[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.