undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMithaldu9y ago0 comments

> The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful".

That's a completely bullshit attack and putting words into his mouth. Gigster has the potentional to possibly to do something awful in the future due to being a company made of different people, with there being no guarantee that the people you're talking to one day are still there the next. And trust is only possible between mutual human beings, not between one human and an amorphous ever-changing conglomerate of humans.

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

dqv9y ago· 4 in thread

I'm not putting words in his mouth. He postured his question to be rhetorical. It's not even really a question at all. It doesn't seek clarification. It seeks a specific response: to get that person to admit to something they might not feel is true (that the company is awful or can do awful things). It's not nice and it's not an appropriate way to attempt to negotiate a contract.

He made things into a me vs you situation when. Had he formed his objections, those two individuals responding to his inquiries probably would have made an actual effort to resolve the issues.

ghurtado9y ago

Say that we're doing business and I ask you to sign a piece of paper that says that you promise not to tell the police if I burn your house down. Obviously, you think this is pretty ridiculous (and concerning), so you ask in disbelief "wait, so if you burn my house down I can't even tell the police???"

My response to you: "You're being overly aggressive with your attacks. That's not nice. You could have asked a question if you had one, but you're not even asking me a question, this is just an aggressive rethorical question. It's clear that you don't even want clarification. That's not nice and it's not an appropriate way to negotiate a contract"

Would that make any sense to you?

MithalduOP9y ago

The company can do awful things.

This is not a simple fact. It is a truth.

> He made things into a me vs you situation

No. They did. By not including the mirror of that clause indemnifying him against them, the contract was the first to state "you could do awful things", so they have no standing whatsoever to complain about anything.

dqv9y ago

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this point? I'm not refuting that the company could do awful things. I'm explaining that if you're an ass hole to the person who can change it and make sure it stays changed for everyone in the future, it's not going to happen.

1 more reply

sleepybrett9y ago

In the short history of the "gig economy" many companies have screwed over their "gigers" many many times. It's not theoretical.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse