6 ms·
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
by 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 agoThis 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 agoWhich 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 agothe 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.