One of my least favorite trends: offices that give you pages of contract to agree to in order to just have a meeting on premises.
I got one of these in a job interview situation and it really was pages upon pages. I was in the lobby waiting for a job interview, and the person sent to fetch me was visibly pissed off I took the time to at least skim what the heck was in this agreement.
I mean what a messed up context. Obviously I won't get the interview unless I agree, and there's zero chance of negotiating any of these points. Should I just wave past it to placate the interviewers impatience? If I take my time to go through the details will they read me as a potential problem employee that will be legalistic about ordinary matters? If I don't take my time am I signaling that I'm a lax coworker that doesn't apply due diligence? If the interview goes well should I use the same behavior when evaluating the employment agreement? When signing the initial "get past the lobby" contract did I end up agreeing to something that could have implications for me later working at this location?
The whole thing is a kafkaesque farce.
I applaud Stevens for his stunt, even if only ultimately a symbolic protest.
It feels like reform in this area requires a generation of lawyers that become the top judges that are willing to oppose the mentality of most lawyers.
This one time I watched my COO say that he isn't signing the Facebook visitor NDA without getting a lawyer's approval on it first, and if they're not cool with that they can try to reschedule our meeting to happen outside the building. It worked, never signed.
I got one of these in a job interview situation and it really was pages upon pages. I was in the lobby waiting for a job interview, and the person sent to fetch me was visibly pissed off I took the time to at least skim what the heck was in this agreement.
I mean what a messed up context. Obviously I won't get the interview unless I agree, and there's zero chance of negotiating any of these points. Should I just wave past it to placate the interviewers impatience? If I take my time to go through the details will they read me as a potential problem employee that will be legalistic about ordinary matters? If I don't take my time am I signaling that I'm a lax coworker that doesn't apply due diligence? If the interview goes well should I use the same behavior when evaluating the employment agreement? When signing the initial "get past the lobby" contract did I end up agreeing to something that could have implications for me later working at this location?
The whole thing is a kafkaesque farce.
I applaud Stevens for his stunt, even if only ultimately a symbolic protest.
It feels like reform in this area requires a generation of lawyers that become the top judges that are willing to oppose the mentality of most lawyers.