back of my mind that after moving, I wasn't in the greatest of positions if there were to be any objectionable clauses.
    • jbay808 6y ago
      It's especially not much of a negotiation if they fire you for daring to negotiate, rather than saying "no".
• geofft 6y ago
  Here's my question for everyone on this thread: what are you going to do about it? My rough guesses of what you could do: - unionize your shop / commit to working at unionized shops (addresses the power imbalance between individual employees and the employer by treating employees as a group) - use the power you have as an employee to drive change at your workplace, if you're one of those employees who is well-treated by your employer and doesn't need to unionize - advocate for stronger labor protections in law / vote for lawmakers who will create them - advocate for existing labor/contract protections to be interpreted the way you want (e.g. advocate or vote for judges who share that interpretation, donate to or create non-profits who can file amicus briefs or write law review articles advocating for this interpretation) If this is what's at the top of the HN discussions on a barely-related article, it's pretty clear to me that tech workers, a relatively powerful group, feel pretty strongly about this issue. So why don't we do something about it?
  • dleslie 6y ago
    As tech workers, likely making American wages, many of the folks here would be better served paying a congressperson and joining a PAC than they would be by paying union dues.
    • sudosysgen 6y ago
      Don't kid yourself. Your employer will always be better connected and more influential politically than you, unless you organize. You'll be fired for donating to that PAC if it's actually becoming controversial and effective. Fortunately, unions have the same status in campaign contribution laws as PACs, so your best bet to do some lobbying as a worker is to join a union and use it as a PAC.
      • dleslie 6y ago
        I watched my parents suffer throughout their careers because their Unions were politically toxic and also deigned it necessary to keep their wages below market in order to apply pressure on the employer to raise the wages of others in the bargaining unit. As though a lineman and a telecontrol technologist are similarly skilled and trained. My father spent the better part of a decade trying to hire his replacement because the union wage was so attrociously below market for his labour. And then the politics, favouritism, bullying and abuse that occurs under a union; because the shop steward et al formed a social clique to get themselves and their buddies the best hours and best positions. My two siblings went to work in unions and now regail me with similar tales. No, I'm happy working for small and independent game studios and negotiating for myself, thanks. I happily donate the money to political organizations that would otherwsie be used to pay union dues.
• balena 6y ago
  From the standpoint of a European, this would have been totally fine some 200 years ago
• foogazi 6y ago
  Negotiation doesn’t mean that you get your way and they agree to your demands Sounds like both parties had a hard line on what they would accept
  • framecowbird 6y ago
    I think the takeaway is that the hard line for Google is being able to rootkit your phone
    • machinelabo 6y ago
      Then don't give your phone to Google. Don't use personal phone for work. Ask them for a phone if they want you to use it. Why is this difficult? Why complain about something that is 100% in your control? Employer that has thousands of employees don't have the time to amend contracts on per employee basis. Seems fair to me. Google has HIPA-level access for personal data, even some medical data about people, security is tight. They don't want some righteous asshat arguing about contract agreements.
      • est31 6y ago
        IDK the legal details of the contract, but Google has root level access to all Android phones with gapps installed. It's definitely possible for them to figure out which phone you use privately and rootkit it.
        • machinelabo 6y ago
          This is an extremely broad claim, do you have anything to back that up with? Saying that Google would snoop your personal phone (which doesn't have your Google work account) as a Google employee needs some hard facts to back that up. Since you don't know the legal details of the contract, how about we stop speculating conspiracy theories? Please keep the discussion factual and reasonable.
          • est31 6y ago
• austhrow743 6y ago
  People absolutely negotiate successfully with Google. New hires fresh out of uni do. Tens of thousands of more dollars. It just seems that invading their employees privacy is table stakes for them.
  • howlgarnish 6y ago
    You can (and should) negotiate salary, they expect that and have the authority to bump up your pay. However, trying to negotiate the legal terms of a contract with a FAANG is highly unlikely to succeed, since HR is not authorized to change anything and Legal doesn't give a shit about you.
• vidarh 6y ago
  Moving to the UK from Norway was a shock to me in the sheer length of employment contracts. Prior to that most of my contracts had been a single page: Norwegian law regulates default terms so strictly that long contracts are rarely needed. In fact, they are hard to make enforceable, because any additional concession to the employer needs to be justified, usually by extra consideration. But many rights are inalienable. It's a recognition that few employer-employee relationship approaches a negotiation between equals.