Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Same. And in the same breath they also added “this is never used anyway, it’s just the template”. But “no it can’t be removed from the contract”



I always respond with "if it's never enforced, then you'll be fine with me taking it out"

Then I strike the offending passage out on both copies of the contract, sign and hand it back to them.

Your move.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Do you really do this, and is striking out a line of a contract binding?


Yes, I really do this. Have done since I started working.

At one of my first jobs as a student employee they offered me a salary X. In the contract there was some lower number Y. When I pointed this out, they said "X includes the bonus. It's not in the contract but we've never not paid it". OK, if this is really guaranteed, you can make that the salary and put it in writing. They did, my salary was X and that year was the first time they didn't pay the optional bonus. Didn't affect me, because I had my salary X.

IANAL and I don't know how binding this is. I'd think it's crucial for it to be in both copies of the contract, otherwise you could have just crossed it out after the fact, which would of course not be legally binding at all and probably fraud (?)

In practice, it doesn't really come up, because the legal department will produce a modified contract or start negotiating the point. The key is that the ball is now in their court. You've done your part, are ready and rearin' to go, and they are the ones holding things up and being difficult, for something that according to them isn't important.

UPDATE:

I think it's important to note that I am also perfectly fine with a verbal agreement.

A working relationship depends on mutual trust, so a contract is there for putting in a drawer and never looking at it again...and conversely if you are looking at it again after signing, both the trust and the working relationship are most likely over.

But it has to be consistent: if you insist on a binding written agreement, then I will make sure what is written is acceptable to me. You don't get to pick and choose.


For one job I also crossed some stuff out, founder was cool with it because he mostly got it from a template. Having actual paper is great for that. At a later job, they insisted on Docusign, which was basically I get an immutable image in a browser to 'electronically sign' with no modifications. It had a section that amounted to a non-compete agreement that I didn't like, but their lawyers didn't really answer me on whether such a thing could be enforced or not given that the company was headquartered in California even though I'd be working out of Washington. I took that as a sign that they probably wouldn't go Amazon on me, at least.


I’m the kind of person for whom it would be hard to say it directly. You’re awesome.


Verbal agreement has lots of risks.

First you’re offering up a lot of trust to people you might have just started working with.

Or, they could be very trustworthy and just remember things differently. And of course people come and go in companies all the time they just might not be there.

At least if you do a verbal agreement follow it up with an email confirming the details.


Why not? A labor contract is a 2-ways street. If the company doesn't like the new version, they will not sign it and not hire you.


Exactly. And just like I have to be fine with not getting the job if my conditions are not acceptable to them, they have to be fine with not getting me if their conditions are not acceptable to me.

Considering the considerable effort that has gone into this by the time you are negotiating a contract, letting it fail over something that "is not important" and "is never enforced" would be very stupid of them.

So if they are unwilling to budge, that either means they were lying all along and the thing that's "never enforced" and is "not important" actually is very important to them and definitely will be enforced, or that they are a company that will enforce arbitrary and pointless rules on employees as long as they think they can.

Neither of which is a great advertisement for the company as an employer.


> So if they are unwilling to budge, that either means they were lying all along and the thing that's "never enforced" and is "not important" actually is very important to them and definitely will be enforced, or that they are a company that will enforce arbitrary and pointless rules on employees as long as they think they can.

Most of the time is basically just FUD, to coerce people into following the rule-that-is-never-enforced


It's always "not enforced" or "just a template" right up until they decide they need to pressure you into something and then they will have no problem referencing those items.

Do not sign a contract unless you are willing to entirely submit to everything in it that is legally binding.

Also be careful with extremely vague contracts. My employment contract was basically "You will do whatever we need you to do" and surprise surprise, unpaid overtime is expected.


I've seen legal departments redlining drafts of a contract repeatedly until an agreement had been reached. The final contract still contained the red lines.


(EU perspective) it is binding. you just add both parties' initials/signature on the margin of each line that was changed.


Usually it’s binding, because it’s presumed both parties signed after the changes.

However it can be disputed, and a company could argue about the timing or details.

That’s why you’re often asked to initial changes, makes it clear that both parties have agreed to the modifications.


IANAL but I've seen strikes throughout contracts, and then an initial+date from both parties. Weird how in 2024 an initial that's so easily forgeable can be legally binding


A verbal contract, which has no record at all, can also be legally binding.


I guess like all laws it depends on jurisdiction, and more importantly, if you can convince the judge/magistrate that the contract did or did not happen


Yeah, but the law still sets the default baseline for he judge / jury / whatever. In the Nordic countries (at least Sweden) -- as techno-modern and bureaucratic as they may be -- that still includes verbal agreements.

(The handshake is probably not a legal requirement, though I suppose it could be taken into consideration as evidence -- "You even shook hands on it, so you must have realised that what you had just discussed were atually the terms you were agreeing to.")


I would guess that the initial is not the important thing, but that the strike is present on both copies of the contract.


Don't forget to initial the crossed-out section and draw a passive aggressive happy face!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: