Beyond the specific legal interpretations, I was wondering if anyone had comments on how to handle a situation where you are offered a job (contract or perm) with some clauses that you don't like. How do you go about negotiating the terms of the contract? Is it even negotiatable? I've never been good about negotiating anyway and with the current job market it seems like the job seeker is in the weak position.
The job seeker is in a weak position, but if you are negotiating contract terms, presumably both sides have already agreed that this is a good fit. The only thing for the sides to do now is to agree on specific terms. If you keep it in that perspective, you can see how there might be some negotiating room.
Of course, some companies are very particular about contracts. They may say, "This is Policy," as though a company's policy were the goal of the business. Or they may say, "This is a Legal Matter," as though the law were handed down from the Mount and utterly inflexible. If that's the response they give, then you have to decide how much you can really live with, and whether or not it is worth risking the hire. If you feel strongly enough, it might be a deal-breaker for you. But most companies are at least mildly flexible.
For non-compete clauses, in particular, if you push gently but firmly, and make it clear that you respect the company's goal to have an enforceable, reasonable non-compete agreement, you should be able to get some adjustments made. What you don't want to do is make it sound like a trade: I'll take less money if you give me a better non-compete clause. That makes you seem like a mercenary and exactly the kind of person they need to protect themselves against. Make it clear to them that you understand their point of view and think it is legitimate, but that it is too restrictive and for that reason may even be unenforceable. Tell them you'll give them a draft alternative for their review, but that you'd welcome their changes and suggestions. You need an agreement that works for both of you, rather than an agreement that may cause problems in the future. Indicate that what you are trying to do is head off future problems by making just a couple of minor changes early on. Sort of like software development: it is a lot cheaper and easier to catch problems early in the development cycle.
The same general approach should be useful for most contract issues. The key is not to sound adversarial, even if you have strong objections to what you see as an unfair piece of paper. Focus on the objectives of the company, and you should be able to see their point of view enough to find a compromise you can live with.
All of which is pretty far off-topic for this list, I'm guessing.
-Adam
_______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
