7 ms·

You'd think they'd offer the guy a job still, but without the contract changes, instead of immediately pulling out. It sounds like he was firm, but given a chan

You'd think they'd offer the guy a job still, but without the contract changes, instead of immediately pulling out. It sounds like he was firm, but given a chance to take the job without said changes, he may still have accepted. Geez. It is unreasonable and in bad faith to completely like a candidate and then reject them for merely asking for a contract change.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago
It sounds like he didn't just ask for a contract change: He simply crossed it out and expected them to take it. I'm honestly surprised people do that. I always go with the assumption that a job offer comes with the implication that you agree to the legal stuff as you are signing it: If you don't, you have refused the job. If you don't agree to something that has been updated, you have quit. The only thing that might actually protects you in the last scenario is something like a job contract, but a lot of places in the states simply don't have them for everyone.
- silverpepsi 6y ago
  Haven't you ever thought it odd that the document is entirely authored on one end and hence entirely nothing but a list of terms advantageous to one party? From this perspective, a single deletion is a pathic barely countable concession at best. Imagine B2B contracts were written this way...whatever company has the bigger ego authors every last word and walks away the moment a detail is questioned. You could only afford negotiation tactics at that abuse level if you literally have customers begging it the alter of death to buy your product at a willingness to surrender all in order to make it happen. Plus they would sign but still hate you can hope to end the relationship with 0 loyalty the moment an alternative appeared on the market.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    This is essentially the same outcome. They start relationships with everyone poorly and they pay the price. There is a reason stuff like the danmore debacle can even happen. They're a huge echo chamber.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    > entirely nothing but a list of terms advantageous to one party The obvious counterpoint is that usually a job offer involves getting paid.
    - modo_mario 6y ago
      Which is why people take the job but which doesn't relate much to a large part of the negotiation being rigged in favour of one party. You could say the same about when the Silicon Valley salary cartel was uncovered. "yeah it's anticompetitive and negatively impacts workers but,....but these companies offer you food at work and comfortable workplace and all that."
    - clairity 6y ago
      the company gets value often many times the employee's compensation, so it's a value exchange. it's entirely valid to negotiate the terms of that exchange. what's not valid is tolerating, even encouraging, the highly asymmetric negotiating positions between corporation and individual.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  They assumed his assumption. Waltzing in and saying "Hey, I made this change", discussing it, and saying "okay, it seems we are aligned" is all part of the negotiation dance. G would have every right to ponder his suggestion for a few days, then respond to it. We don't reject candidates for asking for more compensation; this should've been treated the same way. G could've said, "Sorry, we don't wish to change that contract term. What else can we do?" but, per the story, they pulled the plug entirely.
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    Asking or negotiating is different: Crossing something out and handing it back isn't the same.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
      Asking is part of the activity that is negotiating. You might verbally asking for the change, and then specifically outline the additions and removals with a pen on the contract itself.
    - dannyw 6y ago
      I think you’re unaware with the way contract negotiations are done, because crossing it out and handing it back is exactly how the business world negotiated contracts. For small changes it’s more polite than wasting time with preambles and introductory emails.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ardy42 6y ago
  > It sounds like he didn't just ask for a contract change: He simply crossed it out and expected them to take it. I believe that's how one typically asks for contract changes. https://blog.pandadoc.com/what-is-contract-redlining-and-contract-drafting/ https://blog.pandadoc.com/what-is-contract-redlining-and-con...: > The term “redlining” commonly refers to the editing and negotiation process during document and business contract management where contributors mark text and track changes collaboratively. As part of the redlining process, one party receives the document and makes additions or annotations, and the redlined text will appear in a special color so the other party (or parties) can easily track changes without needing to spend time searching for modifications.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    That is exactly how it works. I've changed every contract I've ever signed like this. Usually those bullshit lines about employer owning all code I write, even on the weekend type stuff. I've only had to walk from one job over it. Bullet dodged.
    - eikenberry 6y ago
      I've done this as well, though I only needed to once. They didn't even look at the contract I turned in. Just slapped it in a file and went on with things. Never came up again.
      - biggc 6y ago
        Don't both parties need to agree to (e.g initial) the redlined sections?
        ardy42 6y ago
        If you make the changes and they sign (or maybe even just signal acceptance), then I think they accepted them.
Barrin92 6y ago
letting go of a prospective employee for trying to protect his or her privacy and apparently being able to read their contract carefully and think through it tells you all you need to know about what Google stands for today. Never let SV compensation packages or relaxed workplace culture distract you from the fact that the interests of the owners and workers at those companies don't have the same interests.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago

It sounds like he didn't just ask for a contract change: He simply crossed it out and expected them to take it. I'm honestly surprised people do that. I always go with the assumption that a job offer comes with the implication that you agree to the legal stuff as you are signing it: If you don't, you have refused the job. If you don't agree to something that has been updated, you have quit. The only thing that might actually protects you in the last scenario is something like a job contract, but a lot of places in the states simply don't have them for everyone.

silverpepsi 6y ago
Haven't you ever thought it odd that the document is entirely authored on one end and hence entirely nothing but a list of terms advantageous to one party? From this perspective, a single deletion is a pathic barely countable concession at best. Imagine B2B contracts were written this way...whatever company has the bigger ego authors every last word and walks away the moment a detail is questioned. You could only afford negotiation tactics at that abuse level if you literally have customers begging it the alter of death to buy your product at a willingness to surrender all in order to make it happen. Plus they would sign but still hate you can hope to end the relationship with 0 loyalty the moment an alternative appeared on the market.
- waheoo 6y ago
  This is essentially the same outcome. They start relationships with everyone poorly and they pay the price. There is a reason stuff like the danmore debacle can even happen. They're a huge echo chamber.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  > entirely nothing but a list of terms advantageous to one party The obvious counterpoint is that usually a job offer involves getting paid.
  - modo_mario 6y ago
    Which is why people take the job but which doesn't relate much to a large part of the negotiation being rigged in favour of one party. You could say the same about when the Silicon Valley salary cartel was uncovered. "yeah it's anticompetitive and negatively impacts workers but,....but these companies offer you food at work and comfortable workplace and all that."
  - clairity 6y ago
    the company gets value often many times the employee's compensation, so it's a value exchange. it's entirely valid to negotiate the terms of that exchange. what's not valid is tolerating, even encouraging, the highly asymmetric negotiating positions between corporation and individual.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
They assumed his assumption. Waltzing in and saying "Hey, I made this change", discussing it, and saying "okay, it seems we are aligned" is all part of the negotiation dance. G would have every right to ponder his suggestion for a few days, then respond to it. We don't reject candidates for asking for more compensation; this should've been treated the same way. G could've said, "Sorry, we don't wish to change that contract term. What else can we do?" but, per the story, they pulled the plug entirely.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  Asking or negotiating is different: Crossing something out and handing it back isn't the same.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
    Asking is part of the activity that is negotiating. You might verbally asking for the change, and then specifically outline the additions and removals with a pen on the contract itself.
  - dannyw 6y ago
    I think you’re unaware with the way contract negotiations are done, because crossing it out and handing it back is exactly how the business world negotiated contracts. For small changes it’s more polite than wasting time with preambles and introductory emails.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ardy42 6y ago
> It sounds like he didn't just ask for a contract change: He simply crossed it out and expected them to take it. I believe that's how one typically asks for contract changes. https://blog.pandadoc.com/what-is-contract-redlining-and-contract-drafting/ https://blog.pandadoc.com/what-is-contract-redlining-and-con...: > The term “redlining” commonly refers to the editing and negotiation process during document and business contract management where contributors mark text and track changes collaboratively. As part of the redlining process, one party receives the document and makes additions or annotations, and the redlined text will appear in a special color so the other party (or parties) can easily track changes without needing to spend time searching for modifications.
- waheoo 6y ago
  That is exactly how it works. I've changed every contract I've ever signed like this. Usually those bullshit lines about employer owning all code I write, even on the weekend type stuff. I've only had to walk from one job over it. Bullet dodged.
  - eikenberry 6y ago
    I've done this as well, though I only needed to once. They didn't even look at the contract I turned in. Just slapped it in a file and went on with things. Never came up again.
    - biggc 6y ago
      Don't both parties need to agree to (e.g initial) the redlined sections?
      - ardy42 6y ago
        If you make the changes and they sign (or maybe even just signal acceptance), then I think they accepted them.

Barrin92 6y ago

letting go of a prospective employee for trying to protect his or her privacy and apparently being able to read their contract carefully and think through it tells you all you need to know about what Google stands for today. Never let SV compensation packages or relaxed workplace culture distract you from the fact that the interests of the owners and workers at those companies don't have the same interests.