TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Binding arb clause in new contract--unfair?! From:"Huber, Mike" <mrhuber -at- SOFTWARE -dot- ROCKWELL -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:29:18 -0600
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Arnett [SMTP:keith_arnett -at- RESTON -dot- OMD -dot- STERLING -dot- COM]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 9:26 AM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: Re: Binding arb clause in new contract--unfair?!
>...
> I'd consider this a big red flag, and proceed with caution before I
> entered into any long term relationship with this organization.
>...
>--------------
>
>Something to remember is that, at the core, a contract is a form of
>communication. Think about what it says about them and what kind of working
>relationship they propose.
>
>What's enforceable (and I have a suspicion that, in most states, signing all
>rights away isn't) only matters when you get to court, or, in this case the
>arbitrator's office. The attitude it presents affects you every day. The
>ethical damage of signing something you don't mean on the grounds that you
>can't be held to it affects you immediately.
>
>I'd look into the arbitration organization - maybe they are very reputable
>and fair and it's a reasonable clause. Maybe not.
>
---
mike -dot- huber -at- software -dot- rockwell -dot- com
Home: nax -at- execpc -dot- com
>
