3 ms·

Hi Patrick, Thanks for the tip. I always find your comments very helpful. This was definitely a huge learning experience for me; probably better now than 15~2

Hi Patrick, Thanks for the tip. I always find your comments very helpful. This was definitely a huge learning experience for me; probably better now than 15~20 years down the road. I too, was quite sure they would still have to pay me even if I didn't sign. I just wanted everything to be done with and never have to deal with them again. I've had to sue before, but I try to avoid it if at all possible. Funny thing is there are 2 other points in the release: Releases and forever discharges the company, its officers, directors, shareholders, etc etc etc...from suits, claims, demands, liabilities, etc, etc, etc. Agrees not to disclose the terms of this Release to anyone other than the Contractor's professional advisors (well I consider HN my professional advisor so I guess I'm in the clear) seems quite questionable to me. Regardless, I will keep your advice in mind. The next time something like this occurs (hopefully never), I will be better equipped to deal with it!

patio11 13y ago
Glad to help. I mostly give advice like this because I'm keenly aware that when I was young and stupid I was often a doormat in e.g. dealing with companies, and despite years of socialization which had suggested to me that being a doormat was praiseworthy, things started to get better in a hurry after I abandoned my default presumption of doormathood. In your future professional dealings, and those of the peanut gallery, you may find that people often just expect you to agree to their terms because it's easy, and that this is sometimes not in your interest. I've done my fair share of that, and had it blow up in my face once or twice, and almost blow up in my face a few other times. Not to talk too much of the particulars, but I once signed a fairly straightforward contract which had straightforward terms which I thought I understood. In my ignorance, I did not understand that one paragraph -- which I thought was "the usual boilerplate" -- obligated me to do something which would have been very against my interest. That situation ended up getting resolved amicably, but older and wiser consultants (and my lawyer), when told what I signed, have all the blood drain out of their face. In the instant case, you've just been dealt a bum hand by an employer, and based on their previous conduct I would not advance them bus fare, to say nothing of going out of my way to help. That "release" might include, hypothetically, an indemnification, a term which sounds almost synonymous to programmers. It isn't. Your competent legal representative would, if they read "indemnification", say Oh Hell No. There are probably even worse terms that could potentially be in there that I'm not even sufficiently creative to dream up. Why affirmatively ask for that sort of risk by signing a contract which gives you no upside at all? You don't owe them any more than declining politely and asserting that paying your for services rendered is not optional. Asserting yourself there probably isn't nearly as costly in real life as you might be modeling it as. Anyhow, stuff to keep in mind for next time, and for those in the peanut gallery who might eventually be given a similar ultimatum. Also, comporting yourself like a Serious Businessman who does Serious Business (like contracts) only when doing Serious Business routine things like asking for a contract review from an actual honest-to-6-minute-billing-increments attorney sends a strong signal to would-be counterparties that they should not attempt to take liberties with you.
- throwaway1979 13y ago
  Sorry for being thickheaded. I want to clarify the point of contention. The way I understand it ... the company wanted him to sign the release without "any real consideration". The claimed consideration was the employer would pay the employee his owed wages. I totally understand that this is not real consideration - they owed the employee this anyways. But what kind of consideration should/could he have expected?
  - jbert 13y ago
    I see it as they had removed the "continued mutual goodwill" from the equation, and were offering nothing additionally. (If my current employer asks me to sign something without any additional incentive, I'm not going to say no without inspecting it, since our continued mutual goodwill is important to me.) That kinds of puts them into the same category as someone who comes up to you on the street and asks you to sign something. You don't owe them anything - there's no goodwill - there's no upside. They get "basic politeness" but not co-operation. Sure, it might not cost you anything to sign, but you'd at least need to spend the effort (or money for a lawyer) to ensure that.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    This is whats termed a compromise agreement basically if you pay me x I will go quietly and your right just paying what your owed is not acceptable.
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    I've seen "severance" offered in exchange. E.g. we'll pay you what we owe you, but if you sign this we'll give you an additional month of salary.
walshemj 13y ago
Don't take this the wrong way Jay but HN is not in any way a professional adviser that would be your lawyer or other "approved" person So you signed a compromise agreement (which you have now broken) without getting anything for it or having a lawyer check it out.

patio11 13y ago

Glad to help. I mostly give advice like this because I'm keenly aware that when I was young and stupid I was often a doormat in e.g. dealing with companies, and despite years of socialization which had suggested to me that being a doormat was praiseworthy, things started to get better in a hurry after I abandoned my default presumption of doormathood. In your future professional dealings, and those of the peanut gallery, you may find that people often just expect you to agree to their terms because it's easy, and that this is sometimes not in your interest. I've done my fair share of that, and had it blow up in my face once or twice, and almost blow up in my face a few other times. Not to talk too much of the particulars, but I once signed a fairly straightforward contract which had straightforward terms which I thought I understood. In my ignorance, I did not understand that one paragraph -- which I thought was "the usual boilerplate" -- obligated me to do something which would have been very against my interest. That situation ended up getting resolved amicably, but older and wiser consultants (and my lawyer), when told what I signed, have all the blood drain out of their face. In the instant case, you've just been dealt a bum hand by an employer, and based on their previous conduct I would not advance them bus fare, to say nothing of going out of my way to help. That "release" might include, hypothetically, an indemnification, a term which sounds almost synonymous to programmers. It isn't. Your competent legal representative would, if they read "indemnification", say Oh Hell No. There are probably even worse terms that could potentially be in there that I'm not even sufficiently creative to dream up. Why affirmatively ask for that sort of risk by signing a contract which gives you no upside at all? You don't owe them any more than declining politely and asserting that paying your for services rendered is not optional. Asserting yourself there probably isn't nearly as costly in real life as you might be modeling it as. Anyhow, stuff to keep in mind for next time, and for those in the peanut gallery who might eventually be given a similar ultimatum. Also, comporting yourself like a Serious Businessman who does Serious Business (like contracts) only when doing Serious Business routine things like asking for a contract review from an actual honest-to-6-minute-billing-increments attorney sends a strong signal to would-be counterparties that they should not attempt to take liberties with you.

throwaway1979 13y ago
Sorry for being thickheaded. I want to clarify the point of contention. The way I understand it ... the company wanted him to sign the release without "any real consideration". The claimed consideration was the employer would pay the employee his owed wages. I totally understand that this is not real consideration - they owed the employee this anyways. But what kind of consideration should/could he have expected?
- jbert 13y ago
  I see it as they had removed the "continued mutual goodwill" from the equation, and were offering nothing additionally. (If my current employer asks me to sign something without any additional incentive, I'm not going to say no without inspecting it, since our continued mutual goodwill is important to me.) That kinds of puts them into the same category as someone who comes up to you on the street and asks you to sign something. You don't owe them anything - there's no goodwill - there's no upside. They get "basic politeness" but not co-operation. Sure, it might not cost you anything to sign, but you'd at least need to spend the effort (or money for a lawyer) to ensure that.
- walshemj 13y ago
  This is whats termed a compromise agreement basically if you pay me x I will go quietly and your right just paying what your owed is not acceptable.
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  I've seen "severance" offered in exchange. E.g. we'll pay you what we owe you, but if you sign this we'll give you an additional month of salary.

walshemj 13y ago

Don't take this the wrong way Jay but HN is not in any way a professional adviser that would be your lawyer or other "approved" person So you signed a compromise agreement (which you have now broken) without getting anything for it or having a lawyer check it out.