7 ms·

"You are an IBM employee 100% of the time" -- so this employee definitely gets paid for 100% of their time, right?

ceejayoz 5y ago
My job doesn't fire me at 5pm every day and hire me back at 9am. I'm an employee of the company in my off hours, even if I'm not working.
- monsieurbanana 5y ago
  And does your job prevent you from doing open source work in your free time? If not, then I don't see how it's relevant.
  - bonoboTP 5y ago
    Often yes!! Check your contracts people or ask a lawyer. You'll be surprised.
    - monsieurbanana 5y ago
      > Often yes Then it should say so in the comment. Preferably adding their thoughts about it, whether it's enforced in their company, etc. Debating whether you're technically an employee 100% of your time is both true and needlessly pedantic.
      - bonoboTP 5y ago
        It's a rhetorical argumentation technique. They make it seem like it's inevitable and follows naturally from the obvious fact that you are an employee 100% of the time, so they don't even need to spell out the specific point in the contract, implying that it's not just a technicality in the contract but something fundamental. Which is of course not true, as in many countries you can't have such valid terms.
        monsieurbanana 5y ago
        I think you might be giving much credit to random internet commenters. They probably just like to say "technically speaking".
        bonoboTP 5y ago
        I'm not talking about random commenters. I mean the manager who wrote "... you are an IBM employee 100% of the time ..." .
    - rubyfan 5y ago
      There is some bullshit that goes on here though. Many companies do not have a contract that you sign and consent to, they just try to back door it as fungible company policy - like the way social media companies get you to agree to new privacy policy and terms by your continued use. Many companies put these IP and non-competition clauses into bonus award agreements. By accepting a bonus you agree to a bunch of terms and that’s where consideration comes in and makes it a real contract and legal. I have less of a problem with this arrangement than the back door approach.
- mbirth 5y ago
  But if you bake a cake in your off-time, do you tell people it's from you or from your company?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    This particular repo is maintained by IBM, though. If I work for a bakery, bake a cake at home, and come put it in the display cooler at work, they might have issues with that.
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      I dunno, does your bakery need that cake? Are your tools at home equal or better than the ones in your office? There’s more to that than the simple example you give.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > There’s more to that than the simple example you give. It's likely "You are an IBM employee 100% of the time" has a similarly complex backstory. > I dunno, does your bakery need that cake? Are your tools at home equal or better than the ones in your office? Ultimately, if the bakery explicitly says "stop putting your personal shit in the work display", you obey or be fired. Even if it's a better cake, or your at-home tools are better.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    How would this play out if you were a baker?
    - varjag 5y ago
      It would work fine, bakers are allowed to cook at home.
      - johannes1234321 5y ago
        What about the baker baking at home and then selling his cake? Selling it to potential/ex customers of the bakery?
- varjag 5y ago
  If you make a baby in the off hours, it is yours or your employer's?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    If my day job is making babies for my employer, that answer probably gets complicated.
sheeshkebab 5y ago
A bunch of these tech companies have ip clauses in employment agreements about employees transferring all ip they create to the company, including off hours. It’s probably what they are referring to. I’m not sure why people sign these things though...
- ithkuil 5y ago
  Probably because everybody else signs them, or they assume they do
- MattIPv4 5y ago
  Yeah, I imagine there is something contractual at play, or at least more to the situation than is being reported, but this wording just really irks me.
- ystad 5y ago
  Google has a similar clause too. They own all IP including your personal projects. https://www.businessinsider.com/former-googlers-google-ip-open-source-policy-iarc-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/former-googlers-google-ip-op...
  - dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
    I understand it's legal but I was always wondering how this could be morally acceptable and why developers don't lobby against this. I understand the view of the employer: if you work on a project A at work, and on a n open-source project B that is direct competition to project A, you might be acting against the interests of the company. So to save everybody's time, they claim the right to everything and it's done. However, this is hurting you as developer when you work on unrelated projects. Your work for the community is impeded (e.g. in the case of Google you need to go through a lot of bureaucracy) or completely impossible. In theory you can write some code for yourself, but what motivation do you have, knowing that your employer will be its owner anyway? You will have less motivation to explore new areas of interest for the same reason. It's terrible for personal development.
    - 5y ago
exabrial 5y ago
If you're a salaried employee, probably yes. (for better or worse)
onion2k 5y ago
Yes. Very few developers are paid by the hour. Your contract defines what hours you're expected to be available, but your pay isn't related to that. If you work more hours, or less hours, you pay doesn't change (assuming you're not paid overtime.) Whether or not your employer owns what you do in your hours outside of what you're contracted to work is a matter of what you negotiated when you joined. That often comes as a surprise to less experienced developers.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > That often comes as a surprise to less experienced developers. Because it is utterly unreasonable.
teruakohatu 5y ago
If you are a salaried worker at IBM and choose to work on an IBM driver in the IBM kernel driver directory in your spare time isn't that fair? In other words, if you optionally choose to do work after hours for no extra pay then it's still considered work and the company is probably still liable for it. On the other hand if he chose to write and publish music in his spare time, or a video game, he should he able to use his personal email address, or I would hope IBM would give him permission to do so.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  > If you are a salaried worker at IBM and choose to work on an IBM driver in the IBM kernel driver directory in your spare time isn't that fair? In that case, everyone would agree that the work was done in their capacity as an employee. The employee isn't going to dispute that, or they'd essentially be admitting to unauthorized use of IBM systems.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    What IBM systems?
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      Perhaps I misinterpreted in the IBM kernel driver directory. I'm imagining a developer remotely accessing their IBM workstation. The developer could contribute to a Free and Open Source IBM driver on their own time, and reasonably insist that IBM do not get to claim ownership, the same way anyone else can. Whether that's a sensible choice of personal programming project, is another matter. It's unhelpful to muddy the waters.
- anoncake 5y ago
  No? If it's done in your spare time, it isn't work. Even if it happens to be something you legitimately could have done during work hours.
  - 5y ago
globular-toast 5y ago
Yep. Your hourly rate might be much lower than you think it is.
chrisseaton 5y ago
Yes that's a 'salary'. Not everyone gets paid by the hour.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
In this case, it appears the employee was being paid to work on this part of the kernel driver by IBM. The sticking point is that he wanted to use his personal e-mail address for the work but IBM wanted him to retain the attributions to his professional and paid association with IBM.
irl_ 5y ago
This is a common theme. Your employer writes your contract of employment and has fancy lawyers to make sure everything works in favour of the employer. You likely did not have input into the contract at all, and also likely did not have fancy lawyers to help you understand the terms of the contract. Your employer has made up the rules of the game and you do not understand them. I predict you're going to lose.
- woofie11 5y ago
  I've had a lawyer review my employment contract before. I've had it modified. It's totally worth it if you're getting paid a good SWE or higher salary. You can run the numbers on odds of litigation and on expected costs/benefits. Once you do it once or twice, you start being able to understand the legal code a little bit better. And yes, it is a code. Employment contracts are overly broad, and then limited by statutory law. At one point, I had an OC tell me I was reading something wrong. I make it a policy never to take advice from an OC, so I called up my employment lawyer. For once, OC was right. That almost never happens. The layman's read made the contract totally untenable, but what it meant was perfectly reasonable. This was years ago, but I think it was some overly-broad we-own-your-life clause (non-compete or out-of-work-time or similar, probably). Statutory law made such clauses of limited power in my state, and it didn't block what I wanted to do.
  - xtracto 5y ago
    The last company i worked for wanted to charge employees for laptops in case of accidental damage or loss (appart from a clause charging for negligent damage or loss). I decided not to sign unless they removed the accidental part. In the end they removed it. People dont realise but they have more power than they think. Specially in smaller companies. Companies wait until the end of the interview to reveal all those nasty bits. But at that exact time, it's when they know they need you and they wa y you. Ask for your a copy of your contract before you decide. And feel free to comment on it. It is the only moment when you as an individual have the upper hand.
    - grep_name 5y ago

My job doesn't fire me at 5pm every day and hire me back at 9am. I'm an employee of the company in my off hours, even if I'm not working.

monsieurbanana 5y ago
And does your job prevent you from doing open source work in your free time? If not, then I don't see how it's relevant.
- bonoboTP 5y ago
  Often yes!! Check your contracts people or ask a lawyer. You'll be surprised.
  - monsieurbanana 5y ago
    > Often yes Then it should say so in the comment. Preferably adding their thoughts about it, whether it's enforced in their company, etc. Debating whether you're technically an employee 100% of your time is both true and needlessly pedantic.
    - bonoboTP 5y ago
      It's a rhetorical argumentation technique. They make it seem like it's inevitable and follows naturally from the obvious fact that you are an employee 100% of the time, so they don't even need to spell out the specific point in the contract, implying that it's not just a technicality in the contract but something fundamental. Which is of course not true, as in many countries you can't have such valid terms.
      - monsieurbanana 5y ago
        I think you might be giving much credit to random internet commenters. They probably just like to say "technically speaking".
        bonoboTP 5y ago
        I'm not talking about random commenters. I mean the manager who wrote "... you are an IBM employee 100% of the time ..." .
  - rubyfan 5y ago
    There is some bullshit that goes on here though. Many companies do not have a contract that you sign and consent to, they just try to back door it as fungible company policy - like the way social media companies get you to agree to new privacy policy and terms by your continued use. Many companies put these IP and non-competition clauses into bonus award agreements. By accepting a bonus you agree to a bunch of terms and that’s where consideration comes in and makes it a real contract and legal. I have less of a problem with this arrangement than the back door approach.
mbirth 5y ago
But if you bake a cake in your off-time, do you tell people it's from you or from your company?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  This particular repo is maintained by IBM, though. If I work for a bakery, bake a cake at home, and come put it in the display cooler at work, they might have issues with that.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    I dunno, does your bakery need that cake? Are your tools at home equal or better than the ones in your office? There’s more to that than the simple example you give.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > There’s more to that than the simple example you give. It's likely "You are an IBM employee 100% of the time" has a similarly complex backstory. > I dunno, does your bakery need that cake? Are your tools at home equal or better than the ones in your office? Ultimately, if the bakery explicitly says "stop putting your personal shit in the work display", you obey or be fired. Even if it's a better cake, or your at-home tools are better.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  How would this play out if you were a baker?
  - varjag 5y ago
    It would work fine, bakers are allowed to cook at home.
    - johannes1234321 5y ago
      What about the baker baking at home and then selling his cake? Selling it to potential/ex customers of the bakery?
varjag 5y ago
If you make a baby in the off hours, it is yours or your employer's?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  If my day job is making babies for my employer, that answer probably gets complicated.

sheeshkebab 5y ago

A bunch of these tech companies have ip clauses in employment agreements about employees transferring all ip they create to the company, including off hours. It’s probably what they are referring to. I’m not sure why people sign these things though...

ithkuil 5y ago
Probably because everybody else signs them, or they assume they do
MattIPv4 5y ago
Yeah, I imagine there is something contractual at play, or at least more to the situation than is being reported, but this wording just really irks me.
ystad 5y ago
Google has a similar clause too. They own all IP including your personal projects. https://www.businessinsider.com/former-googlers-google-ip-open-source-policy-iarc-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/former-googlers-google-ip-op...
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
  I understand it's legal but I was always wondering how this could be morally acceptable and why developers don't lobby against this. I understand the view of the employer: if you work on a project A at work, and on a n open-source project B that is direct competition to project A, you might be acting against the interests of the company. So to save everybody's time, they claim the right to everything and it's done. However, this is hurting you as developer when you work on unrelated projects. Your work for the community is impeded (e.g. in the case of Google you need to go through a lot of bureaucracy) or completely impossible. In theory you can write some code for yourself, but what motivation do you have, knowing that your employer will be its owner anyway? You will have less motivation to explore new areas of interest for the same reason. It's terrible for personal development.
  - 5y ago

exabrial 5y ago

If you're a salaried employee, probably yes. (for better or worse)

onion2k 5y ago

Yes. Very few developers are paid by the hour. Your contract defines what hours you're expected to be available, but your pay isn't related to that. If you work more hours, or less hours, you pay doesn't change (assuming you're not paid overtime.) Whether or not your employer owns what you do in your hours outside of what you're contracted to work is a matter of what you negotiated when you joined. That often comes as a surprise to less experienced developers.

Aeolun 5y ago
> That often comes as a surprise to less experienced developers. Because it is utterly unreasonable.

teruakohatu 5y ago

If you are a salaried worker at IBM and choose to work on an IBM driver in the IBM kernel driver directory in your spare time isn't that fair? In other words, if you optionally choose to do work after hours for no extra pay then it's still considered work and the company is probably still liable for it. On the other hand if he chose to write and publish music in his spare time, or a video game, he should he able to use his personal email address, or I would hope IBM would give him permission to do so.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> If you are a salaried worker at IBM and choose to work on an IBM driver in the IBM kernel driver directory in your spare time isn't that fair? In that case, everyone would agree that the work was done in their capacity as an employee. The employee isn't going to dispute that, or they'd essentially be admitting to unauthorized use of IBM systems.
- anoncake 5y ago
  What IBM systems?
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    Perhaps I misinterpreted in the IBM kernel driver directory. I'm imagining a developer remotely accessing their IBM workstation. The developer could contribute to a Free and Open Source IBM driver on their own time, and reasonably insist that IBM do not get to claim ownership, the same way anyone else can. Whether that's a sensible choice of personal programming project, is another matter. It's unhelpful to muddy the waters.
anoncake 5y ago
No? If it's done in your spare time, it isn't work. Even if it happens to be something you legitimately could have done during work hours.
- 5y ago

globular-toast 5y ago

Yep. Your hourly rate might be much lower than you think it is.

chrisseaton 5y ago

Yes that's a 'salary'. Not everyone gets paid by the hour.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

In this case, it appears the employee was being paid to work on this part of the kernel driver by IBM. The sticking point is that he wanted to use his personal e-mail address for the work but IBM wanted him to retain the attributions to his professional and paid association with IBM.

irl_ 5y ago

This is a common theme. Your employer writes your contract of employment and has fancy lawyers to make sure everything works in favour of the employer. You likely did not have input into the contract at all, and also likely did not have fancy lawyers to help you understand the terms of the contract. Your employer has made up the rules of the game and you do not understand them. I predict you're going to lose.

woofie11 5y ago
I've had a lawyer review my employment contract before. I've had it modified. It's totally worth it if you're getting paid a good SWE or higher salary. You can run the numbers on odds of litigation and on expected costs/benefits. Once you do it once or twice, you start being able to understand the legal code a little bit better. And yes, it is a code. Employment contracts are overly broad, and then limited by statutory law. At one point, I had an OC tell me I was reading something wrong. I make it a policy never to take advice from an OC, so I called up my employment lawyer. For once, OC was right. That almost never happens. The layman's read made the contract totally untenable, but what it meant was perfectly reasonable. This was years ago, but I think it was some overly-broad we-own-your-life clause (non-compete or out-of-work-time or similar, probably). Statutory law made such clauses of limited power in my state, and it didn't block what I wanted to do.
- xtracto 5y ago
  The last company i worked for wanted to charge employees for laptops in case of accidental damage or loss (appart from a clause charging for negligent damage or loss). I decided not to sign unless they removed the accidental part. In the end they removed it. People dont realise but they have more power than they think. Specially in smaller companies. Companies wait until the end of the interview to reveal all those nasty bits. But at that exact time, it's when they know they need you and they wa y you. Ask for your a copy of your contract before you decide. And feel free to comment on it. It is the only moment when you as an individual have the upper hand.
  - grep_name 5y ago