Right, you're invoking the "technicalities in a contract" case I talked about. And indeed, that would change things in favor of the company if it existed. Is there any evidence such a contract was signed? Note that neither the employee, CEO or CTO mention such a thing. For reference: across 17 years and five jobs in software I've never signed such an exit contract in my life, nor been asked to. I'm sure it's done, but I seriously doubt it's standard -- especially at startups where contract rigor is hardly a priority.
So basically: I agree. But what does that have to do with the points I was responding to? Earlier you stated clearly that he was "not entitled to anything from the company when he's no longer an employee". Are you walking that back now?
I mostly agree. If we're talking about employees, California is a Right-To-Work state, so an employment contract is effectively bupkis. In my experience, this is very beneficial for both companies and employees.
Things get stickier if money has changed hands. In that case, you've probably got grounds for a civil suit at the very least, but beyond that, you take your licks and keep on going, which is what it sounds like the author has done.
Cofounders aren't just employees, though. They're also shareholders, as well as nominally members of the board. That confers a different set of legal responsibilities. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure if being a corporate officer puts you in a different position regarding employment contracts than just being an employee.
Overall, I think we would agree that Ted's actions were highly unprofessional.
Once you've signed a contract, you're committed.
If you're going to bail, bail before ink hits paper. If you aren't sure about working with someone, make your reservations clear from the get-go.
In my experience over the past several years, I've seen lots of contracts and employment agreements for tech firms but very few non-disparagement clauses. I expect if he were terminated they would get one signed (or try to).
Every such paper I have received has explicitly noted the following, paraphrased:
- This is not a contract; any contract with us must be signed by the CEO. (Paper is not signed by the CEO.)
- You are an "at will" employee. The employment relationship may be ended at any time, by any party, for any reason, or no reason at all. There are no notice requirements, and any and all obligations of one party to the other are severed at the moment of separation.
- We may change the terms and conditions of your employment at any time. If you don't like it, you are free to leave.
As employment "contracts" go, these were slightly less useful to me than a roll of toilet paper.
This is bizarre. Someone hands you a contract as you're leaving a company and if you refuse to agree to whatever they dreamt up and sign the company takes back the equity you earned? That can't be legal
The question here is why are you so concerned with keeping on good terms with the founders? This is a humongous dick move, and either they're very shady or they are extremely angry at you. Either way I am not clear why you would work with them again.
But as for the deal, I think it's pretty reasonable given that they are exercising their ability to screw you over. Assuming you signed the boilerplate options paperwork everyone uses, you signed a contract that explicitly stated that you get nothing if you are let go before 12 months. They gave you 3.5/11 of what you were supposed to get. That seems pretty reasonable compared to 0, which is what you are entitled to.
Best of luck. Try not to dwell too much on this and I'm sure you'll land on your feet. As for your employer, karma will surely bite them in the ass if they pull stunts like this and screw over employees. Shame on them.
That sounds awful. I'm guessing Bob had signed some kind of employment agreement that included a clause about not being involved in other employees leaving?
When I was trying to help draft a fair (startup) employment agreement document, I tried to ask HN about some of the clauses I'd seen (including one like might've bit Bob), but the post got zero traction.
Apologies, I never thought you were disingenuous, it's just a busy time of year :)
In that circumstance, if both parties are still happy with the terms they would presumably sign a new contract minus the unenforceable terms.
If the company opts not to create a new contract, I would say it counts as firing the person without cause.
It is an interesting question though, especially as it pertains to future incentives. Something like the person having earned a bonus that hasn't been paid out yet, the contract is found invalid so the bonus part is scratched out.
Perhaps the individual deserves a choice in that case, whether to proceed without a contract or under the terms minus the unenforceable parts, or maybe something more punitive to the company like the individual keeping any rights they got and the company losing theirs.
I still think it's a workable idea, but you do raise an interesting point that's probably worth adjusting my idea around.
Why are you saying something like it is always true when it is only true given a certain clause is present? It says right in your link that that's only possible when your employment contract says it's possible. Seems dishonest of you.
I never saw anything like this when I worked at an early stage startup, and it's obviously something an employee who reads their employment agreement would ask to be taken out. I'd never work at a company with that clause.
We did have several people leave before joining because they refused to sign the agreement. I know that it's my fault I signed the agreement. I'm also working towards your suggestion (38 applications so far this year) but the thing that scared me was the fact that they got ownership of something after the employee left. I can see if it was something they worked on while with the company and then left and tried to patent it. If it was something completely unrelated then I just lost faith in the legal system. I'm also probably risking being fired just by posting something like this, shrugs.
Let's say you sign such an exit clause and get paid your 2 weeks hush money. What's to stop the company blaming some performance or missed target on a project on you afterwards, possibly even publicly. And then you're not allowed to respond.
I have never signed a clause like this in a start/end employment contract nor will I ever.
If a company doesn't want to be spoken ill of, don't do ill. If the only way a company can keep its employees/former employees from speaking true ills of them is to contractually obligate them not to, that's not a company worth giving the time of day to.
No idea about the OP, but in my case every contract I signed contained some clauses that prevented me from speaking or acting in any way against the companies interests, at least while I was working there; just like a sort of non-compete agreement but applied more broadly.
Luckily I never had to test those clauses, but I'm sure had I done anything against them they would have destroyed me in court in no time.
If I was in the OP shoes I'd leave ASAP. One day someone will let the cat out of the bag anyway (coworkers, researchers, competitors doing reverse engineering, etc) and he could lose his job anyway if the company tanks. Not to mention being related to a technical fraud.
> For technology companies, just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it.
No no no no... I agree with the general tone of your post Edward, but strongly disagree with this. Anyone working in a field they have any possibility of working in again should never sign something that will complicate that. And the same with ownership of IP developed on personal time.
Once a company has made the decision to hire you they are invested in you. If you can't get them to bend on amending the contract don't sign it. Starting your own company is stressful enough without the possibility for an ex-employer to take legal action. Add that to the fact that people are much less likely to start a business in a field totally unrelated to what they currently do, and you have something that is entrepreneurial suicide.
I don't recall the specifics of the employee agreement except that I can't hire former coworkers after leaving. I disclosed IP from this startup prior to joining.
The response (https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/12/09/applevwilliamscounter.pdf) claims that caselaw in California makes it clear that you can plan to start a new company, do some administrative work, etc. before leaving. You can't poach coworkers before you leave (if the contract is found valid, which they're attacking on other fronts), but you can certainly talk with people outside the company and say "Hey, I'm quitting in two weeks to found this company we both plan to join" etc.
It's not a valid contract if they offer no consideration (they're demanding something of you but offering nothing in return). But they are a wealthy corporation with a powerful legal team and you are now unemployed, so they can count on you not being able to fight it. It's more like a threat than a contract - that they might be able to convince a court that it's a 'legal' agreement even if it's not a valid contract.
Noncompetes should be allowed only if the company offers to pay a minimum of market-rate salary for the duration (either what they were paying you or the best offer you've received, whichever is higher, to keep up with changes in market rates after you leave). That would then at least make it a valid contract.
But no company would want to do that, because then they'd have to pay everyone who quit or got fired for years afterward. And since the legal system is mostly controlled by corporations, that's unlikely.
I was in the defendant class for one of these Silicon Valley film anti-poaching lawsuits. :) And I agree that companies, including the one I worked for, shouldn’t be able to agree to prevent hiring from each other. The main problem this caused was it made it harder for any individual to leave one company for another, with no poaching involved, and because of that (it was argued) it suppressed the general competitiveness and salaries of the employees.
Do keep in mind that this case (companies agreeing they won’t hire from each other) is a bit different from an angry employee leaving and soliciting some friends to go with him to a new company. Like I said, it might be perfectly legal, and yet still cause you serious trouble if you do it. Some people have ended up a lot more frustrated after leaving because of things they did on the way out. It can work out well if you’re really in a position to start your own company and fight like the Traitorous Eight, but for most devs who just want a job, making huge waves on exit is pretty dangerous. Don’t take my word for it though.
I quit my job over that at one of the largest Canadian tech companies soon after the golden hancufs of acquihire expired. As far I'm aware they lost everyone but two engineers of the acquired company within 18 months.
I've had that clause in initial version of the contract at every Canadian tech company I've worked at except my current employer - I had to negotiate having it removed, and succeeded except the one time I've mentioned
So basically: I agree. But what does that have to do with the points I was responding to? Earlier you stated clearly that he was "not entitled to anything from the company when he's no longer an employee". Are you walking that back now?
reply