Please get back to me once you've gotten a multinational corporation to agree to this (or any other candidate-provided clause) for a non-executive employee.
I never had to deal with multinationals - not much of a corporate guy. I was reading through the comments here and it seemed to be common that "well, there's nothing you can do". Actually, there is, write it in your contract and see what comes back. If your new employer does not allow for this, at least a) you tried and b) you are fully aware of the risk that the employer might just leave you out cold. In which case, going all-in as the author did could have been avoided.
I've also not worked for mega-corps, but I've also had good experience with writing things into contracts and having them agreed to.
I find it odd that people are fine with contract negotiation when it comes to remuneration but treat actual contract clauses like holy text that can't be changed.
There's even a good chance that what you think is "unchanging boilerplate" is boilerplate that gets updated all the time and barely anyone is on the same contract anyway, or that it is very job role or department specific.
That said, I've mostly worked at SMEs which can be more flexible anyway, and getting a contract change is a good indicator of their general flexibility so perhaps works as a good filter too.
This. Even big multinational corporations can change the contract to your liking, but that involves sending it to their legal team and waiting.
Last time I requested a change in the contract it took them almost one month to approve.
So if they need to hire someone asap, then it may not work, but on the other hand that is a red flag.
It's of course easier in smaller companies, where there is not many people in the chain that need to look over the paperwork.
I think many people fear that if they start "making problems" they won't get hired, because next candidate may not be too fussy. But I think that is a wrong way to look at it. If you don't stand for yourself, you are unlikely going to stand for other things, seemingly less important and employer may see this as a bad trait. Like imagine a task is being proposed and from your own experience you know it is not going to work, but everyone agrees it should be done. You could keep quiet and hope you'll not be the one to do it or you can start "making problems". Which worker would be more preferred?
> If you don't stand for yourself, you are unlikely going to stand for other things, seemingly less important and employer may see this as a bad trait.
I don't think there are many situations in which an employer is positive about a non-executive employee rejecting their contract offer and proposing an alternative with fancy legalese clause awarding themselves a [$amount] bonus up front in a manner which creates the most complications for the company's lawyers and auditors. It's certainly something (and someone) very easy to say no to.
I think the standard experience is “this hiring rep is barely competent enough to call me back, why the hell would they have the pull to change a contract?”
> write it in your contract and see what comes back
The issue is that in many countries, employees don’t actually have contracts. Lawyers will go to great lengths to ensure that offer letters are not structured as contracts. It’s important to keep the distinction in mind.
I've seen similar clauses in a bunch of contracts, it can't be that rare. You are unlikely to be able to add your own language (as per your case of non-exec) but you may not have to.
Getting a completely custom legal document from a big company is not going to happen outside of extraordinary circumstances.
That said, the relocation packages I’ve seen have been effectively similar to this. Having the offer revoked for cause (e.g. you lied) might cancel it, but getting laid off wouldn’t. Obviously not true everywhere though.
Are we calling those out now, who were ethical and left there home behind? This is a disgusting reply, very well to the anti-japanese craze in america during WW2..
That's a very stupid and short-sighted attitude. Russia has effectively been a dictatorship for the past couple of decades, so most regular people have zero control over the policy.
Most pretend to just not notice things and hope their lives won't be affected, some tried protesting and ended up jailed, a few prominent idea-driven people got assassinated. So yeah, sure, let's blanket-ban everyone with a Russian passport from Western employment, so the only way for them to feed the family would be joining a guided missile production facility in Russia. Great idea /s.
Sanctioning specific companies and specific individuals makes sense. Blanket bans is just venting your own steam in a counterproductive way.
> Sanctioning specific companies and specific individuals makes sense. Blanket bans is just venting your own steam in a counterproductive way.
Google has to respond to who the government sanctions. Russia has been sanctioned and it rightfully makes Google wary of doing business with them.
If you think sanctions are counterproductive, you can vote for the GOP, because people like Matt Gaetz are fighting to end the involvement of the US with the war but until that happens it's understandable that companies aligned with allied countries would become averse to hiring Russian nationals
Sanctions prohibit transactions with specific companies, banks, and a few other entities. They actually make a lot of economic sense, as they are designed to weaken the parts of the economy used to fund the Russian warfare.
Sanctions against private citizens in Russia would tangentially contribute by reducing the cash flow inside the country.
Targeting random people that are actually trying to leave the country is like what? You expect them to instead go take pitchforks and storm Putin's bunker? Or kill themselves out of shame? More likely, they'll find whatever employment there is inside the country and pays well, and chances are, it will be closely related to the Russian government.
the leader of the political opposition was murdered in front of the kremlin wall by being shot repeatedly by chechnyans hired by the government directly linked to Putin.
The same is true for the attempts on Navelny, etc. Russia has put literally thousands of people in jail for protesting the war.
And if we really are going to make a big deal out of russia attacking ukraine and how terrible that is and we should ostracize all russian people, then we should all start with the americans first. Because the iraq war was motivated as well as ukraine, caused the deaths of a million iraqis, and americans travel freely and nobody cares that they come from a country responsible for such death and travesty.
