Because I know the guys who wrote the contracts up, I know the reason this is in there.
They really believe that if you are working on something then you should be working on something for them 24/7 (without overtime, of course)
{long personal crap fest story here}
I think these contracts, for anyone, junior, senior, or exec, are quite unproductive. Outside stimulation makes us, programmers and designers, better at what we do.
If I only ever worked on work related projects, I wouldn't be able to provide the kind of input I'm paid for. The contract writers know this, when they stop to think about it, but they are very scared.
I appreciate why places might do it. But it's irrelevant what they believe and slavery clauses aren't going to be enforceable even if I sign it in my own blood. What these guys really need to worry about is invalid clauses invalidating the whole document.
Unenforcable statements. If I were offered a job by a given company, could I go take that part of the contract to a lawyer and see if that part of the contract was not-enforceable, and then go off and work in my spare time, holding the lawyer on reserve until the day when they sued me?
Because, if I had requirements like that in my contract, I don't think I could work for that company, even if I were in very real need of money. I have entrepreneal plans of my own, and they'd start out as just moonlighting.
They really believe that if you are working on something then you should be working on something for them 24/7 (without overtime, of course)
{long personal crap fest story here}
I think these contracts, for anyone, junior, senior, or exec, are quite unproductive. Outside stimulation makes us, programmers and designers, better at what we do.
If I only ever worked on work related projects, I wouldn't be able to provide the kind of input I'm paid for. The contract writers know this, when they stop to think about it, but they are very scared.