Why does mean something for nothing? Why is it unreasonable for a company wanting to protect their intellectual property and ideas from being exposed?
See what I did there? I assumed things about this NDA just like you did. I think we both shouldn't.
The NDAs I have seen were reasonable to me. They basically just put into writing what I would think should be normal during interviews anyway but apparently isn't always the case. Maybe someone has been burnt before and is trying to protect themselves.
The NDAs I signed basically said that they will share some company internal information during the interview in order to conduct it and I am not allowed to share those company secrets with anyone. Basically what any contract would say about company secrets if I were to be hired in the end. Same the other way around about me not sharing any other company's info with them and if I did its not on them but on me.
Duh.
Now the OPs NDA might say something different but we don't know. An NDA just by itself isn't bad though.
>The NDAs I signed basically said that they will share some company internal information during the interview in order to conduct it and I am not allowed to share those company secrets with anyone
If a company cannot interview you without sharing "company secrets", they don't know how to interview
I don't know if they can't do it differently and thus don't know how to interview. That sounds like an assumption to me. But they didn't do it differently. I liked the way they did do it. YMMV as always.
Assumptions are usually bad. At least the ones that don't get verified. I doubt we would be able to verify this particular one so I would choose to simply not assume in the first place.
I don't hold it against them and wonder why I should.
You misunderstood. I wasn't saying that in theory the couldn't. Of course they could just like you say.
I was saying that you said
If a company cannot interview you without sharing "company secrets", they don't know how to interview
And I simply meant that I don't think that this company wouldn't have been able to do it without. They simply chose not to do it without. And if they so choose it seems reasonable to want to protect those secrets.
>And I simply meant that I don't think that this company wouldn't have been able to do it without. They simply chose not to do it without. And if they so choose it seems reasonable to want to protect those secrets.
You can always choose to share company secrets in an interview
But if a company doesn't understand they don't have to to interview successfully, I seriously doubt their ability to understand how to do pretty much anything else successfully
An interview is advanced marketing - you don't sign and NDA to read a billboard or press release. There's no reason to need to sign one to interview :)
Also seems reasonable if you want a job there bad enough — even if there’s no check. Somebody’s got something the other person wants. Either the employer wants the employee more or the employee wants the job more. Let’s see how it plays out.
I agree desperate circumstances can require desperate measures.
The basic tell is whether a company has a bias toward exploiting candidates' desperation.
Or a bias toward treating candidates how we all would prefer to be treated.
Of course I am assuming that both of us would prefer a request to sign an NDA + a check for legal expenses to a request to sign an NDA without a check.
If that’s deemed unreasonable, it might be a tell regarding how the company views employees since they expect something for nothing.
Good luck.