|
SEKCobra posted:I did, but it is legal because I'm basically agreeing that the money over minimum wage is already credited towards any other dues. It's why their arguments are all very disingenious, because they keep saying they'd never interpret it like that, but it's literally exactly what they wrote in there. They're telling you openly what they want to do, I'd recommend believing them. Now it's up to you whether not to sign it or sign it and immediately start looking for something better. I wouldn't worry too much about the 3-month notice period, it's not like they can sue you if you're not as productive in the end or anything. Over here they're fairly common, new employers don't mind waiting, and companies usually let you leave early anyway.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
Yeah and, if you're not in a financial spot, you can decide for yourself what the likelihood is that they actually sue you over it if you just walk out without giving the three months. I would be more concerned about the de facto paycut and maybe call their bluff out of principle but it's hard to know your situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
SEKCobra posted:Basically they are converting my contract to a quasi all in model. They'll be telling me to sign or be fired on thursday (my colleague already had the talk). Then find a new job anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
SEKCobra posted:Basically they are converting my contract to a quasi all in model. They'll be telling me to sign or be fired on thursday (my colleague already had the talk). Since you have an coworker in the same spot, what happens if you both get together and declare a, what? independant contrators techworkers union? Arquinsiel posted:"Sign this lovely new contract or be fired" is a pretty clear cut case of unfair dismissal TBH. I'd be inclined to call their bluff and maybe even negotiate to a raise in return for not qutting and taking a constructive dismissal case. The way I read this is they're hoping one of the two coworkers being offered the contact will sign and not fight, and aren't counting on them to talk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
The piece I’m struggling a bit with to follow… are you actually an employee today, or on some form of temporary contract with them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:06
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:"Sign this lovely new contract or be fired" is a pretty clear cut case of unfair dismissal TBH. I'd be inclined to call their bluff and maybe even negotiate to a raise in return for not qutting and taking a constructive dismissal case. This is presumably in Europe so the whole Constructive Dismissal thing may be a nonstarter. If OP signs this they'll never respect themselves and the company won't respect them either. Everyone has unique circumstances and unique factors that go into such a decision. Me personally I would rather be homeless than submit to such a flagrant demand to get on my knees, and I also don't think it would come to that, a job at least as good can be secured fairly quickly. But my calculus isn't the right calculus for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
Constructive dismissal is a thing in Europe. That's why I'm suggesting it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:12
|
|
|
SEKCobra posted:Basically they are converting my contract to a quasi all in model. They'll be telling me to sign or be fired on thursday (my colleague already had the talk). what term is the noncompete on? while working, or is there any period afterward?  if it will cause you problems getting next job IMO
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
leper khan posted:what term is the noncompete on? while working, or is there any period afterward? That's the point of the exercise and why I wouldn't entertain signing this for a second. It's intended to make it as difficult as possible to leave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
SEKCobra posted:In practice? Nothing right now, there have been verbal promises made to me, the work council and everyone around that this is just to prevent a PR disaster when they forget to pay someone on time for some expenses. I'm incredible confused by this, especially the travel expenses part. So, if they don't ask you for overtime or to travel, end of day, you get 5500? They ask you for overtime, that normally would be an extra 2k that would take you to 7500 today. Under the new contract, what? Does it sum to 7k because of the differential between the minimum and your 5500? Or do they say, ok, that's an extra 2k, but we're subtracting 500 and then adding the difference to our minimum, which nets you 6500? What if they do that, for most of the year, and then at the very end of the year say, oh yeah btw now you have to travel for us, and pay flights etc up front, and look at that it sums to 1500, so you have to pay all that back and never be reimbursed, you're at minimum now? How does that work for taxes -- the amounts you pay on expenses vs the amounts they front. i.e., you may be taxed on 5500, but due to expenses take home 5k to pay those taxes out of and also be paying your taxes on the travel expenses too? Edit: oh poo poo, & the noncompete too -- so they might sum up all this "extra" money you're owed, then end of year say, hey, to keep your job you gotta pay all that extra down to minimum on expenses we WON"T reimburse, and if you leave, we'll chase you down with this noncompete for x number of months/years if you won't pay it? This is nuts. I really don't understand even how it's intended to work, except clearly to screw you. Edit again: honestly, if it were me, I'd play the total confusion AS the negotiating strategy. How can I sign something I don't understand? What would happen if X? Y? How would that even work -- I'd have already spent that money, how could I plan for non-reimbursed expenses I don't know how to predict? How can I understand the tax implications better? Etc. jemand fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I interviewed with a company that wants me to do a "case study" for them. Whats the politest way to decline based on that being beneath me, and also how rude/fun will it be to send them a "here is my consulting rate" counter which is what Im fantasizing about but wont do. Daydream with me. I would love to support [company interviewing with] in achieving success, and would be happy to provide you with examples of how I would perform in my role. However, with time commitments to my current employer, I am not comfortable performing an unpaid case study at this time. [I would be willing to do some sort of in-person or virtual real time exercise to demonstrate my capabilities if required.] Bracketed section if true. Depends a bit on what you're interviewing for, but -- blunt is fine. These things are a plague and get abused.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:54
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I interviewed with a company that wants me to do a "case study" for them. Whats the politest way to decline based on that being beneath me, and also how rude/fun will it be to send them a "here is my consulting rate" counter which is what Im fantasizing about but wont do. Daydream with me. ChatGPT made this for me. It's quite robotic so you would need to put it in your own voice but I think the main points are good: quote:Dear [Recipient],
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:32
|
|
|
If you want the role do the case study, if you don’t then tell them it’s an unreasonable ask and you’re no longer interested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:55
|
|
|
Most importantly: If you don't want to do the case study don't do it. Out of curiosity: How long were they thinking you would spend on it? If it's like "Take an hour and write up some bullet points you can talk through" then that's not a big deal. If its "This will take several multi-hour sessions to do" then yeah that's super dumb. 60-90 minutes of homework is both my limit for any personal interview but also what I limit any homework I give*. *That would always be a last interview and its extremely rare that I'd give homework, the last time was years ago hiring a project/account manager role so it was very germane to the job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 03:14
|
|
|
Wheel! Of! 4chan! posted:They're telling you openly what they want to do, I'd recommend believing them. Now it's up to you whether not to sign it or sign it and immediately start looking for something better. Yes, but it's a corporation and my immediate org isn't going to be implementing whatever plan might be behind this, so I have at least a year until anything changes in practice. That's the one advantage of slow moving corporations, the changes take time. Basically I'm trying not to rush myself out the door when I can just keep collecting a (pretty good) paycheck. The notice period doesn't really matter, new employers will wait for it and more likely than anything those would be 3 months paid leave if I decided to quit. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Yeah and, if you're not in a financial spot, you can decide for yourself what the likelihood is that they actually sue you over it if you just walk out without giving the three months. I would be more concerned about the de facto paycut and maybe call their bluff out of principle but it's hard to know your situation. Notice periods are different here than in the US, walking out is only an option if there are serious reasons like health risks or bullying. Otherwise you are on the hook for all damages, lost revenue blablabla. Sticking it out wouldn't be a problem and I'm still happy in my team so I don't care if I'd have to be around 3 months either way. Arquinsiel posted:"Sign this lovely new contract or be fired" is a pretty clear cut case of unfair dismissal TBH. I'd be inclined to call their bluff and maybe even negotiate to a raise in return for not qutting and taking a constructive dismissal case. Jordan7hm posted:The piece I’m struggling a bit with to follow… are you actually an employee today, or on some form of temporary contract with them? Yes but I am an idiot and got suckered into (temporarily) being a leased worker through the corporate structure before getting hired into full time position. I regret this choice, pretty sure I discussed it excessively in this thread, but it probably was the right choice out of all the offers I had. Basically the original offer was: Be leased worker for two years in <corporate leasing agency> Get exact same contract but at <actual company> ??? Profit The <actual company> decided to end the whole leasing bullshit because it was giving them issues getting new hires and actually costs a lot more, so I was getting handed over early. But instead of same contract I got same contract + two new bullshit clauses (which have been added to all corporate contracts in the meantime). So it's not a targeted thing against me, in which case I'd obviously have been gone in a second. Basically the threat is that they'll end the contract with <corporate leasing agency> if I don't sign over to <actual company>, which gives me no legal leverage as that is a right they have and was the reason I never wanted to do that spiel in the first place. TheParadigm posted:Since you have an coworker in the same spot, what happens if you both get together and declare a, what? independant contrators techworkers union? The work council (union basically) nodded of those terms because they were guaranteed that the terms would never be used in such a way. They'd obviously fight it on a corporate level if it was ever actually enacted, but if that happens during an economic downturn that fight might be lost, because in legal terms it's pretty one sided. The whole shop is extremely unionized, so the likeliness of the worst case happening are actually pretty low, but I don't like agreeing to a contract that has the potential of blowing up at the whim of my employer (strike or no strike). Eric the Mauve posted:This is presumably in Europe so the whole Constructive Dismissal thing may be a nonstarter. I am trying to weigh the pros and cons, because I really do not want to sign it. However I wouldn't actually win anything from that (unless they'd go "OK nvm here's the old contract", which is very unlikely). On the other hand if I squeeze a signing bonus out of them & keep collecting a nice paycheck until I'm ready to leave port I'd be up a lot of money and nothing would have been worse (because we are not even remotely talking about enforcing that contract clause atm, that would be years down the line if ever). leper khan posted:what term is the noncompete on? while working, or is there any period afterward? The non compete does not matter because it is so specific that it won't affect any other job I'd ever take not with this company. I'm still telling them to give me money to sign it, but I don't really care about it. jemand posted:I'm incredible confused by this, especially the travel expenses part. So, if they don't ask you for overtime or to travel, end of day, you get 5500? They ask you for overtime, that normally would be an extra 2k that would take you to 7500 today. Under the new contract, what? Does it sum to 7k because of the differential between the minimum and your 5500? Or do they say, ok, that's an extra 2k, but we're subtracting 500 and then adding the difference to our minimum, which nets you 6500? It is constructed in a very backwards way, so I don't blame you. Basically it says that any legal or union pay within 1 year is to be weighed against all pay and bonuses above union minimum I received. Right now I don't really do much overtime or travel, but I do oncall which is a part of union pay. So if the union minimum for my position is 5000, but I actually get 5500 and I do 1000 of oncall duty, this is what I get paid right now: 6500. If/when this new clause would be actually enforced (which is not happening at the moment), they would only need to pay me 6000. Basically the 500 I have in my contract doesn't matter if I do any extra paid work/travel etc. But like I mentioned previously, in a year there are about 25000 € in compensation that could be calculated against (~2000 per month), which is unrealistic for me to ever reach in oncall/overtime with the legal limits on that. So to be clear, if this is actually enforced at any point, I'll refuse any overtime/oncall/travel and quit on the spot. The only reason I am considering signing this contract at the moment is only because it a) will not be interpreted that way right now and I will still receive those 25k and any oncall/overtime/travel for the time being b) if they move to enforcing this, they'll be in open war with the union and all employees (80% unionized~) c) the employees own > 10% shares of the corp which kinda doxes the company if you do any research lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 11:30
|
|
|
Basically what I want to do is tell them "so do it" and see if they cave, but I doubt it as its something they are pushing through for hundreds of people and I'm the first one making serious waves about it. I'll just be let go as a statistical anomaly. So strategically I'm thinking I'll treat it as <actual company> wanting to hire me and having them make me a bid to make those terms favorable compared to the open market with which they are threatening me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 11:41
|
|
|
Something to consider if it is a large corp is just leak it to a newspaper and see what happens. Especially if you arent planning on staying anyway. Things that have been signed off by the union are public domain imo, the negotiation has been concluded. it sounds like a certain UK high street store that trades on being fair to employees, so they might row it back. Also sounds like an absolute chicken poo poo union - we took this deal because the other side pinky promised they wouldn't do what it says.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 12:23
|
|
|
SEKCobra posted:
So you’re an employee of leasing agency, not actual company? I think that’s a dramatically different position to be in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 13:14
|
|
|
CancerCakes posted:Something to consider if it is a large corp is just leak it to a newspaper and see what happens. Especially if you arent planning on staying anyway. Things that have been signed off by the union are public domain imo, the negotiation has been concluded. it sounds like a certain UK high street store that trades on being fair to employees, so they might row it back. Technically it's not the union that approved it, but the work council. I figured I'd simplify it as I don't think the US really has that concept. Basically the work council is a legal entity within every company that can form by vote (similar to unionizing in the US), but it negotiates with the employer independent of the union to some extent. The union negotiates with the employers on a per-industry basis. So basically if a company is registered as an IT company, the union responsible for IT negotiates a base level contract with the industry reps for the whole IT sector. This contract applies to all IT companies, regardless of them having a work council or being "unionized", everyone gets those better terms. It does not apply to an IT worker working in healthcare tho, those fall into the healthcare contract etc. The work council only negotiates "on top" of that and usually deals with more specific things like "Can your boss access security cam footage and under what circumstances" or how remote work is set up. They probably deemed the pinky promise credible enough and used it to negotiate for something else, IDK. They told me they didn't like it, but don't think it will be enforced. TBF they have a seat on the board of directors so it's not totaly without merit, but I think they also didn't quite check what the clause means, it's written in a very roundabout way. Also complacency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 13:22
|
|
|
I think you have the right mindset but I just want to emphasize that if they don't enforce this rule now they will and probably within a year or so. There's no other reason to put it in everyone's contracts. It's a pretty classic poison pill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 13:35
|
|
|
Lockback posted:I think you have the right mindset but I just want to emphasize that if they don't enforce this rule now they will and probably within a year or so. There's no other reason to put it in everyone's contracts. It's a pretty classic poison pill. Yeah that's my thinking as well, but a small part of me is thinking it could just be hanlon's razor and the people in corporate HR are actually that stupid and the reason given for that new clause, whilst being ridiculois and it being way too far reaching, is actually the only genuine reason for it. I'm way too pesimistic to believe that, but all the other people have accepted that so far, so maybe I'm the problem. At least that's one of the doubts that's also in the back of my head. SEKCobra fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Feb 21, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
Corporate HR don't make decisions at that level. They just enforce them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 14:08
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:So you’re an employee of leasing agency, not actual company? Yes, unless/until i sign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 14:13
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Corporate HR don't make decisions at that level. They just enforce them. they also claim ownership for making them despite not making them to provide cover
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 14:46
|
|
|
SEKCobra posted:Yeah that's my thinking as well, but a small part of me is thinking it could just be hanlon's razor and the people in corporate HR are actually that stupid and the reason given for that new clause, whilst being ridiculois and it being way too far reaching, is actually the only genuine reason for it. I'm way too pesimistic to believe that, but all the other people have accepted that so far, so maybe I'm the problem. No, this isn't stupidity. Omitting something is stupidity, this is actively adding a clause and the only reason you'd do that instead of literally nothing is you plan on eventually using that clause. My guess would be they'll let things slide for a year and let some of the leadership cycle through before rolling it out. edit: I mean, maybe with that clause this is still a good job or whatever, so I think the path of "Try to get them to give you a bonus then ride out the bonus" is likely a good one but just keep your head on a swivel because flags don't get redder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 15:38
|
|
|
For comedy try get them to add another clause in your contract stating that the previous two clauses will never be enforced rather than simply deleting them. If they don't intend to enforce them then it'll be no problem, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
SEKCobra posted:Yes, unless/until i sign. So the situation is that you’re a contractor and they want to convert you to an employee, but their standard employment contract has clauses you don’t want to accept. Other contractors in this position are signing the standard employment contract, either because they don’t understand or are disregarding the issues with the clauses you’ve identified. Tbh it seems pretty cut and dry to me. You either sign the contract and become an employee, or you find a new gig. Notwithstanding the above, is remaining a contractor an option at all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 21:36
|
|
|
Is it already signed by them? If not, you could pull the ol switcheroo that dude did with the credit card company and modify the contract before sending it over hoping they don't read it (don't actually do this).
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:For comedy try get them to add another clause in your contract stating that the previous two clauses will never be enforced rather than simply deleting them. If they don't intend to enforce them then it'll be no problem, right? I already tried this/asked for a sideletter but the CEO is scared of getting told he's a bad boy by corpo HR. He would have fully supported giving me the contract sans new bullshit, he did go "is there any way to grandfather this in" but our shithead HR manager didn't even try to get that done. Basically our HR department is of the opinion that the corpo HR has more sway than the C suites in their own company and have waved that around the whole time. Jordan7hm posted:So the situation is that you’re a contractor and they want to convert you to an employee, but their standard employment contract has clauses you don’t want to accept. Other contractors in this position are signing the standard employment contract, either because they don’t understand or are disregarding the issues with the clauses you’ve identified. Kind of, I am an employee of the leasing agency, but have the exact same contract and general rights as an employee at the actual company. The only difference is that I can be returned to the leasing agency instead of fired. Every "actual" employee up until a little over a year ago has the contract without those new clauses, they just added those to the corporate standard contract (which the leasing agency also uses as it's just another company of the corp). During the original talks about this whole ordeal the CEO said we could remain with the leasing agency until the migration (ending that whole spiel) is complete, which seems to be now, a little sooner than expected. Basically they said they'd "try" (best effort, no SLA) to get the standard contract rewritten to represent the actual stated intent, but the rewrIte that they've sent is literally just repeating that the calculation period is per year. It's a lot of corporate blame shifting, company C-level and HR say "it's out of our hands, but we'll never use that", corpo HR just goes "lol we make the rules, no one gets a different contract" and really nobody is happy except some genius corpo HR dude who thinks he wrote the contract of the year getting one over on everybody that he'll start enforcing in two years loving over every new hire. I have talked to a lot of people that signed the adjusted contract that didn't realize what was snuk in there because apparently a lot of people don't even read it in the first place and those that did didn't challenge the confusing wording. SEKCobra fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Feb 21, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
SEKCobra posted:all the other people have accepted that so far, so maybe I'm the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Negotiation: Some of your coworkers would agree to execute a prisoner of war if it meant not having to look for another job Is this too long for a thread title
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 22:19
|
|
|
Parallelwoody posted:Is it already signed by them? If not, you could pull the ol switcheroo that dude did with the credit card company and modify the contract before sending it over hoping they don't read it (don't actually do this). What story is this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:This is not a valid line of reasoning. I get the social pressure to conform but 90+% of people you meet at work are extremely complacent and will do basically anything to keep getting their paycheck and avoid change at any cost. Working in an office means accepting that some of your coworkers would agree to get peed on or execute a prisoner of war if it meant not having to look for another job. It's no way to go through life, but it's what many people do. Yeah I learned through this how many people don't even read their employment contracts. Literally they all got the same two contracts as me and didn't check them side by side to see that there are two glaring differences. Boggles my mind, but it's something I've come to accept.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
Quackles posted:What story is this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 22:39
|
|
|
seems absolutely fine to actually do as long as you have good lawyers and lots of spare time
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 23:00
|
|
|
I dunno where you all work but in my experience you have to be pretty senior or the org has to be pretty small to get them to change their standard employment contract for you. Also business blaming HR is not HR getting one over on everyone, it’s HR doing its job of being the designated bad guy for business to get what they want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Also business blaming HR is not HR getting one over on everyone, it’s HR doing its job of being the designated bad guy for business to get what they want. Thread title answered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
theyre work cops
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 00:16
|
|
|
Yeah I was onboarding for a role getting outside of HR and more into IT for a major healthcare company, and when I read their contract it wanted me to sign over power of attorney and some other questionable stuff. When I pushed back on some of the clauses the staffing agency didn't even know how to respond, I doubt they've ever had someone actually read it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:theyre work cops I will take a mountain of poo poo for being in HR, but calling me a cop is over the line. Words hurt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 00:20
|
|