I did it once, they said sign or don't come on board. If you are bluffing, yes, go ahead, you probably have nothing to lose. Microsoft, I know, would laugh if you pulled that.
I have actually seen both crossing-and-initialing work, and, more often than that, simply not signing: take the paperwork, say you need to read it, and "forget about it". You can often slowroll things like this for awhile.
Except in the UK you have Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment (TUPE[1]) to protect you from being handed a 'new' contract on acquisition. You must not have worse terms than with your previous employer. You certainly cannot be forced to hand over IP which was not covered under the previous contract.
Employers bent on evil normally give you around 3 months then 'restructure' the company (i.e. give you a new job title) as a mechanism to say it is a new job and not covered. They still need to wait 90 days before they can enforce that and you have the option to reject it (but get your CV updated in the meantime because you're leaving).
Employment law varies enormously from state to state, country to country etc. People in the US used to At Will will have no concept of what it is like to be With Cause (and vice-versa).
However, even With Cause employers can get rid of anyone they want. In the UK it's classed as a 'right to manage your business' and the worst downside is a small compensation payment which rarely exceeds a few thousand pounds (occasionally there are large payouts for the most egregious things, especially racist or sexist bullying). In the US, payouts could be larger but for many businesses they just see that as part of the exit package and budget accordingly. Always remember, in a business, no-one cares about you and these people are not your friends.
Having been through it multiple times, my advice is always have your CV up to date and if you don't like the look or smell of the situation, it's time to leave. You will feel much better and less stressed if you feel in control of your destiny and not being played by some Evil Overlord who doesn't give a damn about you.
Except in the UK you have Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment (TUPE[1]) to protect you from being handed a 'new' contract on acquisition. You must not have worse terms than with your previous employer.
That's a nice theory, but in practice we also have lawyers who specialise in dealing with M&A situations and minimising the impact of TUPE. I've been in a situation that looks like a textbook example of what TUPE was intended to cover, yet one of the first things the acquiring company's lawyers did was seek to limit its effects, apparently quite successfully.
As you pointed out, any protection you get under TUPE tends to be for only a relatively short period anyway. It might be enough to stop you getting completely screwed over on the day the acquisition goes through, but ultimately if the new employer or their management team are not the same kind of people you used to work with, you're probably still better off getting out early.
Incidentally, this is also a good argument for not signing a dubious contract even if you know and trust the current employer and management team. In the event of a change in control of the business, the incoming leadership get to keep the same terms by default; that is considered reasonable since you already worked under them before. So just because a nice employer doesn't exploit some contractual advantage today, you should never assume the new face of that employer won't do so tomorrow.
This principle applies more generally than that in the UK. Someone I know very well got screwed following a formal grievance at work because of this. Due to bad advice, a deadline in the process passed without the right things happening, and the formal process technically ended. Although the person was actively seeking other advice over the following weeks, they continued to work, and then when things came to a head, basically the first thing the company lawyers cited was the continued work without further (to the company's knowledge) objection. For practical purposes, that was game over in this case.
Bottom line: If you aren't happy with a contract, either explicitly challenge it immediately or don't start to perform your actions under it until the matter has been resolved.
Also, many places state that any probationary period lasts until X months after the contract is signed, so you are extending the period during which they can change their mind about you without notice. (that works both ways of course: you can change your mind about them for the same amount of time)
I wouldn't call it insane, it's similar to the idea that if you email someone a summary of what was agreed, and they don't reply contesting it, they've accepted that version of events.
Basically one of the parties has provided a written record of their version of events, if you don't agree with it, you need to speak up.
In the end they've told you the contract they want you to work under, they have provided you with a copy and you seem to be happy to carry on working and taking their money. If you have a problem, why didn't you speak up? So it's implicit that you accept the new contract.
Perhaps it's not the law in your country, but it's definitely not insane if you're in a grey area and in this instance the law sides with the written contract, not the avoidance strategy.
You guys are all wrong. There is no blanket automatic acceptance of contracts if you ignore them in the UK.
There IS automatic acceptance of updates to previously signed contracts, ONLY if the original signed contract contains "terms permitting the employer to make changes from time to time" without your permission.
That is completely different than automatic acceptance of all contracts that are left unsigned and ignored.
Acceptance by conduct is a straightforward and accepted principle of English law.
In the same way as continued use of a website can constitute acceptance of terms of use, showing up for a job having been provided with a contract, but having not signed it, can also constitute acceptance of that contract.
If you don't like contract terms, firstly don't sign up to them but secondly don't start working at a place as if you had signed up to them.
It would be difficult to argue the contract wasn't binding if you had acted in compliance with certain of its terms. The more specific those terms you are complying with, the less likely you would be able to claim you weren't bound by the whole contract.
For example if the contract states you have to travel to a particular location once a week, and you comply with that obligation, you would be less likely to argue you weren't bound by the whole contract.
> However, if you put up with the change without
> protesting, there is a good chance that you will
> be viewed as having implicitly accepted the change,
> losing your right to object to it.
I'd be surprised if the US hasn't inherited implied contracts via common law.
No, don't quote out of context. That's ONLY if you already previously signed a contract with them, and that original contract specifically allowed them to make future updates without your permission.
> Basically one of the parties has provided a written record of their version of events
Not in this case being discussed (procrastination in signing). The company doesn't have a written record of their version of events, namely a copy of the contract with your signature.
I agree. I almost didn't sign but I also couldn't afford to go without a job. Two years later I'm trying to figure out exactly what I signed because I believe it was very limiting.
That's a weird situation to be in. If they can't reproduce it now they may not be able to produce it at all effectively they've just said they lost your contract which for any self respecting HR department is an absolute failure in their duty. Imagine, if they don't have it, what could have possibly happened to it?
Of does 'unable to produce' translate to 'unwilling to produce'?
So far they told me that I should have a copy. My assumption is that they can't actually find it. Found a generic copy from around the same time period that should be similar.
