Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

What?

Only if you're very inexperienced will this be tricky, once you're senior nobody bats an eye when I ask for things to be changed in the contract.

A contract is part of communicating how we will work together. Demonstrate that you're competent by clearly communicating the changes you want and why you want them and if they react back poorly then you dodged a major bullet, since they'll also communicate poorly in day to day functions.

I'm not saying you'll always get what you want, but there should never be anger, and just because you're sent a signable document via DocuSign doesn't mean you have to sign that version of it.

View on HN

I've been working in software for a long time, and have been asked to sign non-competes over a dozen times by now.

I'm a contractor, which makes it much easier to turn down (how the hell could I possibly keep working with a non-compete?), but the OP is correct in that almost everything is a PDF nowadays. You have to bitch and scream to get a contract changed. Most naive workers won't understand that there's a negotiation process; they simply think that the contract represents the job.

I've never had to send more than an email.

> Hey Frank, just read through the non-compete and I have a few small changes. 1. Since we're only working on a proto-type for a classifier for sorting documents can we amend the non-compete to specifically mention that domain? I don't want to limit my options unnecessarily but I appreciate you wanting to stop me from turning around and selling this stuff to Microsoft once you're done. 2. The term is unlimited right now, which I'm not even sure if that can stand up in court. Let's cap it at 2 years from project completion or my leaving the project. If it's easier for you to just agree to these changes over email just reply by saying "Sure Zach, these changes are completely reasonable." and I'll sign and add "with agreed changes" next to my signature.

That will 100% stand up in court, and really if they say "no" to it then you say "no" to the opportunity, but I've never not been able to get to an agreement with someone. Good help is hard to find, and a little charisma goes a long way when negotiating.

Restricting the noncompete to cover only a very narrow domain can work too. Depending on how specialized you are, that might not be enough, which is why I recommend conceding only term-of-employment.

Your example sounds perfectly fine! But if you've spent decades building "3D animation engines for games" at various companies that do so - and that's basically your career now - you won't be helped much by being specific about what type of work is considered competition. YMMV, so concede only in ways that leave your options open.

I'm 100% with you, an email is all it usually takes, but most people don't realize that. When your life and blood depends on competing with the people you work with, it's very simple to say "no."

But when you're just getting a start and think that "this contract is life or death"? It's a non-starter, you would never think of negotiating it.

It makes more sense for them to simply be illegal than negotiable for that very reason.

Huh...I actually did this when I got out of a developer bootcamp in 2014/2015. I come from a family of lawyers; redlining a contract is second nature. Data point of one, but I think it's more a cultural norm - there's a strong norm in American society, in particular, against negotiating. Funny how well that works out for the people who control the capital and don't have any issues ignoring that norm. They should be illegal, but more people should start more conversations with a negotiating mindset as well.

It may be advantageous to purposely avoid an in person discussion of the contract (especially with an HR person who couldn't care less if you're hired or not), and then bring it up in an email. Because an email allows you to fully explain your position before being interrupted with something like "it's a standard contract" which would tend to shut down an in person conversation.

> "it's a standard contract"

For my current gig as a linux sysadmin I was hired a couple of years ago, and handed a standard employee contract. There was a clause in there that I agreed not to install free software on my work computer. The clause was just there for tech naives who might install any old crap, but it was funny for a linux professional. There was zero trouble amending the 'standard contract' to get rid of that clause. :)

In any case, you can bet your booties that the higher up the food chain you go, the less people get a 'standard' contract and the more it's tailored individually to them.

>You have to bitch and scream to get a contract changed.

I've never had to bitch or scream. Just say "Oh and by the way, I have a couple of changes I need made to the contract".

Nobody's ever made me feel unreasonable for asking that, not even when I was fresh out of college.

Exactly. It feels even easier and more reasonable if you do the work for them; copy the document, make the changes, export as PDF and send it back. Everyone worth their salt understands employment agreements to be negotiable.

IMO It's better to hear out the concerns of the hiring manager and ask for their side of the story regarding why the clause is there.

That way they feel like they've been heard and their concerns are taken into account which makes them feel better when/if you formulate a new clause.

Sending back a printed list of demands could be interpreted as unnecessarily confrontational.

Conversely, though - if you're completely unwilling to accept a clause that limits your employment after leaving the company, your starting point should be an agreement that doesn't have such a clause in it. Don't give them the impression they can talk you out of it. By giving them a new document to sign, they are the ones who have to confront you if they want to re-add the noncompete.

This is a your-mileage-may-vary thing and there is no easy answer for all cases.

"if you're completely unwilling to accept a clause that limits your employment after leaving the company, your starting point should be an agreement that doesn't have such a clause in it. Don't give them the impression they can talk you out of it."

You don't have to be willing to accept it, just be willing to hear their side of the story.

I was definitely exaggerating, and I'm sorry for that. That being said, it should be illegal simply to avoid the conflict that exists.

"You have to bitch and scream to get a contract changed."

Print out the PDF, pencil in your changes, and then scan the document.

Thats what me and my school would do for actual contracts that were made for performing artist contracts, ect.

Yep, or just use a PDF editor, which is even simpler. Just cross out lines or whatever.

> but the OP is correct in that almost everything is a PDF nowadays.

What's so immutable about a PDF? I'm thinking about my most recent job where when the contract arrived in my inbox it had a salary 10% lower than I expected. I was disappointed and anxious about how to continue. It was a good job, but I didn't want to take a pay cut. I sent off a quick email clarify it, unsure how it was received. An hour later I got a short apology and a new contract.

Asking is free. It's as they say - you never know if you never go. If they still resist, then you've done the hardest part of starting the conversation, and it's up to you to see if you want to continue with the negotiations.

Don't bitch and scream. That's terrible way to start a working relationship. Just tell them which clauses are not acceptable to you, and suggest reasonable changes that take their interests into account.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com