I did cross out a bunch of non-compete and some ridiculous post-employment IP claim provisions and refused to take an offer from a midsize NYC hedge fund which constantly self-proclaims as "technology company applying talents to the domain of finance". Their contract was pure evil by California (and reasonable people) standards and I realized I wouldn't be able to negotiate my way out of those clauses (even though they seemed to have liked me enough in negotiating the salary). I made it clear to them that this is not a tech company's behavior. It was a hard decision for me to make considering my situation at the time and the offer's $$$ compared to SV big cos, but I eventually realized that someone should take a stance against this form of slavery and we are responsible for not letting this crap perpetuate. If more people pay the cost of saying no, they'll have to cave eventually.

(throwaway because I don't like admitting I interviewed at a hedgefund publicly on the internet.)

I wish I could upvote this another couple hundred times. I was having a conversation with another tech industry person a couple months ago who's been out of the workforce for a bit, and is thinking about getting back in but is hesitant because they don't want to work ridiculous hours.

I suggested that they could make this a point of negotiation in any offer that's made, which could take the form of the company offering them a four day work week, etc.

While I make this a habit as well, it should be noted it's not a panacea.

I have in at least one case been told in no uncertain terms there would be no employment without signing the agreement precisely as written... and unfortunately, after not getting paid in a timely manner from an earlier gig, I needed the job more than they needed me.

I first discovered this flexibility signing up for a simple warehouse laboring job while I was a student. It had a "don't work in our industry for a year" type clause. I expressed some concern about that and the boss just crossed it out. These things look formal and rigid but they're not set in stone.

One company I worked for definitely pushed back on that.

Since it was in California it was fairly narrow (only if you used company resources, or if it was related to company products). I also had zero trouble getting sign-off for any open-source projects I wanted to contribute to.

IP assignment can be non-compete.

Had one company give me a non-compete and IP agreement that said they owned all the stuff I invent while working there or for 12 months after I stopped working there.

Most people who apply to jobs are not seen as "good engineers," they are hazed in the interview process. Meanwhile, the bank account is draining.

It is not accurate. Your employer owns all intellectual property you create on or off work (meaning you technically can't contribute to Wikipedia or most open source projects) and even owns the bedtime stories you make up to tell your children, but ONLY if you sign a contract saying so.

By pointing out the above cases I have gotten an employer (not in NY) to alter the language of their IP contract.

There's a big difference between hourly and salaried positions. It's harder to define "off the clock" when no one is actually clocking you in the first place.

That pretty much defines most working relationships in the U.S. The employer-employee relationship is rooted in English Master-Servant common law.

Depending on the state the rules are different. Generally if the work is the scope of your employment it is your companies IP. Scope of employment typical factors in the time it was created, the place it was created, and the similarity of the work.

The safe bet is to get approval from the company so it doesn't cause issues.