Employment Contract OK? 1

[WideMike]

Recently I've been going round and back with a heavy/highway contractor in the N.E. United States regarding employment. They've offered two (2) positions verbally, but "tap dance" around submitting offer letter(s). I've had the misfortune in the past of employers "modifying" verbal offers at a later time under a variety of guises, "forgot to tell you something at the interview", "something suddently came up", etc. Any ideas on strategy? Is explicitly asking for an employment contract advisable or not? Critical remarks welcomed. Thanks in advance.

 

[IRstuff]

Stick to your guns and at least get a written offer letter.

TTFN

 

[TheTick]

The deal ain't done until its done on paper. Don't stop looking, either.

Truly trustworthy people are not offended when asked to put their words on paper. Nor should anyone expect you to uproot your career based solely on their word.

It's never taken me more than a week to get from verbal offer to signed agreement.

 

[PM]

WideMike:

"They've [ heavy/highway contractor] offered two (2) positions verbally, but "tap dance" around submitting offer letter(s)."

Everybody has a different negotiating style. Nothing should stop you from documenting the offer by sending the offerer a letter clarifying the offer and presenting your response, (ie. acceptance, rejection or counter offer).

"I've had the misfortune in the past of employers "modifying" verbal offers at a later time under a variety of guises, "forgot to tell you something at the interview", "something suddently came up", etc.

I take you literally when you say "employers", which can only mean you must be an employee, and therefore have an employment contract (written or oral) defining conditions of employment. It is quite natural for either the employer, or the employee to amend the terms of their contact from time to time, by adding or deleting conditions of employment. Any significant proposed change of employment conditions can, of course, be rejected, or accepted, with or without compensatory conditions (such as more money, health benefits, etc.).

'Any ideas on strategy?

Arrange all your negotiations to be in writing, even if you have to initiate all the documents yourself. This should make you appear that much more professional and rigorous. Make notes in a diary as soon as possible after a negotiating session. Arguments over individual memory will inevitably favour the better documented position.

"Is explicitly asking for an employment contract advisable or not?

Whether oral or in writing, you still have an employment contract with defined conditions. Unless it is in writing, you may find it difficult to prove the conditions to anyone else.

Regards,

 

[PSE]

Well posted PM.

 

[RDK]

In any negotiation, the party that puts it in writing first has an advantage. They get to put their own interpretation in writing. It then becomes up to the other party to either accept or propose modifications to this position.

You can do this in a non-threatening manner. You can simply send them a letter accepting their verbal offer of the job and that it is your understanding that the benefits are .. , the salary is .., and the position involves… etc.

If they accept your letter and allow you to start working and start paying you then this becomes a binding contract.

A binding contract does not have to be signed by both parties, simply by following the written statement of one party can be seen as acceptance by the second party. An example of this is in a store where their refund policy is stated on signs. By making a purchase you are accepting the refund policy and both parties will be bound by these terms.

While honourable people never offended by putting their agreements in writing. I would see their reluctance to put their offer in writing as one sign that they may not be honourable people. If there are other signs than be careful.

Totally dishonourable people don’t care if the agreement is in writing or not, the cost of a lawsuit may make enforcing the contract a no win situation for you. They could simply deny that you put these words into a letter and sent it to them before starting employment and that their verbal offer was for unlimited uncompensated overtime and extensive travel, not compensated overtime and limited travel. Without their signature or other proof that they received the letter, it once again becomes your word against theirs.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[Comcokid]

I am not a lawyer, but I believe any offer for employment in just about any US state comes under employment law, and not contractural law. It is assumed in just about any state, that any employee is working 'at will'. Your employment, or terms of employment can be changed at just about any time, with little notice. Individual state laws may add a little more to this. You can be terminated for just about any reason, except for reasons that are discriminatory in nature. About the only profession that works under employment contracts are executives, which is why you hear about the big $$$ severance and performance pay that makes the news after they run a company into the ground.

 

[WideMike]

Thanks to everyone for their remarks. Having carefully considered the matter, I have decided to forego this opportunity.

 

[PM]

Comcokid:

Employment law is a specialty form of contract law. The US draws its roots for contract common law from Britain, where all contracts, whether oral or in writing, require offer acceptance, consideration, lawful object and competence to form contract.

If you have an employment related contract with someone, you, or they cannot significantly change the conditions of contract unilaterally and expect to be upheld by the courts. Any substantive change requires acceptance of the changed conditions and consideration.

I suspect you refer to circumstances where one party or the other, repudiates the contract and the other party does not seek redress.

Regards,

 

[Comcokid]

PM
My posting was based upon a lawyer's advice I got several years ago when experiencing employment problems while working at a disfunctional company. The key legal term for employment in the US is "at will". A quick web search on this term yielded links similar to the following:

http://www.ewin.com/articles/atwillem.htm

"All states (except Montana) recognize at-will employment, that is, that an employee is hired at-will and that employment can be terminated at the will of either party. This applies to managers, supervisors, staff... all employees."

Hummmm - A discussion of employee rights might make a good posting!

 

[PM]

Comcokid :

You are quite right that some employment contracts have conditions where both parties agree to forego the imlied severence conditions. As you might imagine a huge part of employment law centres on the subject of termination and approriate severence provisions.

Normally after termination, the employer is obligated to "bridge" the employee's employment to another position. There is usually nothing in state law that precludes employers and their employees from agreeing to other severence terms.

If you have an employer who intends to hire without severence benefits and also doesen't pay higher salaries to compensate for this, then you should definitely walk away and find employment elsewhere.

Regards,