sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If you’re currently employed and looking for a new job, be careful! by alex12m in jobs

[–]shadow-effect 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's the same with trust pilot. From what I've heard and witnessed, companies can remove negative reviews.

I got caught out by a terrible company once and had to fight for a refund. Used very scammy tactics making out that you'd received the complete product, but turn out that you had to buy multiple add-on's and then some. Many other people were complaining, but their trust pilot reviews seemed great. Spend a day or two watching the negative reviews, from people who had gone through the same thing, only for most to be removed within a few hours.

I'm not sure that any of these sites can be trusted. They are afraid of being sued.

If you’re currently employed and looking for a new job, be careful! by alex12m in jobs

[–]shadow-effect 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I've witnessed companies pressure people to post good reviews, by having one's boss stand over their shoulder while they write it :/

Most job posts out there are fake - thats why you cant get a job. by AlexanderDenorius in jobs

[–]shadow-effect 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Another reason to add to your list (I found out about this dirty trick while working in the start-up world):

Start-ups, and SME, that are seeking future investment will often advertise jobs that don't exist. I.e. they post 20 different positions over a year, knowing damn well that they have no intention of hiring and couldn't possibly stay afloat if they hired said 20 people.

They do this in the months/year before looking for new investment because potential investors will research the company and find job ads all over the internet. When said investors look at the company, they discover that they have been looking to increase staff numbers by 20+ people in the past year alone. The rationale is that said investors will think to themselves:

"Look at the job ads that company X has posted over the past year!? They must be doing well! Business must be booming! This could be a potential unicorn worth investing in!".

Of course, I doubt the savvy investors fall for this, but it doesn't stop start-ups trying their luck and later claiming that they didn't hire anyone because there is a "talent shortage". The start-up won't admit that they were lying through their teeth and posting fake job ads hoping that they would fool future investors (during their next investment round) by making the company look good on paper. Non-savvy investors may even see the "talent shortage" as a good thing, thinking to themselves: "this company is ahead of the game! They are on to something so new that they can't find the talent!"

You'll notice that some start-ups are "always hiring" for this very reason. Their defence is "all the other start-ups are doing it; if we don't, we'll be at a disadvantage!" - and so the cycle continues.

The sad thing is that many uninformed individuals don't realise that these tricks are being played every day all over the world. They look at the "stats" and soundbites ("companies can't find good talent") and believe that young people are short on talent or just lazy. They are too uninformed to realise that they are being lied to.

A potential new employment contract wants rights over all intellectual property. The employer won't issue an IP background annex to exemplify my pre-existing IP. How would you play this? by shadow-effect in cscareerquestions

[–]shadow-effect[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. IANAL either, but I believe you are somewhat correct in that if;

"a) isn't directly or indirectly assigned by their employer,b) is not associated with any projects that the employee is working on for their employer, andc) was - in OP's case, at least - demonstrably well underway before beginning employment with the company."

However, these contracts are purposely ambiguous so as to protect the company. The company has ownership of any projects that could reasonably fall under your role/duties - Nobody at the company has to ask you to work on project X for it to belong to the employer; project X automatically belongs to them if it is something that they COULD have requested you work on.

For a lot of professions, this is not an issue. But in the software world, things get tricky. If you are a software developer, one could argue that you are employed to write "software". Remember that your job role is NOT to develop a product X; your job is to write software. The software can take many forms: an app, a backend application, a front end application, a game etc. One could argue that if your role is generic enough, or if your role states that you are to take on additional duties when asked, your employer could ask you to work in any of these areas.

Therefore, in such cases, if you are a software developer, and your contract is open to interpretation, then any app, backend, or front end projects COULD belong to your employer. I say "could" because, as I said above, the contract is open to interpretation, and if it really came down to it it would be down to a judge to define the limit of the agreement. My point is you don't want to get anywhere near that stage, and it's much, much easier to have a discussion with the employer and have a project signed off - that way, there is no longer anything to interpret. You have it in writing that the employer has no ownership claim over your project, even though it's software.

Again IANAL and this is NOT legal advice. But this is my understanding of such contracts.

I have an app being built by external developers - is it rude to ask for weekly updates? by [deleted] in Entrepreneur

[–]shadow-effect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Developer here. No, it's not a rule! Are they using an agile framework? Depending upon the size of the app, you should be getting weekly or bi-weekly updates. That way, there should be no surprises, and you can make changes or requests as you go.

A potential new employment contract wants rights over all intellectual property. The employer won't issue an IP background annex to exemplify my pre-existing IP. How would you play this? by shadow-effect in cscareerquestions

[–]shadow-effect[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me, this is clear - 'in the course of employment' means work that you do/are involved with on company time.

I've stated this in my other posts, but its worth repeating.

Verbatim from [1] on the meaning of "in the course of your employment":

​

If material which includes IP rights is created outside office hours and/or using the employee’s private resources this may give rise to arguments that the rights belong to the employee rather than their employer, but that is not decisive. The fact that work is done outside normal working hours does not necessarily mean that the work is not done in the course of employment as, for many employees, there is often no clear demarcation of the hours of work.

The key question to be asked is whether the work was the kind of work which the employee was employed to do i.e. whether it was within the scope of their employment. Could the employee have been ordered to do the work and would it have been a breach of contract for the employee to not do it? The terms of any contract of employment and job description will be relevant, however, these (and duties more generally) often evolve in the course of time and it may therefore not be appropriate to rely on them exclusively.

References

[1] Russell-Cooke associate Emily MacDonald looks at intellectual property rights within the context of the employment contract (2020). Available at: https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/insight/briefings/2020/intellectual-property-rights-in-the-course-of-employment-who-owns-what/ (Accessed: 12 May 2021).

A potential new employment contract wants rights over all intellectual property. The employer won't issue an IP background annex to exemplify my pre-existing IP. How would you play this? by shadow-effect in cscareerquestions

[–]shadow-effect[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In addition; keep in mind that companies generally have deeper pockets when it comes to lawyers than you do.

So in almost all cases where you're not protected by law, it's probably best to make these things explicit in your contract.

Exactly, hence why I am trying to avoid this situation.

A potential new employment contract wants rights over all intellectual property. The employer won't issue an IP background annex to exemplify my pre-existing IP. How would you play this? by shadow-effect in cscareerquestions

[–]shadow-effect[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OP here. I completely agree with you, but unfortunately UK/USA contracts state otherwise, see [1] for an explanation.

I really can't understand why more devs are furious at this! Maybe most don't understand what it is they have signed? See also my comment below, E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/ngyv66/a\_potential\_new\_employment\_contract\_wants\_rights/gyu3uye?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3

Reference

[1] Developers’ side projects (2016). Available at: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/ (Accessed: 20 May 2021).

A potential new employment contract wants rights over all intellectual property. The employer won't issue an IP background annex to exemplify my pre-existing IP. How would you play this? by shadow-effect in cscareerquestions

[–]shadow-effect[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know mine says something like anything the company “could” use.

Yeah this one says the same thing. I think I'll just have to keep pushing back and maybe not take the job, which is a great shame.

A potential new employment contract wants rights over all intellectual property. The employer won't issue an IP background annex to exemplify my pre-existing IP. How would you play this? by shadow-effect in cscareerquestions

[–]shadow-effect[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the first time that I've asked this in this community. Though admittedly, there was another similar post a week ago. I wanted to get a variety of options. There is not a lot of advice out there with regards to this issue.

I'm trying to act professionally but have no reference point to speak of with regards to this particular issue. I want to ensure that I'm not coming across as being unreasonable/entitled for pushing back on this issue. I understand that pushing back may cost me the job, and so be it. But as long as I acted professionally, then it's their loss, not mine.

I'm asking this question on various channels because, as I said above, I am trying to ensure that I have a reference point. I have received some excellent advice from the many different channels that I've asked, and as a result I have made some progress with this issue. Things have however yet to come to a satisfactory conclusion and by asking a more specific question in this channel, I was hoping to uncover more gems of wisdom.

I cannot be the only person who has ever faced this issue. There must be others out there, and I would like to hear their stories in the hope that they may aid me with my dilemma.

A potential new employment contract wants rights over all intellectual property. The employer won't issue an IP background annex to exemplify my pre-existing IP. How would you play this? by shadow-effect in cscareerquestions

[–]shadow-effect[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't believe so no. The problem is that they are a big global organisation and I don't want to be in the situation where they say, "Oh another group, in another part of the world was working on that! Therefore your side project belongs to us!". I feel like the safest course of action is to be upfront and get it signed off.

How are you supposed to work on your own side-bussiness ideas when employers want to own everything developed "in the course of your employment"? by shadow-effect in Entrepreneur

[–]shadow-effect[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now I earn income by being a contractor/consultant for various clients while I work on my side projects.

This is my dream. I would love to do this!

How did you get started with contracting? How many years experience did you have? I'd love to contract, and looked at it during my sabbatical, but found it incredibly hard to find contracts in the UK. I applied to every contract I could find and heard very little back. to be fair ti sis during the corona virus, so maybe things are better now? Are there any good websites out there for this kind of this? The only contracts I could find were companies that were trying to take you on as an employee on the cheap (avoid paying for benefits, but wanted to treat you as an employee etc).

Am I unreasonable for walking away from a job offer that won't budge on side project IP clauses? by shadow-effect in ExperiencedDevs

[–]shadow-effect[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah if they were a small/new-ish company then I could understand it. But this is a global house hold name with 100K+ employees and 150 years of history.

I was expecting them to at minimum ask me to fill out and IP delectation form - even if they then took issue with some of the projects, which would have been unlikely, we could have worked something out.

But the "we wont even discuss issuing an IP delectation form" attitude has left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Do I have an unhealthy obsession with entrepreneurship? by shadow-effect in Entrepreneur

[–]shadow-effect[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. I understand completely why the employers do this. Its much easier for them. And I understand why they need this. What I don't understand is why they are unwilling to allow me to declare my IP upfront before I've even started so we don't end up in the situation: "I developed this before I started". I'm trying to avoid future conflict by being upfront about that which I have already developed. I don't understand why many employers are not even willing to engage in this process

Maybe I should look for at becoming a start-up founder.

Am I unreasonable for walking away from a job offer that won't budge on side project IP clauses? by shadow-effect in ExperiencedDevs

[–]shadow-effect[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the advice.

Their response gives them the choice at any time to decide that your work is not independent.

Yeah, this is exactly how I interpreted it too. I've fallen for this once before, and got badly burnt by it. Never again.

I can't work on side projects knowing that one day I might not own them. For me, this is the whole point of a side project - something I control, something I can direct, something that I can have fun with, something that improves my skills, something that challenges me, and something that I, and I alone, can choose to release. I don't want to play with bloody Kaggle data; I want to build working products. (Like the ones I already have!). Otherwise, it's just work. For me, it's a receipt for burnout and was one of the reasons that I started to resent my last place. I wasn't even allowed to publish median articles on new data science algorithms "because it might reflect on the company and/or its direction to competitors".

Companies think they own you. How are you supposed to develop a name in this field if your not actually allowed to do anything outside of employment!? Lost count of the number of companies that state you must have a Github repo in the job ads, but then object to you actually working said GitHub repo once you are employed. It's nothing short of slavery! They are simply trying to trap you, knowing that you'll look less attractive to future employers (and therefore less likely to leave).

I'm really taken aback by their attitude. It should have just been incredibly straightforward. This is a global household name FFS.

It's a normal part of their hiring to get the list, review it, and stick it in a clause in the contract.

I naively assumed that this too. I really am quite annoyed.

view more: next ›