5 ms·

Is "at will" the right term here? What's the alternative, granting you tenure at their little company or something? If you are an at-will employee who is kept a

Is "at will" the right term here? What's the alternative, granting you tenure at their little company or something? If you are an at-will employee who is kept around, then might that demonstrate actual loyalty (and probably higher pay) versus being at a place that is prohibited by law from laying you off without good cause? Perhaps you mean if they treat employees like a commodity. They can do that withoug laying people off; universities tend to treat their tenured faculty this way also. Optimizing for getting the most work out of the witth the lowest cost. If so, then yes employees should, in turn, act like the job is a commodity and try to optimize income-minus-costs on their end too.

varelse 5y ago
If I have to sign an agreement that gives my employer permission to terminate me at any time for any reason with or without cause, they should not be surprised that it also grants me the right to quit at any time for any reason with or without cause. And yet, all that fuss about these job hoppers. How about creating an environment and culture where sticking around beats job hopping instead? As for the alternative? Check out the severance packages that executives and TLAs get. Try scaling that down to the employee level. Not going to happen.
- simplestats 5y ago
  Well in the past employees got ISO's. Now employees are getting RSU's. And in our lawsuit-happy culture (with a perverse incentive for companies to always settle lawsuits even when they can win), even the most employee-friendly place probably needs such an agreement for CYA reasons. I do agree ecompanies can do a much better job of treating employees like partners instead of "resources" to optimize. Even on HN, we have fellow engineers talking of the importance of (soul-crushing) processes that ensure no one is essential. As if it's undesirable to let anyone be special or important...
  - varelse 5y ago
    RSUs happened IMO because Warren Buffett didn't understand tech. But they're fine, really, the same competitive pressures that led to compelling ISOs now lead to compelling RSUs. Not sure what problem that solved though but give me a couple beers and I'll probably come up with one. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/11/business/stock-options-are-faulted-by-buffett.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/11/business/stock-options-ar...
    - simplestats 5y ago
      I'm saying it's a step in the right direction. No more starting at zero or even being "under water" like with ISO's. With RSU's they just grant you the stock like they used to only do for execs (with nonqualified options or whatever). As long as the company doesn't get delisted or something you're a stakeholder.
- aksss 5y ago
  Employment contracts are a double-edged sword that would warrant their own discussion. Also you’re not really signing an agreement that they can fire you, you’re signing an acknowledgement of the at-will employment status so you can’t claim any illusions that you had an employment contract, but that status is typically derived from state law and advertised on the job posting you applied for. That paper you’re signing is about the same as an acknowledgement of the warning that you shouldn’t eat tide pods. It’s there because stupid people have necessitated it. Speaking as a long time employee and now as an owner/employer, I’ve always thought people who bristle at at-will employment don’t really get it — it’s a two-way street, as an employee you can leave anytime, being considerate of professional courtesy for notice, etc. I was always highly confident in my value and skills, so the idea of an employer randomly laying me off was never an issue - their loss more than mine. Your life will be far less stressful if you can develop that mental confidence and self-actualization, and if there is something preventing it, work on that. Specifically, if you feel lucky to have been employed in your field, and are barely hanging on to your job, maybe you should find a better field? At-will employment should not even remotely be a big concern in life. Talent is hard to find - there’s more money than talent out there.
  - varelse 5y ago
    I once had to sign a non-compete that came with paying me my full salary during the noncompete period to do anything but what I was doing. I was great with that. And when I left, they chose not to enforce it anyway, but I felt like that was a fair deal.
    - NotVerstappen 5y ago
      Paying your full salary is not at all common - though I agree that is sufficient to make a non-compete fair and wish it would become normalised.
      - varelse 5y ago
        So there are a number of people on this site who are not at that level and they get resentful that someone might get a deal like that rather than try to find a path to getting a deal like that for themselves. That's crab mentality and it helps no one. The way to get there is to refuse to sign non-compete agreements unless they come with an equivalent clause to what I got. When you sell yourself short, you sell everyone else along with you.

varelse 5y ago

If I have to sign an agreement that gives my employer permission to terminate me at any time for any reason with or without cause, they should not be surprised that it also grants me the right to quit at any time for any reason with or without cause. And yet, all that fuss about these job hoppers. How about creating an environment and culture where sticking around beats job hopping instead? As for the alternative? Check out the severance packages that executives and TLAs get. Try scaling that down to the employee level. Not going to happen.

simplestats 5y ago
Well in the past employees got ISO's. Now employees are getting RSU's. And in our lawsuit-happy culture (with a perverse incentive for companies to always settle lawsuits even when they can win), even the most employee-friendly place probably needs such an agreement for CYA reasons. I do agree ecompanies can do a much better job of treating employees like partners instead of "resources" to optimize. Even on HN, we have fellow engineers talking of the importance of (soul-crushing) processes that ensure no one is essential. As if it's undesirable to let anyone be special or important...
- varelse 5y ago
  RSUs happened IMO because Warren Buffett didn't understand tech. But they're fine, really, the same competitive pressures that led to compelling ISOs now lead to compelling RSUs. Not sure what problem that solved though but give me a couple beers and I'll probably come up with one. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/11/business/stock-options-are-faulted-by-buffett.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/11/business/stock-options-ar...
  - simplestats 5y ago
    I'm saying it's a step in the right direction. No more starting at zero or even being "under water" like with ISO's. With RSU's they just grant you the stock like they used to only do for execs (with nonqualified options or whatever). As long as the company doesn't get delisted or something you're a stakeholder.
aksss 5y ago
Employment contracts are a double-edged sword that would warrant their own discussion. Also you’re not really signing an agreement that they can fire you, you’re signing an acknowledgement of the at-will employment status so you can’t claim any illusions that you had an employment contract, but that status is typically derived from state law and advertised on the job posting you applied for. That paper you’re signing is about the same as an acknowledgement of the warning that you shouldn’t eat tide pods. It’s there because stupid people have necessitated it. Speaking as a long time employee and now as an owner/employer, I’ve always thought people who bristle at at-will employment don’t really get it — it’s a two-way street, as an employee you can leave anytime, being considerate of professional courtesy for notice, etc. I was always highly confident in my value and skills, so the idea of an employer randomly laying me off was never an issue - their loss more than mine. Your life will be far less stressful if you can develop that mental confidence and self-actualization, and if there is something preventing it, work on that. Specifically, if you feel lucky to have been employed in your field, and are barely hanging on to your job, maybe you should find a better field? At-will employment should not even remotely be a big concern in life. Talent is hard to find - there’s more money than talent out there.
- varelse 5y ago
  I once had to sign a non-compete that came with paying me my full salary during the noncompete period to do anything but what I was doing. I was great with that. And when I left, they chose not to enforce it anyway, but I felt like that was a fair deal.
  - NotVerstappen 5y ago
    Paying your full salary is not at all common - though I agree that is sufficient to make a non-compete fair and wish it would become normalised.
    - varelse 5y ago
      So there are a number of people on this site who are not at that level and they get resentful that someone might get a deal like that rather than try to find a path to getting a deal like that for themselves. That's crab mentality and it helps no one. The way to get there is to refuse to sign non-compete agreements unless they come with an equivalent clause to what I got. When you sell yourself short, you sell everyone else along with you.