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
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.

>>mpweih+sg1
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.