The more they need you, the more likely it is you're going to get clauses that you want in the agreement.
They're becoming more common, especially in the dot-com industry.
It also limits their right to discovery, or information-gathering. Probably the biggest problem is that most of them require the cost of the arbitrator be split by the parties. A lot of these arbitrators charge a lot of money. It could be thousands and thousands of dollars. That puts an employee sometimes in a position where they can't afford to arbitrate their claims.
The non-compete clause, depending on how it's worded, could be the most potentially damaging from a practical standpoint. Especially today, when people move from job to job. Try to negotiate so it's taken out or limited so it's not a tremendous burden on you.
The people were not ready for that kind of impact -- not that anybody could be, ... It was far larger than they ever dreamed it would be. It wiped out virtually all their infrastructure.
Even on a relatively low level, some provisions for a substantial severance package can be included.
That's a real problem area for us lawyers, ... because depending on how important it is for a company to get rid of someone, they can go through a whole sham of pretending to restructure a company to justify a termination.
The employee wasn't stealing. Over 10 years, he had opportunities to take thousands and thousands of parts and he never did any of that, and he had no intention of doing that.
If they're very marketable and they know they can go to another job just as easily as this one, then I tell them to push for the max. On the other hand, if the person isn't at that standpoint, I counsel them to feel out the situation and kind of bring up the subject if they feel comfortable.
Copyright © 2024 Electric Goat Media. All Rights Reserved.