What's with all the jerks trying to say the only enforceable contract is a written and signed contract? U.S. Courts uphold verbal contracts all the time. "He said, she said" is quite a bit more iffy without witnesses, but commitments and agreements are still legally valid commitments and agreements. Email conversations are just about as good as a printed and signed contract.
And the employee has to remind the employer to pay up? Let's see how far that goes when employees have to remind the employer every payday that the paychecks are due. Why don't you just institute some asinine rebate-style process for obtaining your referral fee?
1) Clip the UPC code from the new hire and have it notarized on its date of hire; notarizing on any other date will void your claim to the fee
2) Hold the notarized code until the new hire has been employed with the company for at least six months
3) Mail the notarized original code to an address seven hundred miles away using a handwritten envelope and first class postage only; computer printed envelopes and postage in excess of first class postage will void your claim to the fee
4) Pray that the new hire is still with the company at the moment the claim department decides to process your claim.
Claims may take six to eight months for processing.
This is really an interesting case, IMO. Verbal, informal contracts are still contracts, although they are a pain to enforce. A standing policy of a $10k referral bonus might be construed as a contract between the employer and employee. At the 6-month point the employee fulfilled his end of the contract, and was owed the $10k.
What if the employee had come back two years later to say "hey, guys. Remember that $10k you owed me?" I'm no lawyer, but I believe that a judge would consider that a form of forfeiture. Where is that line drawn?
I agree the tone seems to favor the employer, but tone doesn't make them right.
This is really an interesting case, IMO. Verbal, informal contracts are still contracts, although they are a pain to enforce. A standing policy of a $10k referral bonus might be construed as a contract between the employer and employee. At the 6-month point the employee fulfilled his end of the contract, and was owed the $10k.
What if the employee had come back two years later to say "hey, guys. Remember that $10k you owed me?" I'm no lawyer, but I believe that a judge would consider that a form of forfeiture. Where is that line drawn?
I agree the tone seems to favor the employer, but tone doesn't make them right.
An offer of employment is a contract, if there is an exchange of benefits involved in the agreement (you work for us X days a week, we pay you Y).
Even if it's only verbal, it's a contract; contract law applies, and if you can prove the conversation happened, you can enforce the contract in law.
This is the same in the USA and in the UK. But of course, it's much better to get a written contract before starting work (or moving home, if that's what it comes down to).
And (of course) it's much harder for an employee to enforce a contract against an employer than v.v. Contract litigation can be very expensive.
But then you have to deal with a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc. Just because it's unenforceable doesn't mean that your shitty employer can't sue you. Why not just head it off at the beginning and have it right there in the signed contract?
There should be a bullshit tax for having employees sign agreements the company knows aren't enforceable.
I was working at a place for 4 years before they tried to get me to sign one. They said it was standard and wasn't enforceable anyways, and I pushed my point (why bother having me sign if its pointless) and they eventually dropped it. No agreement is better than potentially having to deal with an unenforceable one down the road.
Employees need to get everything in writing as part of a contract/agreement. If a company won't put it in writing, then you should assume they are lying.
If it's not in writing, it doesn't exist. What you were told verbally means nothing. (Yes, technically a verbal contract is a binding contract, but if you can't prove in court that something was said, it doesn't matter.)
I assume that remote workers had an employment contract, though, and surely where and when they are expected to work was included in that.
Yes. A contract doesn't even need to be written. You can have implied contracts that are still binding. For instance, there's no written contract when you get your hair cut, but if you tried to refuse payment, you'd have breached your contract. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=905
The employer is still free to fire you (employers can almost always fire someone for any non-protected reason) if they discover and don't like the changes. But even the erasure is indication that you didn't accept the offer as they originally formulated it.
People REALLY need to remember that the law is (or tries to be) pragmatic. "Magic bullets" rarely/never exist. You couldn't sneak in a clause saying "I get a 100% pay increase annually" -- in this case, they're the party being bound so would need some indication of assent beyond just a paycheck.
Thanks for the reply! I think your answer has me a little bit more confused. You mention that you get the hiring manager to sign off on the SOW or BRD. I am suprised they would have the authority to do this but not sign a contract. I wouldn’t Think a contract would help you get paid for invoices necessarily. At the end of the day the invoice is probably less than the cost of enforcing the contract. I would be concerned about my liability if I was acting without a contract. For example, let’s say I get sick and miss a milestone. This missed milestone costs the company $X in revenue. A good contract would have language that protects me from this. Without a contract you might be left on the hook( or paying a lawyer handsomely)
All the contract I signed in the US ( 5 or 6 ) were « at will »
Basically a 1 pager stating the total lack of contract between you and the company.
And your salary.
Your certainty in this opinion makes me posit that you've never been an employer.
Employees are people. They say stuff. They interact with customers. Most of what they say is true. Sometimes they get it wrong.
Personally I don't want to train my employees so they can only parrot the lines I approve. Personally I don't want to interact with an employee who can only read from a script.
Yes, some employees have more authority than others. Yes some make mistakes. Yes, we can (and do) often absorb those mistakes where we can. But clearly there are some mistakes that can't be simply absorbed.
Verbal "contracts" are worth the paper they're written on. Written quotes exist gor a reason.
In the context of this thread, chatbots are often useful ways to disseminate information. But they cannot enter into a contract, verbal or written. So, for giggles feel free to see what you can make them say. But don't expect them to give you a legal binding offer.
If you don't like that condition then feel free not to use them.
And the employee has to remind the employer to pay up? Let's see how far that goes when employees have to remind the employer every payday that the paychecks are due. Why don't you just institute some asinine rebate-style process for obtaining your referral fee? 1) Clip the UPC code from the new hire and have it notarized on its date of hire; notarizing on any other date will void your claim to the fee 2) Hold the notarized code until the new hire has been employed with the company for at least six months 3) Mail the notarized original code to an address seven hundred miles away using a handwritten envelope and first class postage only; computer printed envelopes and postage in excess of first class postage will void your claim to the fee 4) Pray that the new hire is still with the company at the moment the claim department decides to process your claim. Claims may take six to eight months for processing.
reply