Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdcravens | Hacker News Reader

I thought the same thing. Even in a non-regulated industry, the moment you are paid, you're now consulting which can get tricky contract-wise.

View on HN

Presumably it also means the "consultant" (interviewee) takes on liability?

Liability for what?

Showing up for the interview, participating in good faith, likely other employer-favouring bullshit.

And how do you actually show the interviewee failed to do any of those things?

I think the whole idea is idiotic, but this particular point doesn't seem like it would be the blocker. We already have employment contracts which state hours to be worked and similar mundane details, this wouldn't be any different. Such contract details would only be tested if someone tried to exploit a loophole, like showing up for a bunch of interviews to get money but with no intention of actually completing the tasks.

In a non-regulated industry you can just ignore it the same way most people ignore their noncompete clauses.

In a regulated industry you can argue it's not actually work, as your labor does not produce anything of value.

"....you can argue it's not actually work, as your labor does not produce anything of value"

I think if we follow that slippery slope, employers might as well not pay salaries if they felt you weren't terribly productive during a given pay period.

"you can just ignore it the same way most people ignore their noncompete clauses"

Again, I'd hate to find out that an employer has this attitude toward honoring contracts as you suggest workers do.

That is very clearly wage theft. Employee rights is not so clear cut, and when you really get down to it must be decided in favor of the employee. (Otherwise, e.g., an out of work engineer who can't take jobs due to a noncompete is put on unemployment, having the public socialize his previous employer's contract terms.)

"most people do x" -> "I do x"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com