Most Bizarre job contract clauses I have ever seen

[linux-works]

the deciding factor is: does this pertain to the core business of the employer or not?

in my case, I was going for a networking job (C coding, network mgmt stuff) and so why would my AUDIO DESIGNS be at all up for grabs simply because I'm working 9-5 for someone else?

answer: it can't be grabbed.  in calif law, this won't stand up, but they can still take you to court and cost you a lot of time/money.  I did not want to get into that issue and so I walked away and did not accept their terms.

if I am working on something that is too related to the company business, I would ask the boss for a signed letter explaining who owns what, first.  but if the 2 fields are not at all related, they have zero claim on my own IP.  zero!

[Sigmoid]

I'm pretty sure usually these clauses are unenforceable... I think companies put it in more as a protection against an employee asserting IP on company stuff they made after leaving, rather than to tech-grab someone's hobby project.
I once signed one like this, when I was working as a "software researcher". They said it's my job to come up with stuff, that's why it's there. I stayed there for about a year... Anyway, I don't think I'd sign stuff like this again.

BTW the regular clause of this kind usually states that any IP you create on company equipment, or otherwise as part of your job description, belongs to the company - which is pretty understandable.

[manticore00]

Unfortunately employment law in the US sucks and unless you work for a large company with comprehensive HR rules/guidelines you're pretty much at the mercy of your employer's whims. That said, I wouldn't want to swing the other direction and be like some countries in Europe where it takes an act of God to get someone fired, but there needs to be some happy medium.

Does that happy medium go both ways, where the employee can't just quit and stop showing up to work?  If not, then it's inherently unfair.  There is absolutely zero reason to add additional laws to employers - they already deal with so many that have had a huge detrimental effect on our economy.

Yes the medium should go both ways. It's been 10 years now so I don't remember the exact details but back in college I was in London, UK and had a part time IT tech job. IIRC I was contractually required to give 4 weeks notice when I was going to quit, if I didn't give this notice they were able to dock my wages for compensation. Here's some info about notice in the UK: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4096

Employment should be a fair contract between employee and employer with protections for both parties. The problem in the US is that executives get given golden handshakes, handcuffs and parachutes and will have other incentive or clawback provisions in their contract(sometimes), while the average worker frequently gets treated like just another cog in a machine, especially in so called "right to work" states. Average employees should have proper contracts so that both parties can enjoy the protections of contract and employment law, working "at will" is just giving employers all the benefits and crippling the rights of workers.

The junk that gets put into employment contracts that are offered in the US is crazy too. As others have said, companies frequently put unenforceable or unconscionable clauses in contracts with the expectation that the employee won't have the means or will to fight it. I'd love it if a law was added that gave some favor to the employee where an employer is hit with punitive damages based on a fixed formula(so that it can't be nibbled away on appeals or some such), to be awarded to the employee in the case of an employment contract having been ruled to contain such things.

Employment law doesn't have to be a winner take all fight between militant unions or cutthroat companies.

[Icarus]

I honestly believe that everybody in this planet who enjoys electronics, programming, etc. want design great products and love to see their hard work and imagination become reality
However, when some jerk tell you that they may have fire you without compansation if you'll get sick more then two days in a month, well that destroys my enthusiasm.

[Corporate666]

Unfortunately employment law in the US sucks and unless you work for a large company with comprehensive HR rules/guidelines you're pretty much at the mercy of your employer's whims. That said, I wouldn't want to swing the other direction and be like some countries in Europe where it takes an act of God to get someone fired, but there needs to be some happy medium.

Does that happy medium go both ways, where the employee can't just quit and stop showing up to work?  If not, then it's inherently unfair.  There is absolutely zero reason to add additional laws to employers - they already deal with so many that have had a huge detrimental effect on our economy.

Yes the medium should go both ways. It's been 10 years now so I don't remember the exact details but back in college I was in London, UK and had a part time IT tech job. IIRC I was contractually required to give 4 weeks notice when I was going to quit, if I didn't give this notice they were able to dock my wages for compensation. Here's some info about notice in the UK: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4096

Employment should be a fair contract between employee and employer with protections for both parties. The problem in the US is that executives get given golden handshakes, handcuffs and parachutes and will have other incentive or clawback provisions in their contract(sometimes), while the average worker frequently gets treated like just another cog in a machine, especially in so called "right to work" states. Average employees should have proper contracts so that both parties can enjoy the protections of contract and employment law, working "at will" is just giving employers all the benefits and crippling the rights of workers.

The junk that gets put into employment contracts that are offered in the US is crazy too. As others have said, companies frequently put unenforceable or unconscionable clauses in contracts with the expectation that the employee won't have the means or will to fight it. I'd love it if a law was added that gave some favor to the employee where an employer is hit with punitive damages based on a fixed formula(so that it can't be nibbled away on appeals or some such), to be awarded to the employee in the case of an employment contract having been ruled to contain such things.

Employment law doesn't have to be a winner take all fight between militant unions or cutthroat companies.

Why should non-essential employees have contracts?  For what purpose?  I think your beef is more about class envy than about reasonable work conditions.  Countries which have implemented more onerous rules and regulations on employers have seen decreased employment as a result.  If we go off on a crusade under a misplaced desire for "equality", we can be sure we will have lower employment and worse conditions for employees.  Case in point - requiring 4 weeks notice if you want to quit.

Bad idea. 

[8086]

If we go off on a crusade under a misplaced desire for "equality", we can be sure we will have lower employment and worse conditions for employees.  Case in point - requiring 4 weeks notice if you want to quit.

Contracts are a trade. You give 4 weeks notice, so does the employer. You both win.

I don't know why you're talking about equality, since this is about unfair contract terms, not equality.

[Bored@Work]

Why should non-essential employees have contracts?  For what purpose?  I think your beef is more about class envy than about reasonable work conditions.  Countries which have implemented more onerous rules and regulations on employers have seen decreased employment as a result.  If we go off on a crusade under a misplaced desire for "equality", we can be sure we will have lower employment and worse conditions for employees.  Case in point - requiring 4 weeks notice if you want to quit.

Bad idea.

Sorry, that is nothing but typical propaganda. Lets fuck employees over, both ways, because it is good for them.

Let me quote Warren Buffett "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

[linux-works]

Why should non-essential employees have contracts?  For what purpose? 

because we are human beings and not animals?

is that clear enough for you??

we band together as a society to take care of each other and for mutual benefit.  its NOT a 'I got mine, fark you!'.  but its clearly becoming that way.

this is not the way I want my world to work.  it may be for the 'haves' but as time goes on, the 'haves' are becoming the 'have-nots' and the middle class is disappearing.

people in a civil country do deserve to be able to make a dignified living.  yes, I think its OWED TO ALL OF US as a side-effect of our belonging to a society.  again, we are not animals and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than 'eat or be eaten'.

[cimmo]

Why should non-essential employees have contracts?  For what purpose? 

Oh, I see. A 'non-essential employee' is nothing more than an easily replaceable animated sack of meat doing some completely trivial task in your company (but obviously a task that must be done in order for your company to function). This sack of meat must be doing something to make money for you, or why would you employ them at all? So why not treat this sack of meat with some dignity and respect for increasing your profits?

It is this sort of pro-corporate brainwashing you espouse that has enabled 85 people on this planet have the same net worth as 3.5 billion.

[manticore00]

Just to dispel the idea that I have my opinions based on class warfare... I currently am a well compensated consultant making a six figure salary plus bonus and I've never felt like I've been beaten down by society or anything like that... Having said that, I realize I'm lucky and that there are plenty of men and women out there who are just as qualified as I am but who haven't necessarily had the same luck as I have had.

I don't want to live in a society where the fortunes of birth determine one's future and I don't want to live in a society where the top 1% can live without a care in the world while the bottom half are living pay check to pay check. I don't want to live in a society where we're happy to spend more on imprisoning individuals than we are on paying for their education.

Am I in favor of paying someone more based upon their skills and experience? Absolutely. Do I think that it's just for the lowest paid employee in a company to be living paycheck to paycheck with no security in life whilst the CEO is paid tens of millions a year? Absolutely not. There is some happy medium, we just need to agree that people aren't draft animals and agree as a society that if we're to allow people to live in the lap of luxury, there should be some floor below which we'll not allow people to fall.

Society shouldn't be winner take all. I'd prefer everyone to be driving Infiniti's rather than some driving Ferraris and other driving Kias.

[smashedProton]

...
Any profit I make the company on any of my projects is mine. If anything I do wrong costs me money, then anything I do right makes me money as if it were my own business.

What is this, a 19th century sweat shop?

I asked my first boss why he paid me so much less than he made from my efforts.  He answered "Because I take the risks.  I'm responsible for anything you screw up.  I  You aren't.  I pay for teh building, and all the expenses, regardless of whether I make any money or not.  If you want all the reward, you can go into business for yourself and assume all the risk."  It was an important lesson for me.

How does that make any sense?  If the project fails and the company goes under, you are still out of a job!  Him being ultimately responsible for what goes on in the company is complete bullshit.  when he takes risks, he is forcing the rest of the company to follow him.  so the risk is universal.   his comment about doing administrative work was a valid one though.

[jwm]

...
Any profit I make the company on any of my projects is mine. If anything I do wrong costs me money, then anything I do right makes me money as if it were my own business.

What is this, a 19th century sweat shop?

I asked my first boss why he paid me so much less than he made from my efforts.  He answered "Because I take the risks.  I'm responsible for anything you screw up.  I  You aren't.  I pay for teh building, and all the expenses, regardless of whether I make any money or not.  If you want all the reward, you can go into business for yourself and assume all the risk."  It was an important lesson for me.

How does that make any sense?  If the project fails and the company goes under, you are still out of a job!  Him being ultimately responsible for what goes on in the company is complete bullshit.  when he takes risks, he is forcing the rest of the company to follow him.  so the risk is universal.   his comment about doing administrative work was a valid one though.

I am assuming he was talking as an owner. Meaning he is likely risking his house, retirement fund, and everything he owns and possibly being in debt for a small business loan on top of it. At most you risk your job and future income but nothing you already have which is yours to keep. In addition, the infrastructure you utilize for your job has costs that are not reflected in your salary but are part of your employers costs for having the results of your work. A 100k paid employee can easily actually cost 200k to an employer meaning they need 200k of work out of them to break even.

[8086]

Society shouldn't be winner take all. I'd prefer everyone to be driving Infiniti's rather than some driving Ferraris and other driving Kias.

Ooh, dangerous opinion for an American to hold, no?

Flies in the face of "the American dream" - don't the hoards of temporarily embarrassed millionaires beat you down for it? After all, if you don't have a ferrari, it just means you haven't been working hard enough! 

Also it sounds very much like socialism or even communism to most Americans to suggest that people be treated fairly. And we all know how afraid they are of that sort of thing!

[manticore00]

Society shouldn't be winner take all. I'd prefer everyone to be driving Infiniti's rather than some driving Ferraris and other driving Kias.

Ooh, dangerous opinion for an American to hold, no?

Flies in the face of "the American dream" - don't the hoards of temporarily embarrassed millionaires beat you down for it? After all, if you don't have a ferrari, it just means you haven't been working hard enough! 

Also it sounds very much like socialism or even communism to most Americans to suggest that people be treated fairly. And we all know how afraid they are of that sort of thing!

Actually I'm British, I just live in the US  And if you think I'm an evil socialist or communist, you should hear my wife speak! We went to her parents' house in the San Francisco Bay Area for Christmas and after a debate on politics her mother said she didn't realize how "conservative" I was!