zlacker

>>apengw+(OP)
If this really was a mistake the easiest way to deal with it would be to release people from their non disparagement agreements that were only signed by leaving employees under the duress of losing their vested equity.

It's really easy to make people whole for this, so whether that happens or not is the difference between the apologies being real or just them just backpedaling because employees got upset.

Edit: Looks like they're doing the right thing here:

> Altman’s initial statement was criticized for doing too little to make things right for former employees, but in an emailed statement, OpenAI told me that “we are identifying and reaching out to former employees who signed a standard exit agreement to make it clear that OpenAI has not and will not cancel their vested equity and releases them from nondisparagement obligations” — which goes much further toward fixing their mistake.

>>tedivm+W2
This reads like more than standard restrictions. I hate those like everyone, they are just intended to chill complaints in my opinion with enough question to scare average people without legal expertise (like me, like most devs), just like non-competes used to seemingly primarily be used to discourage looking at other jobs, separate from whether it was enforceable - note the recent FTC decision to end non-competes.

About 5 months ago I had a chance to join a company, their company had what looked like an extreme non-compete to me, you couldn't work for any company for the next two years after leaving if they had been a customer of that company.

I pointed out to them that I wouldn't have been able to join their company if my previous job had that non-compete clause, it seemed excessive. Eventually I was in meetings with a lawyer at the company who told me it's probably not enforceable, don't worry about it, and the FTC is about to end non-competes. I said great, strike it from the contract and I'll sign it right now. He said I can't do that, no one off contracts. So then I said I'm not working there.

>>NotSam+l5
I have worked for multiple startups (Malwarebytes, Vicarious, Rad AI, Explosion AI, Aptible, Kenna Security). Not once have I seen an exit agreement that stated they would steal back my vested equity if I didn't sign. This is definitely not "standard restrictions".

>>tedivm+76
Anytime someone tried to get me to sign a terrible contract, they always said “This is just standard stuff.”

>>ungrea+GH
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”

>>ornorn+7W
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)_/¯

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

>>hollow+761
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.

>>darkwa+Jc1
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.

>>mpweih+Pk1
> 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

>>darkwa+hn1
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.