It sounds legally like coercian. There are some porn producers who are going to jail for a very long time (their whole life) over this. Recruit girls for a photoshoot, tell them a couple days out that it's a porn shoot but it's for private collections, etc. When the girls arrive they're railroaded into signing documents, in a strange city with no money in their pocket, etc.

I'm surprised that the parent post was downvoted, because AFAICT it's a valid comparison. Is there something I'm missing?

In the context of starting a job at Google, I highly doubt you sign your employment contracts the day you show up for work.

Typically employment contracts are signed and settled well before you enter the building as an employee.

I would be surprised if the OP’s anecdote regarding the Googler pulled on the 1st day is in line with reality.

Edit: apparently I’m wrong, the downvotes were deserved! I run hiring at my company and we send people all contracts at the same time that we send the offer letter. No surprise paperwork on Day 1. I’m surprised to hear other companies wait until the start date to sort out legal

I was hired right out of school by Google in 2007. I was absolutely presented with various contract documents on day 1 to sign. In fact, I was not even given paper copies of them; I was supposed to click my agreement in an intranet signing tool.

(I couldn't say what fraction of my employment paperwork was handled in this way, but things like IP assignment were definitely included.)

At one of my first jobs, one of the things I had to agree to was having read "the employee handbook".. but it was not a pdf or other document, it was part of an internal wiki or something, with in-links and out-links all over the place.

I don't recall if I tried to figure out whether the strongly connected component that comprised the handbook was the same as "all pages on the wiki", but I was a little distressed at the time (this being one of my first jobs) that I was being asked to sign my name on something that I couldn't realistically read.

There's always a price to pay for all the innovation that happens in SV. It's just that it ends up being paid by the people rather than by the companies. Companies can afford to pay for the most exclusive of bodyguards, the government.

When I was hired by Google in 2010, I was sent physical papers to sign and return. I distinctly remember this because Google mailedthe papers to my old address from my first application rather than my 2010 address so I had to drive to my family member's house to get papers on a Friday and send them back by Monday.

I still have email copies of the contracts which they sent in parallel. This includes General Hiring Contract & Salary and a standard NDA with California Section 2870 modification.

That’s quite reminiscent of the user experience Google’s customers go through with the TOS

The only paperwork I saw in 2014 before my first day was an offer letter (no contract per se; CA is an at-will state), NDA, relocation offer (always ask for one; it's rarely offered) and a list to fill out of prior inventions. The rest does get signed in noogler orientation.

The benefits (to Google) of being a giant company with at-will employment.

That's pretty normal, at least in tech in CA. Every job I've taken in the past 15 years has had documents I was required to sign on my first day as a condition of starting employment. Most also had some other documents I had to sign to accept the offer, but those were not comprehensive.

It is pretty normal in SV to not see your actual contract before you start. I think I have only ever signed one ahead of time, and that was an unusual situation in other ways.

(Normal, not right. And I started working here in the early 90s.)

This does happen regularly, and employees should never do it (for precisely this reason).

Don't quit your job, move cities, etc etc without a signed contract.

What good is that if you're an "at-will" employee? They can just change the rules at any time for any reason and fire you if you don't agree to them.

I have enough experience to know absolutely nothing about me employer is guaranteed/permanent in the US.

Relevant story for the HN crowd: I worked for a small company (~250 employees). Real chill place. Six months after I start they were suddenly bought out by a huge multinational corporation. First order of business is everyone needs to sign a non-disclosure agreement and an agreement that the company owns all the code you write while employed with them, even if you do it on your own time. There were some people who were reluctant to sign, it was made extremely clear that if they didn't sign they would be unemployed.

That one didn't bother me, I only code at work anyway. What did bother me was at another employer right after I became eligible for the employer's (generous) match on my 401(k) (after 1 year employment) an email went out a few weeks later saying "Sorry, we won't be matching 401k contributions anymore."

I know a guy (very senior engineer) who negotiated that he would be working from home 3-4 days a week before taking a new job. Employer agreed. Few months later line manager notices that employee is not logged into whatever work chat they use in the middle of the day. Not habitually, once. Next day it was announced that there will be no more working from home.

I mean, I completely agree with you. As a non-American, the concept of "at-will" employment is utterly bizarre to me.

But, as a matter of practicality, it's less likely that, after you've signed your contract, Google comes to you on your first day and says "I'm altering the terms of our deal, pray I don't alter it further".

This is all mostly about managing unexpected risks, and my point is that it's actually pretty common for contracts to contain/omit clauses that you really take issue with. I'm just saying it's prudent to know what you're getting yourself into before you up stakes and move cities.

>But, as a matter of practicality, it's less likely that, after you've signed your contract, Google comes to you on your first day and says "I'm altering the terms of our deal, pray I don't alter it further".

It's been my experience that benefits change very regularly, sometimes significantly. For example, my current employer updates their compensation plan every year at the very least.

It's been my experience whenever the company I worked for ends up in a position where they are financially strapped benefits and work conditions change suddenly, drastically, and very frequently.

If you don't work for a big company (or even if you do) there is a good chance where you work will be acquired if you work somewhere long enough and that changes everything. I know some people I used to work with who experienced 4 acquisitions at the same job.

I would assume that if they do decide to "change the rules" then the penalty clauses in the contract kick in, such as payment in lieu of notice. Jesusland does actually enforce contracts, right?

> the penalty clauses in the contract kick in, such as payment in lieu of notice

Penalty clauses in a non-union job in the US!??? How on earth does one get such a clause?

I've had five software jobs and four non-skilled jobs and never seen anything even approaching this sort of clause in an employment agreement, or heard of anyone ever having this sort of clause in their employment agreement, unless you're talking about like CEOs.

The only employment agreements and/or offer letters I've ever seen (from both myself and my spouse) were more-or-less "here's your starting salary and you are employed at will." In fact, the last offer letter I signed literally said something along the lines of "this offer letter is not an employment contract or a guarantee of continued employment."

I'd love to see/read these mythical supposedly "contracts" sometime to see the exact verbage. I very seriously doubt that one just gets to walk away with a big payday just because their employee changed the benefits plan. Not in the US.

Where is "Jesusland"? (I'm from a small, deep blue, Acela corridor state that the current President-elect hails from, so pardon me for not knowing where this place is located).

Likely they're referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

Well, if "Jesusland" = red state USA, it seems to me the blue states have exactly the same kinds of employment contracts.

As one of the people who gave a counterexample, let me just say that I don't support people downvoting you, and I would much rather live in your reality than this one. (Thank you for treating your employees better than most.)

(Not Google) My first job out of college I was asked to sign quite a bit of paperwork on my first day, after I had relocated to their city.

You’re right, I’ve only had a few jobs in my life. But I have hired dozens of people - everyone I’ve hired received their contracts the same day they receive an offer.

Very surprised this isn’t common practice.

if it's worth anything, I'm NOT in the US, and I generally take the position that I don't even have a job until everything is signed (that is to say, sent to me, reviewed, signed, sent back and receipt acknowledged). That action would include resettlement compensation if inclusive, or at the very least I wouldn't consider seriously starting the mechanisation of moving cities until that point.

I'm pretty taken aback to learn how culturally common this behaviour seems to be in this context given the feedback...

before this thread I would have said it's a red-flag for a scam and walk away at that point...

It's the same slave contract everywhere, what's the difference when you sign it?

1) You're claiming it's the same contract everywhere, which is not true, so your second point is moot.

2) Even if it was true, the when would change it. If more people can preemptively compare contracts, the more they would change for the better.

I'd rather pick out a life jacket that fits me before I jump in the water, rather than whatever one is reachable when I'm already there.

I was un are of this system until I hired in the US. It blows my mind.

Here (Germany) offer letters are used to outline the general terms of an offer however the next step will then be that you’re sent a contract (some of mine have been > 10 pages) outlining a lot of relevant things such: - role (ideally even with a job description but that is rare) - place of employment (city/country) - IP assignment - length of probation - length of notice period for both sides - expectation of work travel - vacation - compensation

And a bunch of other things that I’m forgetting.

Similar to the above story, there’s always some resistance from employers to customize terms. It’s operationally much simpler for a company to have unified terms. However at every company I’ve been at I’ve been able to secure changes to the IP assignment clauses.

Of course all of this only works because these contracts are enforceable. There’s no such thing as at will employment here.

If you want to know, the same system happens in Japan too.

When you get the offer letter it's an outline only. Then you either accept the offer letter as it is, or walk away. Asking for the detailed contract (called 就業規則 in Japanese) will always end up losing your job offer, because you have no legal right to see the contract before you join the company.

Some companies are so hostile (and this is the norm in my experience), that even very valid questions along the line of "Do I get severance pay if I am forced to retire?" or "How do stock options work?" will end your job application process right there because you will get labeled as overzealous.

Also, Japanese law doesn't require to state in the contract the exact position that you are hired into. So you will often get hired with the job description: "engineering team member". Of course HR will tell you mealy-mouthed or mellifluously that you are a senior/principal engineer and/or a manager, but none of that will hold any legal water in a lawsuit since your contract doesn't say so.

If you ask me, Japan and the US, some of the largest economies of the world are constant labor right abusers and the UN and other nations simply turn their head when this ever gets brought up.

I still remember the furore it caused when I asked for a copy of the 業務規則. (because the new overtime pay policy was paying ~$3/hr worked after 10pm and I wanted to see the section that covered that calculation)

I just wanted to read the actual language around hours worked and overtime because it was never stated what the policy was.

Turns out you couldn’t read it without a director sitting next to you, and it was in a binder that you weren’t allowed to touch.

My conversation with the CEO:

“Why would you need to read that?”

“Because my contract says ‘in accordance with the 業務規則’ and I’d like to know what my contract is”

“Well you can ask me a question and ill tell you if it’s in there”

Glad I got off that sinking ship.

I feel for you. I also had my fair share of labor rights abuse in Japan. My experience is that only foreigners are 'brave' enough to ever bring this up, which makes the whole situation even more miserable since you cannot expect any help from Japanese colleagues.

Like what?

That's funny. The law in Japan stipulates that a copy of the 業務規則 needs to be in a place easily accessible to employees.

This discussion doesn't revolve around how things should be but how it is in the real world.

Employees, but not future employees :(

Well, Japan also has this thing that a written contract isn't even needed to start employer-employee relationship, oral agreement is technically enough, difficult to prove of course so everyone does written contracts, but still.

Regarding details, well, there is a list of things mandated by law to be included in the offer, they include things like salary, hours, list of additional allowances (手当), though not necessarily all of them, retirement pay and such, so you should be able to receive that information without even asking. In my, albeit not very numerous, experiences in one case I've got something called 雇用契約書兼労働条件通知書 ("Employment Contract And Notice Of Working Conditions") , which included all the details, and in the other case I've got a separate 雇用契約書 (Employment contract), which included generic things like "you work for me, I pay you for that, don't go spreading company secrets around", and 労働契約書 (Labor contract), which included all the details like salary and whatnot. I should probably note, however, that I've only asked for and received these things after we were finished with all the interviews and reached a 内定 (the employer making an internal decision to hire the worker. It's nothing official, just a word to describe the state of the person(s) responsible being okay with the idea). I just politely asked for documents to review before I make my final decision, and while I've never received 授業規則 even after asking, they happily obliged with contracts and documents related to how the company decides on employee's salaries. I think there's a lot more resistance to bother with contracts and whatnot when they don't know if you're willing to work with them in principle or not.

As for "how stock options work", well, while it's probably nice on the side of employer to entertain such a question and while it's probably reasonable to give an answer along the lines of "erm, these are stock options of this and that type, these additional conditions apply, google please?", ending the job application process right there is probably overreacting.

I also feel it's important to note that 就業規則 is not really "a detailed contract", because it's not a contract, it's more of a "Labor rules" for the company, so it does count as an internal document and not for outsiders' eyes. Obviously, the rules must conform to the law and as someone has already noted they must be easily accessible to workers, which was always the case for me. In fact I have always received a hard copy of these on my first day.

It varies by country, even in Europe. In France you also sign beforehand. But in Spain it's quite common to only sign the contract on the first day; before you can request a letter saying that they are contracting you and the salary, but not more.

Sounds like a great time to consider the differences between positive and negative liberty.

Negative liberty: no one can get in my way of doing whatever I want! Google has the right to rootkit my life and I have the right to ignore it and work at a bodega because all tech giants eventually agreed this is a good practice for them

Positive liberty: corporations can't infringe on my right to a private life and must protect my liberty to be a free unconstrained being

I don't know about you but I'd much prefer a world where everyone is guaranteed certain freedoms than one where big companies can use positive liberty arguments to exploit people in new and novel ways.

I've heard it phrased the other way around. Positive liberty is about things that are guaranteed (e.g. health care, food, human dignity). Negative liberty is about things that may not be done (e.g. no punishment for speech, no limitations on buying guns, no environmental regulations).

We are in agreement about which type is better, so this is solely a quibble about the names.

I just flipped them, reading the wiki on the terms I see I had them backwards.

My partner always corrects me and I think they have them wrong :P at least we agree on which one is better too

I think you're thinking positive vs negative rights (which are like what you're describing).

I learned this the hard way, and now insist upon a contract before agreeing to move to a company (i.e. I dont tell my previous job or give a start date until I see a contract).

So far, it hasn't been a problem.

Isnt this job switching 101? you don't have a new job until you've signed. Your notice doesn't happen until you have signed.

"Signed" isn't what you think it is. You can sign the offer letter, and possibly a couple other things, but most companies will also have more documents that you must sign on your first day of employment, and won't give them to you before then.

Interesting. That's not how it works in Australia at all.

Here, salary expectations are given in the first screening call. If they can't meet the expectation or you won't be happy with their lower offer things end there.

Interviews / code tests happen.

Offer comes over phone or email. This includes salary.

There is no signature at this stage and nothing is set in stone, its just an offer. If you accept the offer a contract is drawn up. Still nothing is certain.

Changes to the contract can happen here.

Once both parties sign. That is when you're "signed".

This happens well before your start date, usually you would stipulate the start date in the contract, so if you need to give a month's notice to your employer your new contract with a start date from a month is signed before you even hand in your notice.

There is a 3 month trial period on all employment where they can walk without much repercussions, but this is more of a concession on your part because employment is very well protected.

Any weird IP bullshit or other conditions of employment that need signing would be in the contract you signed on for.

They can't bait and switch like what you're discussing. Any NDA's are discussed up front and at least their existence is disclosed in the contract giving you a chance to see them early.

Basically you can't put new conditions of employment on people after the fact, and if you did it wouldn't be valid in court anyway, contract law trumps contract content here no matter what.

Things don't have to work exactly like this, you might want to leverage the offer for a higher pay at your current job, counter offering is commonplace here but I wouldn't ever accept one. They'll be looking for your replacement as soon as you accept.

That hasn't been my experience in the US. When I joined, I signed everything along with the offer letter. Full 10-15 pages of contract. Nothing to sign on the first day.

I'm guessing that you've only worked at / interviewed at large firms. They're large and your prospective role there wasn't senior enough for them to afford you special treatment.

I've only worked at small to mid sized firms. Either way, Knowing what the agreement is before I agree is special treatment? I'm not asking to modify the contract, merely to see it before I give notice and upend my families life.

Anything outside of what they consider to be their norm is special treatment. There aren't enough lower level people who ask to see employment agreements ahead of time.

Why is it “special treatment” to want to read what you’re about to sign when it directly involves ones means of living?

Surely a contract can't be valid if one of the parties hasn't had a chance to read it.

It's like if you bought a car, signed and paid, and discovered there is an extra agreement to actually use it, and that one says any ideas you have while driving belong to BMW.

How about: "Hey, this is your first day, now you need to take this final difficult test and if you fail we will fire you"?

I have always been the type to have a natural aversion to signing anything. Except for my marriage license, I've always done it under duress. But you know what's even worse? When employers or vendors ask you to sign lengthy contracts, and express a range of emotion from concern to outrage when you insist on reading what you are signing up to!