[joekrill]

It's absolutely astounding to me how many folks blindly sign legal documents. Especially employment related. Whenever I've pushed back on an employment contract, NDA, or similar it's always met with sudden confusion - as though this has never happened before. In fairness, it's almost never met with negatively. But it shows that no one else has ever bothered to question it. And when I talk to colleagues I definitely get the sense that no one ever really reads these things or questions them.

[CodeGlitch]

The problem arises especially when the document is written in legalese. I also feel like I'm not really qualified to understand these documents - they are generally written for people who have the appropriate qualifications.

For example when buying a property in the UK, the soliciter will be the one parses the legal documents. It's crazy to think that normal people are expected to fully understand these, and it doesn't surpise me when they just blindly sign them. At the end of the day they want the thing and carry on with their lives - throwing caution to the wind.

[mech422]

I feel this is one of the major problems with most TOSs...

You generally don't have a lawyer around to explain every TOS you come across, so people ignore them and hope for the best.

Hmm - I wonder if there would be a niche for a website that explains specific, common TOSs in easy to understand terms?

[CodeGlitch]

We've all been hearing about machine learning algorithms that can parse legalese and pull out the important bits given parameters of interest. So certainly a possibility.

HN make it so!

[mech422]

Does that mean we'll sprout a generation of "Legal SEO" lawyers that try to game the algorithms ? :-P

[lcall]

https://tosdr.org/en/frontpage

https://www.thewindowsclub.com/summary-of-terms-and-conditio...

And elsewhere in this discussion is a list of prior such discussions that might mention others (you could Ctrl+F for my username here to find it, I replied to the list).

[lcall]

Also possibly of interest, though I haven't even read their site carefully: https://stonecutters.law/

They say "Stonecutters publishes legal forms and clauses for other legal craftsmen to incorporate by reference."

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Tbh I don't find tos very hard to understand. They are akin to programming for the law. And generally speaking they just tell you what you should already know about the terms under which you use the service, so that you can't sue the service for absurd things.

For the sake of demonstration, I just went and read the first seven sections of Personal Capital's TOU. Not a single surprise in there, so far. To give one example, section 5 just says that for the sake of displaying the information you are agreeing that personal capital can retrieve on your behalf, personal capital has your authorization to act legally on your behalf. This is to prevent some idiot from suing them for fetching account info that said idiot inputted into personal capital. Another section says, hey, we aren't responsible for mistakes you make with your investments, even if you base your decisions on the information we show to you. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing as well -- you literally could not run a service like this otherwise.

[throwaway2048]

Reminds me of a recent change in the privacy policy of my bank, it spends pages and pages talking about "getting my consent to use my private information" in all sorts of contexts strongly implying they will ask me before selling off my information, then later, in a different part it defines my "usage of the service" as consent for them to use said info.

[joekrill]

Well that's when you get a lawyer to review it for you. I realize there is a cost involved here, but when you're talking about something like this it's usually well worth it - if only to know exactly what you are agreeing to.

[Aeolun]

> throwing caution to the wind

If people were regularly burned by these legal documents then maybe, but I expect that literally nobody or their friends ever had any issues, so most people will accept that that applies for them too.

[de_nied]

That's why documents written in legalese always define the words used before they start using them. At least in the U.S.

[pjmlp]

In Germany it is even considered another language, kind of.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwaltungssprache

Which kind of translates into Officialese as per Wikipedia.

Defining words is not enough, the grammar and sentence formulation are also very convoluted in regards to the common language.

[de_nied]

Simply from my own experience in dealing with U.S. legal documents, specifically U.S. law, it is usually enough to Google the terms and understand the meaning. If the phrasing is convoluted to the point of needing Academics explain it, then it's usually defined by a court ruling on its meaning.

Terms of service is generally easier to read because it's more simplified and typically doesn't use Latin or existing legal language that is uncommon to the layperson.

Of course, this is still in the context of U.S. law and the English/Latin language.

[pjmlp]

Unfortunately it isn't that simple, that only works for very basic documents, imagine a 50 A4 page contract written that way.

[de_nied]

Can you provide me with an example?

[lcall]

Happens in doctors offices too. Now I try to request all paperwork in advance so I can read. At one (where I thought highly of the doctor who seemed very kind and competent), 2 people in the front office insisted to me that the "other document" to which the main one referred and said I was also agreeing was the same document that had the reference. After I refused to sign, one left and the other made a phone call to find the real "other" doc.

I think (though am not an attorney, so not sure what a really honest, articulate, kind one would say) that if attorneys who wrote these long, difficult agreements applied honesty and the Golden Rule, they would start reading them themselves more often in general life, and they would word them so that their target audience would have an easy time understanding them, etc etc. But the executives have other things on their minds I suppose, and don't push for this (or care...?). (maybe this is one of my pet peeves--sometimes I wonder if it just makes life harder for honest people). But I still think being honest and kind is totally worth it in the long run. Wrote more elsewhere on that.

[perl4ever]

Last time I went to urgent care/the ER, I was told to sign an electronic pad repeatedly, and no document was provided at all, on paper or screen. It was just verbal, sign for this, sign for that.

[lcall]

Yeah. Maybe they get used to the majority of patients who don't want to read things, and systems even reflect that. I watch the displayed fine print just in case it actually says something, but maybe I should ask more questions.

Once when at a nearby hospital to just get a blood sample drawn, the documents to sign including those by reference were ~11 pages. Fortunately they weren't busy, & I tried to apologize for taking so long & explained I felt it was a matter of honesty to know what I was agreeing to, and they printed things for me and let me cross some of it out. But I found that another nearby hospital system (a regional nonprofit w/ good reputation) had a 2-page agreement, and I go there now even though it is slightly farther for us. (It unfortunately seems like on medical stuff, it helps to get as much as possible covered before the visit, also for financial questions, making sure everyone is in-network etc etc, so I am now trying to remember to ask for everything in advance sometimes.)

[Aeolun]

I think part of it is coming from a country where any ‘unreasonable’ or ‘unfair’ conditions will almost certainly be considered nonapplicable in court (if it ever came to that).

[brightball]

Same. I’ve never seen anyone balk. If anything it shows attention to detail.

[mlthoughts2018]

When I have pushed back on the same topic, it usually is met with negativity. I believe recruiting and hiring staff have some incentives to treat you like you’re crazy if you want special provisions or need clarification on complex terms.

In my career, I’ve negotiated

- a severance package in my offer letter from a company that said, “we don’t offer severance packages as a matter of policy.”

- a sign on bonus from a company that said, “we don’t offer sign-on bonuses as a matter of policy.”

- a longer expiration period for startup options, as well as partial acceleration of vesting in the case of a significant liquidity event, from a company that said, “we can’t modify our standard equity agreement papers.”

- immediate full vesting of matched 401(k) contributions from a company that said, “our policy is that matched contributions only vest after 1 year.”

- ability to expense my own Linux workstation, which I could keep, in the offer letter, from a company that said employees are only allowed to be issued Mac laptops.

- explicit extra section in the offer letter stating that any IP created by me using only my personal equipment and personal time was my sole property and was explicitly not subject to any part of the employee handbook dealing with ownership of IP.

In all these cases, the conversation usually started out with me being gaslit about all this being impossible or my expectations being crazy. But after sticking to my requirements, eventually it normalized out into a sincere discussion.

I should add, all these examples came from very large companies except for the case of the options expiry and acceleration.

I also gave a hard “no” to many companies over the years that wouldn’t negotiate on topics like these, and I can say I don’t regret it one bit. There’s never been a case where I said no to a job offer over inflexibility on all these topics and then later regretted it.

[sizzle]

How did you do this without scaring the hiring manager? Assuming the hiring manager has to vouch for you to their bosses to get the negotiated terms, you must have a very sought after skill set?

Or is this purely negotiating with HR and/or legal for contract terms concessions without hiring manager as it doesn't come from their budget?

[mlthoughts2018]

The first thing you have to realize is that the hiring apparatus in the company is bureaucratic. They aren’t scared, mad, judgmental, whatever. They are going to be thinking more about what’s for lunch and whether they can cut out early next Friday than about your candidate profile or negotiation.

As long as you are polite but firm, they aren’t likely to think anything. They’ll just figure they either like your profile and want to work with you, or they’ll figure they know they can’t meet your requests.

Always present flexibility even if you aren’t actually flexible. In theory, if they cannot give a severance package, maybe they can give a much higher sign on bonus, or something else you want. Let them know what’s important to you, but that if there are other ways to address what you’re looking for, you’re open to hear it and think about it.

Once you’re at the stage of making concrete requests, don’t be vague and don’t accept vague alternatives. Always ask for concrete alternatives and once it is stated, always take time to think about it offline, always. That way if you decide you’re not actually flexible, you have breathing room to process your decision and respond.

You should also project confidence about your worth and why you are asking for something.

For example, for negotiating a severance package, you should be very clear about it. In my case, that mattered to me because I was relocating to a new area and at the same time I was switching from individual contributor to manager. I felt the risk of the local job market for an inexperienced manager was high, so if the company I was joining would have restructuring or sudden cuts and I am laid off, the money to float myself in the new region would be high. To feel comfortable about this, I just wanted to know for sure if that kind of change was coming, I would have X months of salary as a cushion.

If a recruiter or hiring manager is too immature to appreciate this as a sincere concern / request of a candidate, and would punish me just for asking either by acting like severance is a taboo way to protect insecurities of being fired or acting like I’m a prima donna, well that makes the decision to walk away pretty obvious for me.

The main thing is just remember they don’t owe you any special features in a job offer and they absolutely won’t offer them unless you ask and make it clear it matters to you.

But you also don’t owe them anything either, certainly not any expectation about being “too fussy” or “scaring” them. Nobody’s going to look out for what you want as a candidate except you.

As long as you’re polite but firm, and you make clear asks and require clear commitments, you should feel completely confident asking for anything you want. Whether you’re willing to compromise or you need to say “no,” you’ll be doing yourself a big favor.

[letitbeirie]

Do you mind if I ask what you do exactly? It would be interesting to know whether:

- you have a specific skillset and experience that give you a negotiating position not enjoyed by most, or

- most developers are significantly underestimating their negotiating position

[toast0]

Some of those negotiations seem like a pretty hard bargain (can they give different 401k vesting terms to some employees and not others?), but your position when you've got an offer is pretty strong.

They've invested a significant amount of time finding you, and assuming you're good at what you do, it's going to take a lot to find another acceptable candidate.

Nobody wants to have to report that the candidate didn't start because of something relatively minor, so restart the hiring machine.