4 ms·

My experience from the other side of the fence is that this is pretty standard, i.e. nobody would really bother with changing the standard contract for one pote

My experience from the other side of the fence is that this is pretty standard, i.e. nobody would really bother with changing the standard contract for one potential employee unless they were perceived as a crucial asset. The people who do the hiring, the ones who make the decisions and the ones who will work with you later - these are very different groups of people, with some (very temporary) overlap. The hiring ones, just like most people, prefer to avoid unnecessary problems and additional paperwork, and move on. Mind you, if many people have the same attitude as you, the hiring people may actually make the change happen forcing the people in charge to approve a variant of the contract without that clause and offer it to the ones who complain but are otherwise excellent candidates. But this is not a quick and easy process.

caseymarquis 5y ago
I would. I'd actually view someone asking for this as a positive.
cassianoleal 5y ago
This was the first time I actually came across a clause of this type in an employment contract. I knew of their existence but had never found them in the wild. I sincerely hope enough people refuse to sign those that it becomes a problem for companies. When I go into an employment, I'm agreeing to rent a certain number of hours of my skills to the company's benefit. I'm not agreeing to give the company any kind of control of what I do or don't do outside of those hours. Mind you, I'm not saying I would _never_ sign such a clause, but that would be a lot more expensive. I would probably agree to it if I could work 3-5 years and retire comfortably.
- dcow 5y ago
  We have the same problem with terms of service. Someone wants something (salary, product) and all that registers is “I can have it if I sign/accept”. The only way to fix these things would be for some sort of organization (union) to exist that puts pressure on the industry, or legal simplification/ground rules protecting generally people’s rights.
  - rahimnathwani 5y ago
    Not the only way. California and Washington have legal protections for employees. IP you create outside working hours, on your own hardware, and wholly unrelated to your job, is your own.
    - tingletech 5y ago
      The question becomes what is wholly unrelated. If I'm hired to program, some might argue that any code I write is not wholly unrelated to my work.
      - rahimnathwani 5y ago
        Right, but the law is written better than my comment :) https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/2870-2872/2870/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/...
      - chii 5y ago
        I think the idea of wholly unrelated cannot be easily avoided, esp. with mega-corps of today that does everything. Imagine if you worked at microsoft - you would not be able to make a game in your off time, because microsoft owns a game studio too. You'd be hard-pressed to find something that is both software, but unrelated to microsoft. The clause ought to be that your off-hours, personal work must not have a direct conflict of interest with your job.
vladvasiliu 5y ago
> Mind you, if many people have the same attitude as you, the hiring people may actually make the change happen forcing the people in charge to approve a variant of the contract without that clause and offer it to the ones who complain but are otherwise excellent candidates. But this is not a quick and easy process. I agree with the rest of your post, and I think this is the most important part: if enough people do it, than it's likely that a change will happen. If no one ever bothers to complain, nothing will ever change.
Silhouette 5y ago
This is not a universal position. I have seen employers large and small change proposed contracts in reasonable ways when asked by individuals. Some of them see this as a positive because it demonstrates that they did negotiate reasonably and so they are not requiring a contract of adhesion.
danschuller 5y ago
I've had contracts amended on request, I don't think it's unusual or uncommon. Though I'm a data point of one :)
- neltnerb 5y ago
  Honestly, my main complaint about this is that if you consider the types of people that would be willing to demand a contract amendment you can see that this kind of screws over junior employees and people who don't feel they have the social status to push back. I've also had many contracts amended on request/insistence, but I have a lot of leverage. I shouldn't need a bunch of leverage to get obviously abusive clauses removed, a brand new graduate deserves to be subjected to it no more than I do.
wutwutwutwut 5y ago
> nobody would really bother with changing the standard contract for one potential employee I have gotten through changes 2 times at the places I joined. I have simply told them I cant accept the agreement because of X. Making some amendment to a employment contract is probably cheaper than skipping a hire the last second after several interviews.

caseymarquis 5y ago

I would. I'd actually view someone asking for this as a positive.

cassianoleal 5y ago

This was the first time I actually came across a clause of this type in an employment contract. I knew of their existence but had never found them in the wild. I sincerely hope enough people refuse to sign those that it becomes a problem for companies. When I go into an employment, I'm agreeing to rent a certain number of hours of my skills to the company's benefit. I'm not agreeing to give the company any kind of control of what I do or don't do outside of those hours. Mind you, I'm not saying I would _never_ sign such a clause, but that would be a lot more expensive. I would probably agree to it if I could work 3-5 years and retire comfortably.

dcow 5y ago
We have the same problem with terms of service. Someone wants something (salary, product) and all that registers is “I can have it if I sign/accept”. The only way to fix these things would be for some sort of organization (union) to exist that puts pressure on the industry, or legal simplification/ground rules protecting generally people’s rights.
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  Not the only way. California and Washington have legal protections for employees. IP you create outside working hours, on your own hardware, and wholly unrelated to your job, is your own.
  - tingletech 5y ago
    The question becomes what is wholly unrelated. If I'm hired to program, some might argue that any code I write is not wholly unrelated to my work.
    - rahimnathwani 5y ago
      Right, but the law is written better than my comment :) https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/2870-2872/2870/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/...
    - chii 5y ago
      I think the idea of wholly unrelated cannot be easily avoided, esp. with mega-corps of today that does everything. Imagine if you worked at microsoft - you would not be able to make a game in your off time, because microsoft owns a game studio too. You'd be hard-pressed to find something that is both software, but unrelated to microsoft. The clause ought to be that your off-hours, personal work must not have a direct conflict of interest with your job.

vladvasiliu 5y ago

> Mind you, if many people have the same attitude as you, the hiring people may actually make the change happen forcing the people in charge to approve a variant of the contract without that clause and offer it to the ones who complain but are otherwise excellent candidates. But this is not a quick and easy process. I agree with the rest of your post, and I think this is the most important part: if enough people do it, than it's likely that a change will happen. If no one ever bothers to complain, nothing will ever change.

Silhouette 5y ago

This is not a universal position. I have seen employers large and small change proposed contracts in reasonable ways when asked by individuals. Some of them see this as a positive because it demonstrates that they did negotiate reasonably and so they are not requiring a contract of adhesion.

danschuller 5y ago

I've had contracts amended on request, I don't think it's unusual or uncommon. Though I'm a data point of one :)

neltnerb 5y ago
Honestly, my main complaint about this is that if you consider the types of people that would be willing to demand a contract amendment you can see that this kind of screws over junior employees and people who don't feel they have the social status to push back. I've also had many contracts amended on request/insistence, but I have a lot of leverage. I shouldn't need a bunch of leverage to get obviously abusive clauses removed, a brand new graduate deserves to be subjected to it no more than I do.

wutwutwutwut 5y ago

> nobody would really bother with changing the standard contract for one potential employee I have gotten through changes 2 times at the places I joined. I have simply told them I cant accept the agreement because of X. Making some amendment to a employment contract is probably cheaper than skipping a hire the last second after several interviews.