4 ms·
This is great advice. I'd say do exactly this, PLUS, accept it in the end, regardless, because non-competes are invalid in CA. (provided it's a CA job).
by loxias 6y ago
This is great advice. I'd say do exactly this, PLUS, accept it in the end, regardless, because non-competes are invalid in CA. (provided it's a CA job).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- motohagiography 6y agoThanks! I want to refine one statement in it that could trigger friction. I'd prefer to say, "hey, this boilerplate language is a bit broad and creates some risk, I think we can mitigate/reduce it by refining the language with these options." It's important to use language that treats the contract as something separate you are both collaborating together to find solutions in to make the best quality agreement. It's not a zero sum personal haggle. I am not a fan of NVC/NLP and other types of affected behaviour, but those approaches are examples of how language is everything, and you can have a huge impact by starting with the mental exercise that the contract is an interesting problem that you are excited to collaborate to discover solutions in. The other mental exercise question to start with is, what does a high quality agreement look like? Again, if you are in a spot, just take the money, but if you have any choice or leverage at all, the returns on high quality decisions and agreements are huge.