Hacker News Reader

Oh, the employment law is a lot employee-friendlier in Canada than in the US. In particular, BC employment law (relevant to this post) is a lot friendlier than California employment law. And when you go to take them to court, the government will, under some circumstances, provide free legal services to the employee (you can look up the BC gov's Employment Standards Branch).

That said, IIRC, even BC is pretty employer-friendly for the first 3 months, in terms of notice and so on. And it appears the author thought he was entitled to stock options after 9 weeks, which is.... not typical, in my limited experience. And they company sounds like they were dicks about it, but basically, terminating the relationship and paying out your salary (but not bonuses or unvested equity) is usually legit.

If he had made it through 3 months, he'd have a right to some severance pay, and if they tried to terminate-with-cause he'd be able to sue for wrongful dismissal. Because of this, even in borderline cases, most (many?) companies go for termination-without-cause.

All the bits about reclassifying a full-timer as a contractor, though? Hells yes, that's a world of hurt for the company if they try that. Not only work direction and taxes (both huge issues), but also consider the pay consequences of trying to get 70-hour weeks out of a contractor. But I doubt that they were actually trying that; it seems so unnecessary.

The spin of the article is weird, though. He's having trouble justifying his 9 weeks? "I tried an experiment because there were some very attractive aspects about the opportunity, but it turned out that management had no experience and very unrealistic expectations, and it didn't work out." What could be simpler?

SHORT VERSION: as patio11 said: don't hurry to sign anything, and spend at least an hour reading about your legal rights, and as patio11 suggested, drop hints that you're interested in your legal rights

It was time to leave, and the HR lady came to me and said I would have to sign a release letter and send it back within 2 work days (the following Monday was a holiday), otherwise I would not get any of the remaining pay, including my “stock options”. Apparently instead of full-time as stated in my offer letter, I was a “Contractor” and that the agreement was “terminated”. I guess that’s to protect them somehow. And the “stock options” that she said I would be paid amounted to $0 (as expected).

Based on the quotations around "stock options", the fact that the HR lady brought up the topic, not the author, and that the author adds "$0 (as expected)", it seems pretty clear that the author was not expecting, nor feeling entitled to any stock option compensation.

Or he expected them to screw him.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's not my read. Options given the amount of time he was with the organization? Maybe, but highly unlikely.

It isn't my read either. I just wanted to point out that the statement wasn't necessarily as prejudicial as the parent made it out to be.

Assuming a standard vesting schedule, I doubt he vested at all in 9 weeks.

It always blows my mind when countries get things right, and by that I mean providing adequate health, housing, and legal services to all residents.

Paying legal fees for employed persons sounds like a great way to provide them access to fair(er) representation. Otherwise if they have to pay out of pocket they can't afford it, and if it's loser pays the risk requires a large reward before it's rational to pursue.

Well done, again, Canada.

Canada doesn't provide free legal services to employed people. In this particular case, you can get assistance with legal fees for an employment-related dispute, but that by no means extends to other legal matters.

I worded it poorly, I didn't really think Canadian employees get free legal services for all matters.

When you have a smaller population the ratio of constituents to elected member goes down, making lobbying more expensive. We have just as many MPs as the US has senators and a tenth of the population.

Maximum monetary contributions to a political party in Canada is only a fraction of what it is in the US (1200$ max). Also it is impossible for a corporation to donate directly. This reduce lobbying to diner parties and yacht rides.

My guess is that lobbying is less intensive in Canada than in the US because it is very difficult to do legally. I watch a commission in Quebec about the alleged local corruption and I am stunned to see that most of what is at stake there would be absolutely legal in the US.

"We have just as many MPs as the US has senators and a tenth of the population."

wikipedia says Canada has 308 MPs and 108 senators; and the US has 2 senators per state and 50 states so 100 senators. US House has 435 reps.

Still a good point re: population per representative

Meant to say congresspersons.

Canadian senators are political cronies with expense accounts. It is unclear what, if anything, they contribute to democracy. Note that they have essentially no power. Just assume that Canada has one house in the legislative assembly, and then also a hole that we pour money into. The Canadian system has several.... "quirks". It is therefore astounding to me that it appears to work better in practice than the US system, which to my eye looks better-in-theory.

I am reminded that the USA was designed to have a much greater congressperson to person ratio than it currently has.

Exactly. As someone in HR will tell you, never ever ever mess with someone's paycheck that you owe them from the time they were in the office. Even if they were stealing from you, just pay them their wages and be done with them.

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for the tip. I always find your comments very helpful.

This was definitely a huge learning experience for me; probably better now than 15~20 years down the road. I too, was quite sure they would still have to pay me even if I didn't sign. I just wanted everything to be done with and never have to deal with them again. I've had to sue before, but I try to avoid it if at all possible.

Funny thing is there are 2 other points in the release:

Releases and forever discharges the company, its officers, directors, shareholders, etc etc etc...from suits, claims, demands, liabilities, etc, etc, etc.

Agrees not to disclose the terms of this Release to anyone other than the Contractor's professional advisors (well I consider HN my professional advisor so I guess I'm in the clear)

seems quite questionable to me.

Regardless, I will keep your advice in mind. The next time something like this occurs (hopefully never), I will be better equipped to deal with it!

Glad to help. I mostly give advice like this because I'm keenly aware that when I was young and stupid I was often a doormat in e.g. dealing with companies, and despite years of socialization which had suggested to me that being a doormat was praiseworthy, things started to get better in a hurry after I abandoned my default presumption of doormathood.

In your future professional dealings, and those of the peanut gallery, you may find that people often just expect you to agree to their terms because it's easy, and that this is sometimes not in your interest. I've done my fair share of that, and had it blow up in my face once or twice, and almost blow up in my face a few other times.

Not to talk too much of the particulars, but I once signed a fairly straightforward contract which had straightforward terms which I thought I understood. In my ignorance, I did not understand that one paragraph -- which I thought was "the usual boilerplate" -- obligated me to do something which would have been very against my interest. That situation ended up getting resolved amicably, but older and wiser consultants (and my lawyer), when told what I signed, have all the blood drain out of their face.

In the instant case, you've just been dealt a bum hand by an employer, and based on their previous conduct I would not advance them bus fare, to say nothing of going out of my way to help. That "release" might include, hypothetically, an indemnification, a term which sounds almost synonymous to programmers. It isn't. Your competent legal representative would, if they read "indemnification", say Oh Hell No. There are probably even worse terms that could potentially be in there that I'm not even sufficiently creative to dream up.

Why affirmatively ask for that sort of risk by signing a contract which gives you no upside at all? You don't owe them any more than declining politely and asserting that paying your for services rendered is not optional. Asserting yourself there probably isn't nearly as costly in real life as you might be modeling it as.

Anyhow, stuff to keep in mind for next time, and for those in the peanut gallery who might eventually be given a similar ultimatum.

Also, comporting yourself like a Serious Businessman who does Serious Business (like contracts) only when doing Serious Business routine things like asking for a contract review from an actual honest-to-6-minute-billing-increments attorney sends a strong signal to would-be counterparties that they should not attempt to take liberties with you.

Sorry for being thickheaded. I want to clarify the point of contention. The way I understand it ... the company wanted him to sign the release without "any real consideration". The claimed consideration was the employer would pay the employee his owed wages. I totally understand that this is not real consideration - they owed the employee this anyways. But what kind of consideration should/could he have expected?

I see it as they had removed the "continued mutual goodwill" from the equation, and were offering nothing additionally. (If my current employer asks me to sign something without any additional incentive, I'm not going to say no without inspecting it, since our continued mutual goodwill is important to me.)

That kinds of puts them into the same category as someone who comes up to you on the street and asks you to sign something. You don't owe them anything - there's no goodwill - there's no upside. They get "basic politeness" but not co-operation.

Sure, it might not cost you anything to sign, but you'd at least need to spend the effort (or money for a lawyer) to ensure that.

This is whats termed a compromise agreement basically if you pay me x I will go quietly and your right just paying what your owed is not acceptable.

I've seen "severance" offered in exchange. E.g. we'll pay you what we owe you, but if you sign this we'll give you an additional month of salary.

Don't take this the wrong way Jay but HN is not in any way a professional adviser that would be your lawyer or other "approved" person

So you signed a compromise agreement (which you have now broken) without getting anything for it or having a lawyer check it out.

Luckily my father advised me on this as soon as I started working. _NEVER_ sign anything. At one point early in my career a scummy employer wanted to fire me without reason, but did not want to pay the salary plus benefits required by law for wrongful termination.

I was asked by a lacky to sign the 'I quit' paper, essentially resigning my benefits.

Lesson here: Do not sign anything without asking a lawyer about it or at least reading it in depth.

I suppose you could get away with refusing to sign anything should you ever be terminated, but I doubt you'd be able to get many jobs without signing the initial hiring paperwork.

At least in my experience.

Can't speak for the law in the US, but my impression is that in general, if the company has told you you need to sign something to continue to be employed (or get a pay rise, or whatever), and you continue to come in to work, or accept the payrise, then you've accepted that contract.

What I'm saying is: don't assume you haven't accepted a contract just because the company doesn't have your signature on a piece of paper.

I did that with an old employee when the lead was an asshole.

How he calculate how much I work is base on how he feels like how much I work. Apparently the first day didn't count cause I spent the day root hacking an old employee Apple Laptop cause he didn't ask and refused to ask an old employee for the password (cause the guy was a dick apparently).

I just told them, repeatedly, "I would like to get paid for the amount that I've worked for". I calmly calculated the days I've worked and ask him if there were anything wrong with my calculated days and that we can talk about it. But I would like to get paid for the days I've worked. Lead email was like look man I don't wanna fight you I just feel like you work less but whatever. For the record he was a dick and a bully and basically said, this is how the place is going to be run if you don't like it you can leave. I told him that I'll leave.

Spot on, California employment laws and Federal laws in the US will absolutely devastate your business if you try your hand at pulling this kind of shit.

I think in the US the law says you have 45 days to respond to a written note like that.