5 ms·

Does this mean employee agreements are up for renegotiating? Salary / compensation for work is the key element to an employee agreement. If employers can change

Does this mean employee agreements are up for renegotiating? Salary / compensation for work is the key element to an employee agreement. If employers can change compensation at will without employee consent then the employee agreement is truly meaningless and simply a tool for the employer to wield against the employee. I'd imagine a few employee lawsuits on breach of contract that will test that.

rattlesnakedave 5y ago
I'd say the logic is "We entered this agreement with the understanding that you would be in the office x% of the time. We would like you to return to the office at that original capacity. If you would not like to do so, we need to renegotiate our agreement." Not that I agree with any of this, nor am I sure that any of this is even written, but that's probably what it is. All of these gigs being at will employment certainly doesn't help the employee here.
- rexreed 5y ago
  "With the understanding that" is not a legal framework. Anything that's key to the understanding of a contract needs to be in a contract. Implicit "I always thought that" doesn't hold water. If I entered into an employee contract with the understanding that I would be given responsibility of a team or project, even though such an understanding was not in the contract, and then the management decides to take away that responsibility, can I say that they are in breach because it was "my understanding" that I would be given responsibility? It would be just as much of an "understanding" as saying that there was an implicit agreement about location of work when that's not in the contract either.
  - jffry 5y ago
    Ah. "Employment Contracts" are not really a thing in most of the US, at least not like they are in Europe. Yes, employers will have you sign an official looking employment agreement, which basically serves as documentation that they're currently compensating you at X rate, and that you agree to be bound by specific employer rules (like employee handbooks / policies / etc). Those are not legally binding contracts. At-will workers can leave at any time and can be fired at any time for any reason or no reason, aside from for specific things protected by law (like organizing a union drive, or reporting sexual harassment)
    - rexreed 5y ago
      As non-legally binding contracts, can employers force employees to sign them? If they can, then would they have force of law? If not, then how can employers enforce non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disparagement, and non-disclosure clauses?
      - jffry 5y ago
        I believe the legal theory is that your employment and pay are compensation for agreeing to those terms, in terms of making it legally binding (offer, acceptance, and compensation) It's crummy and it's my opinion that non-competes should either be illegal everywhere or require employers to continue paying your salary during that period. But the laws as they stand broadly favor employers in this matter, and the reality of a large well-resourced corporation with a stable of lawyers makes it difficult for employees to fight even in situations where they are in the right.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Many/most contracts--to the degree they're even contracts in this case--embody common understandings. In the case of employment agreements, they usually assume that, absent agreements to the contrary, you're usually coming into some particular office 5 days per week, between the hours of whatever, unless you're traveling.
  - rexreed 5y ago
    Sounds like the common understanding about location of work is about to change / already changed and is no longer a common understanding. The benefits of getting stuff in writing.
diogofranco 5y ago
Location is in the contract, you sign a new offer in order to move
- andrew_ 5y ago
  Unless it isn't, as is the case with every offer I've signed since 2009 when I went full time remote.
  - diogofranco 5y ago
    I meant for Google, where it is. Working from home or the office doesn't really affect compensation, location is the variable.
- rexreed 5y ago
  If Location is in the contract, and location should be considered an aspect of compensation, then its value should be int he contract and location itself should be an element of compensation. Base pay: $X Location pay: $Y Benefits: $ Options: $ This way you can see what the company is valuing you as an employee and valuing the location as compensation.
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
    Well, the base pay would be 0 since if you want to work from Iran, Google can not employ you.
minikites 5y ago
>If employers can change compensation at will without employee consent then the employee agreement is truly meaningless and simply a tool for the employer to wield against the employee. Welcome to the last 40+ years of corporate economics. The only power that employees can have against employers is through collective action. It's unfortunate that most people in tech see themselves as too good for labor unions.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Yes, in the sense that you can leave the company. You can always try to negotiate your salary. Google will just say "no" unless you've got enormous weight behind you, which is nearly impossible for most engineers without collective action.
jffry 5y ago
Barring specific states or specific circumstances (e.g. negotiated terms with a union), yes that is the way it works in most of the US. Your employer cannot retroactively change your compensation for work already performed, but they can, at any time, tell you that your compensation is changing and all future work will be paid at a new (usually lower) rate. Depending on jurisdiction, if you were to quit in the face of a significant enough pay cut, you might still qualify for unemployment. It's very fact dependent, your former employer will likely contest it (requiring an appeal on your part), and you should talk to an employment lawyer.
- rexreed 5y ago
  If employers have the right to make arbitrary compensation changes for future work, they they should lose any rights to enforce non-competition clauses in employee agreements. Non-competition introduces asymmetric decision-making since the employee cannot arbitrarily decide to leave for a matter as straightforward as a compensation change because they will no longer be able to work in their desired industry or market or job role.
  - jffry 5y ago
    Some states, like California, do place stricter limits or outright on non-competes, and it's gaining steam in other places. Worker's rights in the US are generally terrible so it's a giant patchwork of varying quality.
  - astura 5y ago
    The legality of a non-compete agreement depends entirely on local and state laws and the exact language in the non-compete.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> If employers can change compensation at will without employee consent then the employee agreement is truly meaningless and simply a tool for the employer to wield against the employee. The employee agreement states a place of work. If they employee stops attending the workplace as defined by the company and without the employer’s agreement, they aren’t entitled to continue receiving the same benefits. All employment terms are always up for re-negotiation, but the company doesn’t have to accept the proposed terms nor do they have to continue paying the employee when they fail to deliver on the agreed terms. > I'd imagine a few employee lawsuits on breach of contract that will test that. No, employees can’t expect to win lawsuits against their employer when the employee breaks the agreement that they willingly entered into.
astura 5y ago
>Does this mean employee agreements are up for renegotiating? Yes, absolutely, 100%, every single job offer I ever laid eyes on has this sort of language: "You agree you are an employee at will" "Nothing about this offer should be constitute a guarantee of future employment" "Either you or {company} may terminate this agreement at any time for any reason or no reason at all" And even once "this job offer is not an employment contract." Stuff like that. You only avoid it if you have a union that negotiated an actual contract for you. Google has decided to end that original agreement and offer you a different one. You can take it or leave it. >I'd imagine a few employee lawsuits on breach of contract that will test that. Lol, no, its extremely common for employers to change compensation or benefits unilaterally without notice, at the very least it usually happens every couple years when insurance rates are renegotiated and new benefits packages are put together. I once worked somewhere where on a random Friday an email went out saying "we will no longer have any 401k match." Bam, I just lost thousands of dollars in compensation with no warning or fanfare. A few weeks later it was another email - "here's the new PTO accrual." A week vacation taken away from me, just like that.

rattlesnakedave 5y ago

I'd say the logic is "We entered this agreement with the understanding that you would be in the office x% of the time. We would like you to return to the office at that original capacity. If you would not like to do so, we need to renegotiate our agreement." Not that I agree with any of this, nor am I sure that any of this is even written, but that's probably what it is. All of these gigs being at will employment certainly doesn't help the employee here.

rexreed 5y ago
"With the understanding that" is not a legal framework. Anything that's key to the understanding of a contract needs to be in a contract. Implicit "I always thought that" doesn't hold water. If I entered into an employee contract with the understanding that I would be given responsibility of a team or project, even though such an understanding was not in the contract, and then the management decides to take away that responsibility, can I say that they are in breach because it was "my understanding" that I would be given responsibility? It would be just as much of an "understanding" as saying that there was an implicit agreement about location of work when that's not in the contract either.
- jffry 5y ago
  Ah. "Employment Contracts" are not really a thing in most of the US, at least not like they are in Europe. Yes, employers will have you sign an official looking employment agreement, which basically serves as documentation that they're currently compensating you at X rate, and that you agree to be bound by specific employer rules (like employee handbooks / policies / etc). Those are not legally binding contracts. At-will workers can leave at any time and can be fired at any time for any reason or no reason, aside from for specific things protected by law (like organizing a union drive, or reporting sexual harassment)
  - rexreed 5y ago
    As non-legally binding contracts, can employers force employees to sign them? If they can, then would they have force of law? If not, then how can employers enforce non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disparagement, and non-disclosure clauses?
    - jffry 5y ago
      I believe the legal theory is that your employment and pay are compensation for agreeing to those terms, in terms of making it legally binding (offer, acceptance, and compensation) It's crummy and it's my opinion that non-competes should either be illegal everywhere or require employers to continue paying your salary during that period. But the laws as they stand broadly favor employers in this matter, and the reality of a large well-resourced corporation with a stable of lawyers makes it difficult for employees to fight even in situations where they are in the right.
ghaff 5y ago
Many/most contracts--to the degree they're even contracts in this case--embody common understandings. In the case of employment agreements, they usually assume that, absent agreements to the contrary, you're usually coming into some particular office 5 days per week, between the hours of whatever, unless you're traveling.
- rexreed 5y ago
  Sounds like the common understanding about location of work is about to change / already changed and is no longer a common understanding. The benefits of getting stuff in writing.

diogofranco 5y ago

Location is in the contract, you sign a new offer in order to move

andrew_ 5y ago
Unless it isn't, as is the case with every offer I've signed since 2009 when I went full time remote.
- diogofranco 5y ago
  I meant for Google, where it is. Working from home or the office doesn't really affect compensation, location is the variable.
rexreed 5y ago
If Location is in the contract, and location should be considered an aspect of compensation, then its value should be int he contract and location itself should be an element of compensation. Base pay: $X Location pay: $Y Benefits: $ Options: $ This way you can see what the company is valuing you as an employee and valuing the location as compensation.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
  Well, the base pay would be 0 since if you want to work from Iran, Google can not employ you.

minikites 5y ago

>If employers can change compensation at will without employee consent then the employee agreement is truly meaningless and simply a tool for the employer to wield against the employee. Welcome to the last 40+ years of corporate economics. The only power that employees can have against employers is through collective action. It's unfortunate that most people in tech see themselves as too good for labor unions.

UncleMeat 5y ago

Yes, in the sense that you can leave the company. You can always try to negotiate your salary. Google will just say "no" unless you've got enormous weight behind you, which is nearly impossible for most engineers without collective action.

jffry 5y ago

Barring specific states or specific circumstances (e.g. negotiated terms with a union), yes that is the way it works in most of the US. Your employer cannot retroactively change your compensation for work already performed, but they can, at any time, tell you that your compensation is changing and all future work will be paid at a new (usually lower) rate. Depending on jurisdiction, if you were to quit in the face of a significant enough pay cut, you might still qualify for unemployment. It's very fact dependent, your former employer will likely contest it (requiring an appeal on your part), and you should talk to an employment lawyer.

rexreed 5y ago
If employers have the right to make arbitrary compensation changes for future work, they they should lose any rights to enforce non-competition clauses in employee agreements. Non-competition introduces asymmetric decision-making since the employee cannot arbitrarily decide to leave for a matter as straightforward as a compensation change because they will no longer be able to work in their desired industry or market or job role.
- jffry 5y ago
  Some states, like California, do place stricter limits or outright on non-competes, and it's gaining steam in other places. Worker's rights in the US are generally terrible so it's a giant patchwork of varying quality.
- astura 5y ago
  The legality of a non-compete agreement depends entirely on local and state laws and the exact language in the non-compete.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> If employers can change compensation at will without employee consent then the employee agreement is truly meaningless and simply a tool for the employer to wield against the employee. The employee agreement states a place of work. If they employee stops attending the workplace as defined by the company and without the employer’s agreement, they aren’t entitled to continue receiving the same benefits. All employment terms are always up for re-negotiation, but the company doesn’t have to accept the proposed terms nor do they have to continue paying the employee when they fail to deliver on the agreed terms. > I'd imagine a few employee lawsuits on breach of contract that will test that. No, employees can’t expect to win lawsuits against their employer when the employee breaks the agreement that they willingly entered into.

astura 5y ago

>Does this mean employee agreements are up for renegotiating? Yes, absolutely, 100%, every single job offer I ever laid eyes on has this sort of language: "You agree you are an employee at will" "Nothing about this offer should be constitute a guarantee of future employment" "Either you or {company} may terminate this agreement at any time for any reason or no reason at all" And even once "this job offer is not an employment contract." Stuff like that. You only avoid it if you have a union that negotiated an actual contract for you. Google has decided to end that original agreement and offer you a different one. You can take it or leave it. >I'd imagine a few employee lawsuits on breach of contract that will test that. Lol, no, its extremely common for employers to change compensation or benefits unilaterally without notice, at the very least it usually happens every couple years when insurance rates are renegotiated and new benefits packages are put together. I once worked somewhere where on a random Friday an email went out saying "we will no longer have any 401k match." Bam, I just lost thousands of dollars in compensation with no warning or fanfare. A few weeks later it was another email - "here's the new PTO accrual." A week vacation taken away from me, just like that.