That and producing these glasses with said technique is a lot more expensive. You need to heat up the glass and the potassium nitrate to 500C, mostly over hours because otherwise the glass breaks. Then you need to keep it for a couple of hours, then cool down slowly. What made the initial east german production work is, they did it on a large industrial scale, but even then the energy that you need makes the glasses quite expensive to produce. It's hard to justify buying 6-7€ for a regular drinking cup when a comparable form factor is 1€ or something in this region.
Apart from the criticism in this comment section - I hate it with passion when I have to guess who I do business with. Besides a missing privacy policy from the landing pages, no names, no location- this isn’t a drug deal, it’s supposed to be a b2b app.
Plan B founder here. I take your comments with passion ;) Clearly, the landing page does not stand out. Regarding the privacy not in the footer, that's a miss, this happens when you build the landing page in a rush! I had MVP ready and just wanted it out. I Appreciate the feedback!
Generally state intervention is not what you call a "free" market. But it's the sovereign task of a state to secure strategic resources for its citizens. Free market is overrated.
Edit: overrated when we talk about cornered resources.
Brave blocks ads on pages you browse, and then sends ad notifications to user who opt into their earning program (disabled by default). It pays them in BAT, a crypto coin they developed. If you want to, you can use these earnings to contribute to sites who have signed up to accept their crypto coin.
Time to learn about a relocation clause in the general employee agreement:
Clause [X]: Relocation Expenses and Redundancy Protection
The Company agrees to reimburse the Employee for reasonable and necessary relocation expenses incurred by the Employee in connection with the Employee's relocation to the work location specified in this Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein ("Relocation Expenses").
The Relocation Expenses shall include, but not be limited to, the actual costs of moving the Employee's personal property, temporary housing expenses for up to [number] days, transportation costs for the Employee and their immediate family members, and any other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred as a direct result of the relocation, up to a maximum amount of $[amount].
The Employee shall provide the Company with receipts or other documentation evidencing the Relocation Expenses within [number] days of incurring such expenses. The Company shall reimburse the Employee for the Relocation Expenses within [number] days of receiving satisfactory documentation from the Employee.
In the event the Employee's role is made redundant before the Employee's start date, the Company shall still be liable for the reimbursement of the Relocation Expenses incurred by the Employee, provided that such expenses were incurred within [one (1) month] prior to the date the role is made redundant (the "Cut-Off Date").
The Company's obligation to reimburse the Employee's Relocation Expenses shall survive the termination of this Agreement for any reason, including but not limited to the Employee's role being made redundant before the Employee's start date.
If the Employee voluntarily terminates their employment with the Company within [one (1) year] of the Employee's start date, the Employee shall be required to repay to the Company, within [number] days of the termination date, a prorated portion of the Relocation Expenses reimbursed by the Company, calculated based on the percentage of the [one (1) year] period not completed by the Employee.
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.
As other commenters have mentioned, you're not going to be able to insert your own clauses into any standard employment agreement.
However, every large employer has already relocated hundreds, if not thousands, of employees. They have similar clauses that are approved, but as a candidate you may need to ask to have such a clause included.
Depending on the hiring market, the specific position, and your unique circumstances, you may or may not be able to get something added to the agreement, but it would rarely be unjustified to ask for some kind of relocation protection.
A much simpler solution I have seen to this that is _actually_ used in big companies is just relocation bonus paid on start. In short it basically goes 'Company agrees to pay you $X flat for your relocation. You are entitled to do whatever you want with this money, no questions asked. You may keep this money presuming you are not terminated for cause within Y months'
The point is that they would owe you this even if they let you go immediately. Obviously they implement it in a way that’s easier on their payroll system.
Are you suggesting asking Google to add this to their contract ?
If that's the case then you are delusional.
These companies are "the law" and they will not change their contract for you. It's hard enough to even get a verbal offer from a company like Google far less get them to add relocation costs to a contract.
Relocation clauses are very common, often included right from the start in your initial offer and if not these big corps have prepared clauses that they can add upon request/negotiation.
It sounds like he may not have actually incurred any non-reimbursable expenses though other than maybe canceling an airline ticket. He's obviously incurred lots of disruption with associated costs (quitting job, getting rid of most of his stuff) but these aren't the sort of things that qualify for relocation expenses.
This is not a fully-complete clause, yes, getting rid of stuff hurts and might not be coverable, but at least in this Case Google would have guaranteed to pay for the relocation. Other clauses could be that in the event of a redundancy before employment start, the signing bonus stays with the employee, etc. In his case, it still covers the financial blow to a degree, and he would have probably enough time to find a replacement job. Relocation costs are also money spent on Realtors, etc.
It's a general clause that any employee who is moving for a certain job should put into their contracts. If the company does not agree to cover at least the basics, then hey, maybe it's not a good idea to move for that job in the first place?
EDIT: to your point, this should be enforceable in any jurisdiction that generally holds up with the law?
Then you tech employee are not big enough. Of course they can do this. Goes to HR, Hiring Manager, HM approves sends back to HR, HR sends to legal, HM pings because legal is slow, bam it's done. Everything can be done between humans.
It can be done. As in, the systems won't spontaneously combust if people try to do this.
But the number of people who can pull this off is unimaginably small. Even for highly desirable hires the immediate response is going to be "we don't do custom contracts, end of story."
Goes to HR, HR says "are you kidding me?", informs HM that candidate did not accept the offer, hires different candidate
Goes to HR who thinks about executive relocation packages for a moment, then looks again at what salary band the applicant was in and how much extra they're asking for expenses and informs HM that candidate did not accept the offer, hires different candidate
Goes to HR, HR forwards to HM, HM says "wow, this candidate sounds like an absolute nightmare to manage", hires different candidate
Goes to HR, HR forwards to HM, HM approves and sends back to HR, legal says "no, I don't care how good the candidate is, this provision is too messy". A lucky candidate might at least get "take it or leave it" with the original contract at this stage
Goes to HR, HR forwards to HM, HM approves and sends back to HR, legal is slow so HM pings legal who might have carefully considered precedents with executive relocation but is annoyed to be put on the spot and says no with some cautionary tales about employees who think they're lawyers instead. Another candidate is hired...
All of these scenarios are more likely for most positions than the sequence of events you've described. Humans are good at doing things you don't want them to do too! And if you're in the category of employees who are so special the company will rewrite their standard employment terms just for you, your probably not in the category of employees who risk financial hardship from being made redundant before they start
Literally they will if tech workers unionize, which has its own baggage and list of disadvantages for everyone but if tech companies get in a bad habit of treating employees poorly that’s exactly what will happen.
No! A union explicitly means a random employee will lose the ability to add or remove any clause from their contract as the Union will negotiate that. That doesn't mean the Union wouldn't negotiate a better contract then the employee would on their own but you absolutely lose that power in almost all Union setups.
And also, unions don't exist to give workers the ability to stick arbitrary clauses in employment contracts, they exist to try to lobby for better standard terms for union members. And relocation packages for new employees are a very long way down a union members' list of concerns, since people tend to join the union after they've relocated...
There's a lesson here: such employers near-exclusively hire cogs who are supposed to fit in place. Many might find it useful to ask about such a clause as a sort of "canary" test.
