Slashdot Mirror
Modifying Employment Agreements?
An anonymous reader asks: "I am starting a new job, after months of unemployment. While out of work, I started a technology related business. I do not believe there is a conflict in the services provided by this business and the job I am taking.
As has been standard with previous employers, I have been asked to sign an agreement that states in part that I am to disclose to the company anything that I create wether or not during company time, and wether or not it relates to the company.
I also must agree that these same creations or inventions become the sole property of the company. I would like to change the wording to only include those creations, inventions and other Intellectual Property that is the direct result of work performed for the company, involved use of company property, and/or was created or invented during paid hours spent working for the company.
What success or failure have other Slashdot readers had when dealing with wide reaching employment agreements such as this? How did you approach management with your modifications?"
HA
Don't pay any attention to how shitty I'm doing. Catchy.
It's just one more reason I'm becoming completely unmotivated to work in corporate I.T.
I've been an "I.T. guy" ever since my first job, and frankly, I banked on "PCs and DOS/Windows solutions" as the stuff one needed to keep up with to retain a decent job.
Somewhere along the way (I think roughly around the time Microsoft started pushing Active Directory integrated with Exchange 2000, but that's far from the ONLY factor), I started becoming disillusioned with the whole thing. I had always tinkered with Linux as a curiousity and fun "alternative OS" to use at home - but couldn't spark any interest in it where I worked.
I decided to "rock the boat" a little bit, building Linux-based thin clients PCs out of old, depreciated systems being taken out of service, and asking employees to try using them on a "trial" basis. I had few complaints, and got most of the ones I did have ironed out in short order. (Mostly, people whining about needing support for their scroll wheel mice, stuff like that.)
I think it threatened my co-workers though, who were die-hard "MS only!" people. My boss was "on the fence" about the whole project, basically not wanting to stop me from experimenting - yet uneasy about it disrupting his little "happy family" of I.T. employees.
Next thing I knew, I was let go. By this time, the job market was quickly drying up, and I spent a long time collecting unemployment checks, and trying to find another, similar job to no avail.
I finally found work with Apple Mac systems. Wow, what a difference! Problem is, it's a small mom and pop place that's hanging on by a shoestring. My hours got cut back to part-time recently, because he couldn't make ends meet otherwise. It's really disappointing more folks haven't yet discovered the things Apple has done/is doing with OS X.
But anyway, here in the present, I see the I.T. job market SLOWLY starting to open back up, but when I read the job descriptions, my stomach churns. I don't even want to apply for most of them! It just seems like signing up to administer hundreds (or thosands?) of users on Exchange email while helping develop roll-outs of the latest MS technologies is like signing one's death warrant.
Obviously, there are still plenty of I.T. folks out there happy and willing to take on these jobs, risks and all. But maybe all my experience has made me too jaded? I'm about to throw in the towel. I don't have nearly enough "real world experience" using the OS's I see as superior solutions (Solaris, Linux, BSD, etc.) to get a decent paying job supporting/administering them. I spent too much time in the MS camp for that. I think I can handle the Mac OS X support quite well, but nobody's hiring for that. MS's current offerings give me the creeps....
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
BEND OVER. (+ 7: You're working for The Man now, buddy)
Mods, I know many of you will want to mod this as Offtopic but I ask you to please just let it be so that others can read this. This is something of interest to many of us but would never become a slashdot article. Thus, printing it here in the Comments section is the only way others will be able to see it.
From the imdb.com today:
Yes, GWB has gotta go, but do you want to have a weak president instead? No! So, go forth and vote for the General!
He was smart, he was compassionate but still he didn't shrink away from using lethal force (Iran) only to be let down by a bunch of jarheads incapable of flying a chopper over a difficult terrain like desert. He inherited a catastrophical economy from the "spend, spend, spend" republicans and brought it back up.
I HaTe ToLKieN! He PiSSeS Me oFF!
What the hell?
Does this mean that yet another goatse-site bites the dust?
Who's behind this witch-hunt?!
GW Bush hasn't done anything that anyone with a brain wouldn't have done. Enemies of this country like to point out that GW has no brain, yet he has consistently and intelligently dealt with the terrorists. The best intelligence we had showed that Iraq was a problem, and you know what? Iraq was a problem. With the American presence there, the entire Middle East will become much more stable. Liberals decry the export of American culture overseas, but we need to export a few more American values overseas if you ask me. Many of the most troublesome countries in the world seem to have problems running themselves, and they never fix the problems. This becomes our problem, and it costs American lives. GW is doing the right thing, and I'm proud to say that I'll vote for him this year.
--Guns don't kill people, abortion clinics kill people.
Since the 1980s Saddam Hussein has killed about two million people. That's about 10 times more than the number of people killed by Slobodan Milosevic. Clinton used the U.S. Military against Milosevic in the 1990s citing human rights concerns. The lesson we're learning here is that it's OK for a Democratic president to attack a bloody dictator who has killed 200,000 people, but who presents no threat whatsoever to the rest of the world on purely human rights concerns; but it is definitely not OK for a Republican president to use troops to unseat a dictator who has killed two million people, and who may have the weapons needed to kill millions more. Yeah .. I think I get it now. Makes perfect sense to me.