Ask HN: Employment contract falls short of offer letter terms | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Employment contract falls short of offer letter terms

7 pointspassword0314 comments

Hello HN

I have agreed a new job offer in principal based on the following high level terms. I have also resigned from my current position in good faith. This is a UK based employment contract and I am not directly seeking legal advice just opinion without warranty.

* Offer of base salary (in offer letter) * Offer of share options (in offer letter) * Recruiter on phone said shares vest over 3 years

My contract has arrived and there is no mention of share options and the contract also stipulates that any previous documents including offer letter are not valid upon signing of the contract.

I emailed my potential employer about these concerns and they seem to be fobbing me off, telling me that the offer letter is binding and that they are in the process of raising new money. Because of the new funding round they have changed their Articles of Association and Shareholder Agreements for some institutional investors. They say they can then post round, issue the new EMI options for the team. Employer also said the shares vest over 4 years among a few other confusing details.

How big a deal is this and would it raise a red flag for you? Obviously I need to request all of this be put into the employment contract. If they push back on this, then it is my attitude that the company has made me an offer they are not in a position to be able to formalise. If that is the case, I will withdraw my acceptance of the offer in principle.

There are also a few other things that I do not like and I am wondering how much I can/should push back on. For example, in the first two years they need only give me 4 weeks notice if they want to let me go (+1 week for subsequent years). My notice period, shall I want to leave is static at 3 months. I don't like this.

What should I do? Would this type of treatment be a red flag for you? Would you continue to want to join? I am getting concerned now and my gut is starting to feel like it's telling me something.

Thanks

"my gut is starting to feel like it's telling me something"

Listen to your gut. If you see red flags, most likely there are tons. Either they are giving you a written contract/offer with the terms agreed verbally or they are not. There is no middle ground. There is no confusion. Be very clear about that.

About notice period, I cannot add anything being an American because we are used to "at will" employment where a 4 week notice is actually considered long. But good luck with that.

Two guesses:

1. One part of the company isn't talking to the other. One person wrote the offer letter and another wrote the contract, or the contract is "standard" and hasn't been updated for your particular case.

2. The company is intentionally trying to get you to accept less now with vague, nonbinding promises to make up the difference later.

I would guess that the first is probably more accurate. Keep pushing to get the offer letter terms into your contract. You'll find out soon enough if they refuse.

This lack of communication might be a red flag on its own, of course.

Also 1, Hanlon's Razor. I've seen things such as the HR person editing an older version and failing to update with correct values. In that case it was simply "that's not quite right" to resolve the discrepancy.

4 years with a cliff is very standard (at least here in SV). 3 years seems like a recruiter mistake.

Listen to your gut. It's not very common (in my experience/circles) to take employment contracts seriously, and that gets abused. ("Oh yeah it says that but we won't act on it...")

IMHO the prevailing attitude in the UK is that the contract is a mere formality.

> My notice period, shall I want to leave is static at 3 months. I don't like this.

That is quite rare in my experience. I wouldn't be happy with that, personally.

P.S. I'm slightly biased in that I find overall contracts quite egregious these days (maybe on a global scale we in the UK used to have it good?): assigning of all IP past/present to employer, no other paid employment at all without their permission, submitting to their medical examinations/sharing of medical data, 10s of legalise terms that make it easy to fire you, e.g. to the effect of "you will give all your exclusive attention to the company", "never speak ill of the company"...

The fact that you feel the need to ask "is this a red flag?" on HN is the red flag.

I was on a 1 month notice, and they let me go after 6 months for "performance" reasons. No mention of any performance issues in my 2 reviews prior, during my 3 month probation period. It was just after I completed the project I started on so I was just a cheap contractor (in hindsight, there where other signals).

To me, a 1 month notice shows their intentions and if they want you for the long term then they shouldn't be worried about how easily they can get rid of you.

By the way, in the UK they don't need to give a specific reason to fire you in the 1st 2 years, as long as they pay your notice and holidays.

All their other promises aren't worth the paper they're written on, and the fact the contract explicitly retracts any other promise enforces this.

You are a professional. You want to work for professionals that have their shite together.

That seems quite dodgy and definitely a red flag. 3 months notice period is quite rare. You should push for more standard 1 month.

Three months is aggressive and not standard. This is a red flag in my book. To me it means that very ugly situations come up in the company, and they feel the need to lessen your ability to respond appropriately to them.

There is no good reason for them not giving you the offer they promised you. This is the first of many times this company is likely to take advantage of you. At this point I'd consider walking away even if they did manage to correct the offer.

To be honest though, notice period is not really something that can be enforced. Your contract might say 3 months but if you get annoyed you can just leave office one day and not come back. I don't think there's anything a company can do if you just walk away.

It depends on how they enforce it. One of my former employers would pay out unused vacation days under vaguely defined terms of being in good standing with the company, which I understood to mean that you have to give them the full notice period that they asked for. In a lot of states I think it isn't allowed to not pay out unused vacation days, but I'm sure other things could be done to enforce the three-month policy.

Ah perhaps. I'm a contractor and I don't have paid holidays so no need to worry about that lol :P My notice period is usually 1-2 weeks.

I have never accepted having a 3 month notice period, would never have 3 months of theirs is 1 month. I was asked to have a 3 months period once and asked them to change it to 1 month and they did without any problems.

It sounds like they want their cake and to eat it, which in itself is a big red flag I would stay well clear

> they seem to be fobbing me off, telling me that the offer letter is binding...

Reply: Wonderful, then it shouldn't be too much trouble updating the contract accordingly. Surely Mr. Employer, you would want to make sure all the corresponding details are correct with the intended offer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com