[cleansy]

Time to learn about a relocation clause in the general employee agreement:

Clause [X]: Relocation Expenses and Redundancy Protection

The Company agrees to reimburse the Employee for reasonable and necessary relocation expenses incurred by the Employee in connection with the Employee's relocation to the work location specified in this Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein ("Relocation Expenses").

The Relocation Expenses shall include, but not be limited to, the actual costs of moving the Employee's personal property, temporary housing expenses for up to [number] days, transportation costs for the Employee and their immediate family members, and any other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred as a direct result of the relocation, up to a maximum amount of $[amount].

The Employee shall provide the Company with receipts or other documentation evidencing the Relocation Expenses within [number] days of incurring such expenses. The Company shall reimburse the Employee for the Relocation Expenses within [number] days of receiving satisfactory documentation from the Employee.

In the event the Employee's role is made redundant before the Employee's start date, the Company shall still be liable for the reimbursement of the Relocation Expenses incurred by the Employee, provided that such expenses were incurred within [one (1) month] prior to the date the role is made redundant (the "Cut-Off Date").

The Company's obligation to reimburse the Employee's Relocation Expenses shall survive the termination of this Agreement for any reason, including but not limited to the Employee's role being made redundant before the Employee's start date.

If the Employee voluntarily terminates their employment with the Company within [one (1) year] of the Employee's start date, the Employee shall be required to repay to the Company, within [number] days of the termination date, a prorated portion of the Relocation Expenses reimbursed by the Company, calculated based on the percentage of the [one (1) year] period not completed by the Employee.

[zippergz]

Please get back to me once you've gotten a multinational corporation to agree to this (or any other candidate-provided clause) for a non-executive employee.

[cleansy]

I never had to deal with multinationals - not much of a corporate guy. I was reading through the comments here and it seemed to be common that "well, there's nothing you can do". Actually, there is, write it in your contract and see what comes back. If your new employer does not allow for this, at least a) you tried and b) you are fully aware of the risk that the employer might just leave you out cold. In which case, going all-in as the author did could have been avoided.

[xnorswap]

I've also not worked for mega-corps, but I've also had good experience with writing things into contracts and having them agreed to.

I find it odd that people are fine with contract negotiation when it comes to remuneration but treat actual contract clauses like holy text that can't be changed.

There's even a good chance that what you think is "unchanging boilerplate" is boilerplate that gets updated all the time and barely anyone is on the same contract anyway, or that it is very job role or department specific.

That said, I've mostly worked at SMEs which can be more flexible anyway, and getting a contract change is a good indicator of their general flexibility so perhaps works as a good filter too.

[varispeed]

This. Even big multinational corporations can change the contract to your liking, but that involves sending it to their legal team and waiting.

Last time I requested a change in the contract it took them almost one month to approve.

So if they need to hire someone asap, then it may not work, but on the other hand that is a red flag.

It's of course easier in smaller companies, where there is not many people in the chain that need to look over the paperwork.

I think many people fear that if they start "making problems" they won't get hired, because next candidate may not be too fussy. But I think that is a wrong way to look at it. If you don't stand for yourself, you are unlikely going to stand for other things, seemingly less important and employer may see this as a bad trait. Like imagine a task is being proposed and from your own experience you know it is not going to work, but everyone agrees it should be done. You could keep quiet and hope you'll not be the one to do it or you can start "making problems". Which worker would be more preferred?

[notahacker]

> If you don't stand for yourself, you are unlikely going to stand for other things, seemingly less important and employer may see this as a bad trait.

I don't think there are many situations in which an employer is positive about a non-executive employee rejecting their contract offer and proposing an alternative with fancy legalese clause awarding themselves a [$amount] bonus up front in a manner which creates the most complications for the company's lawyers and auditors. It's certainly something (and someone) very easy to say no to.

[dclowd9901]

I think the standard experience is “this hiring rep is barely competent enough to call me back, why the hell would they have the pull to change a contract?”

[gdilla]

oh, it can be changed. The real question is, would they bother changing it (and having legal review blah blah) for you.

[PragmaticPulp]

> write it in your contract and see what comes back

The issue is that in many countries, employees don’t actually have contracts. Lawyers will go to great lengths to ensure that offer letters are not structured as contracts. It’s important to keep the distinction in mind.

[ska]

I've seen similar clauses in a bunch of contracts, it can't be that rare. You are unlikely to be able to add your own language (as per your case of non-exec) but you may not have to.

[PragmaticPulp]

Getting a completely custom legal document from a big company is not going to happen outside of extraordinary circumstances.

That said, the relocation packages I’ve seen have been effectively similar to this. Having the offer revoked for cause (e.g. you lied) might cancel it, but getting laid off wouldn’t. Obviously not true everywhere though.

[brk]

As other commenters have mentioned, you're not going to be able to insert your own clauses into any standard employment agreement.

However, every large employer has already relocated hundreds, if not thousands, of employees. They have similar clauses that are approved, but as a candidate you may need to ask to have such a clause included.

Depending on the hiring market, the specific position, and your unique circumstances, you may or may not be able to get something added to the agreement, but it would rarely be unjustified to ask for some kind of relocation protection.

[dgrin91]

A much simpler solution I have seen to this that is _actually_ used in big companies is just relocation bonus paid on start. In short it basically goes 'Company agrees to pay you $X flat for your relocation. You are entitled to do whatever you want with this money, no questions asked. You may keep this money presuming you are not terminated for cause within Y months'

X and Y negotiable of course.

[PragmaticPulp]

The problem is that if you’re laid off before your start date, you wouldn’t get paid. Despite relocating.

[300bps]

All of my “paid on start” bonuses/reimbursements were paid weeks after I started, often with my first paycheck.

[ivalm]

The point is that they would owe you this even if they let you go immediately. Obviously they implement it in a way that’s easier on their payroll system.

[Dave3of5]

Are you suggesting asking Google to add this to their contract ?

If that's the case then you are delusional.

These companies are "the law" and they will not change their contract for you. It's hard enough to even get a verbal offer from a company like Google far less get them to add relocation costs to a contract.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

You'd be surprised by what you can get by simply asking for it.

[ascar]

Relocation clauses are very common, often included right from the start in your initial offer and if not these big corps have prepared clauses that they can add upon request/negotiation.

[ghaff]

It sounds like he may not have actually incurred any non-reimbursable expenses though other than maybe canceling an airline ticket. He's obviously incurred lots of disruption with associated costs (quitting job, getting rid of most of his stuff) but these aren't the sort of things that qualify for relocation expenses.

[cleansy]

This is not a fully-complete clause, yes, getting rid of stuff hurts and might not be coverable, but at least in this Case Google would have guaranteed to pay for the relocation. Other clauses could be that in the event of a redundancy before employment start, the signing bonus stays with the employee, etc. In his case, it still covers the financial blow to a degree, and he would have probably enough time to find a replacement job. Relocation costs are also money spent on Realtors, etc.

[jt2190]

Wouldn’t it be simpler to just ask for a signing bonus?

[samwillis]

What's that from and in what jurisdiction?

[cleansy]

It's a general clause that any employee who is moving for a certain job should put into their contracts. If the company does not agree to cover at least the basics, then hey, maybe it's not a good idea to move for that job in the first place?

EDIT: to your point, this should be enforceable in any jurisdiction that generally holds up with the law?

[slymon99]

literally no big tech employer is going to allow you to add clauses to your employment contract

[alfanick]

Then you tech employee are not big enough. Of course they can do this. Goes to HR, Hiring Manager, HM approves sends back to HR, HR sends to legal, HM pings because legal is slow, bam it's done. Everything can be done between humans.

[UncleMeat]

It can be done. As in, the systems won't spontaneously combust if people try to do this.

But the number of people who can pull this off is unimaginably small. Even for highly desirable hires the immediate response is going to be "we don't do custom contracts, end of story."

[notahacker]

Goes to HR, HR says "are you kidding me?", informs HM that candidate did not accept the offer, hires different candidate

Goes to HR who thinks about executive relocation packages for a moment, then looks again at what salary band the applicant was in and how much extra they're asking for expenses and informs HM that candidate did not accept the offer, hires different candidate

Goes to HR, HR forwards to HM, HM says "wow, this candidate sounds like an absolute nightmare to manage", hires different candidate

Goes to HR, HR forwards to HM, HM approves and sends back to HR, legal says "no, I don't care how good the candidate is, this provision is too messy". A lucky candidate might at least get "take it or leave it" with the original contract at this stage

Goes to HR, HR forwards to HM, HM approves and sends back to HR, legal is slow so HM pings legal who might have carefully considered precedents with executive relocation but is annoyed to be put on the spot and says no with some cautionary tales about employees who think they're lawyers instead. Another candidate is hired...

All of these scenarios are more likely for most positions than the sequence of events you've described. Humans are good at doing things you don't want them to do too! And if you're in the category of employees who are so special the company will rewrite their standard employment terms just for you, your probably not in the category of employees who risk financial hardship from being made redundant before they start

[mschuster91]

Tech employers have their own relocation clauses usually that have the same wording.

[McSwag]

Literally they will if tech workers unionize, which has its own baggage and list of disadvantages for everyone but if tech companies get in a bad habit of treating employees poorly that’s exactly what will happen.

[tick_tock_tick]

No! A union explicitly means a random employee will lose the ability to add or remove any clause from their contract as the Union will negotiate that. That doesn't mean the Union wouldn't negotiate a better contract then the employee would on their own but you absolutely lose that power in almost all Union setups.

[AnimalMuppet]

Perhaps so. But until that happens, I can't stick it in an employment contract.

[notahacker]

And also, unions don't exist to give workers the ability to stick arbitrary clauses in employment contracts, they exist to try to lobby for better standard terms for union members. And relocation packages for new employees are a very long way down a union members' list of concerns, since people tend to join the union after they've relocated...

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

There's a lesson here: such employers near-exclusively hire cogs who are supposed to fit in place. Many might find it useful to ask about such a clause as a sort of "canary" test.

[megous]

Then it can just as well be called ToS, instead.

[yunohn]

Have you ever accomplished this?