I loved doing drafting. I was a stickler for details, and assured that I could properly create a digital dataset from my full dimensional drawings. (and that the upstream supplier of that data actually complied with ASME Y14.5, like they CLAIMED to. You have no idea how many times they tried to claim inappropriate datums in aerospace! SO. MANY. TIMES.)
But then Precision Cast Parts Inc decided that they needed to buy the company I worked for. The owners wanted to retire in comfort, and PCP offered them a deal they could not refuse, so they sold. Then they literally made it a requirement of continued employment that the following conditions be agreed to:
1) The only person that can change this contract, in any way, is the CEO.
2) You, the prospective/continuing employee, AGREE that the following is true:
a) It would cause unspeakable harm to the company, to which there is no acceptable legal remedy, should this contract be in any way violated, and that as a result of this, you agree to being held to extraordinary means for the company to reimburse its losses.
b) You agree that every product of your mind belongs to them, regardless of the capacity to which you are employed, or the hours of the day you created such product. Literally any creative project you undertake belongs to them, exclusively, and that the know-how you have, is a direct result of their training you, and thus they are entitled to any and all proceeds from that. FOREVER. (Literally "survives termination of employment.") This includes things that they are not legally entitled to claim otherwise. (Literally stated in the agreement.)
I told their attorney that I could not agree to the terms of the agreement, because I could not agree that those conditions are true, could not willfully abrogate rights that are against the law to give up (in the manner they demanded), and that making an agreement with this verbiage constituted an illegal contract, because it was being negotiated from a position of unfair advantage on their part. She pointedly asked if I was an attorney, which I responded "no" to, (because I am not.) She then tried to stuff a bunch of horse-shit at me that it was just "Standard boilerplate", (which it is NOT, I double-checked!), and after a protracted phone conversation with her, I was escorted out of the building, because I could not continue employment there, because I could not agree to the onerous terms.
Just to be clear-
I am perfectly OK with the ALREADY EXISTING "
Works for hire" law on the books. (and stated this to the attorney.) There was no need for this kind of agreement, it is already understood that works created for an employer are created for the benefit and ownership of that employer, and the person creating that work is remunerated by the pay provided by the employer, not the legal ownership of that work. Items that get this designation are agreed upon between the employee and the employer; but this employer wanted *EVERYTHING!!!!*, and not specific kinds of creative work. This is abusive and onerous, and I would not agree to such a circumstance.
I am perfectly OK with preserving industrial secrets with an NDA, as the release of an industrial secret can cause significant harm. Which I also asserted to the Attorney. I further stated that such a category must be properly delineated, and not subsumed in a universal capacity, "EVERYTHING!!". In sharp discordance with the nature of the agreement they demanded I accept, *THEY* were the ones gaining *MY* intellectual knowhow, creativity, and capabilities-- through their acquisition of my previous employer-- NOT the other way around; they DID NOT train me, (NIAR trained me, and I have documented proof of that), they are not entitled to the perpetual ownership of my creative capacities, and have no right to demand it. They are free to demand that anything I create that involves an industrial secret specific to their company (which has been properly defined as such), and that any creative work I produce for pay, is their property. But they do not get to claim extravocational skills or products of my mind, nor to claim that such a transfer of ownership can continue in perpetuity after my termination, as that would deprive me of any means of producing a livelihood.
What I am STRONGLY against, is the demand for things that are completely outside the scope of my employment (which the agreement demanded), and the demand that I legally agree to terms that I did not in actuality agree to. (Specifically, the ONLY remedy available at law is financial compensation, and possibly injunctive relief, depending on the circumstances. Demands that they be entitled to basically carte-blanche anything and everything they can think of as their "Extraordinary remedy", is just absurd. They are NOT entitled to that, and they are NOT legally entitled to demand that-- AND-- I do NOT agree with essentially perpetual agreements of this nature, that are so open-ended, and clearly unfair.)
Author
Topic: Things that made you mildly upset today thread (Read 1225021 times)