On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Phil Pennock <lopsa-discuss+p...@spodhuis.org> wrote: > On 2010-07-04 at 19:22 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote: >> Nowhere in this discussion has it been said that there was an initial >> verbal agreement of any kind to get paid for the work. The only >> mention of payment was as part of doing updates. > > The very first email said: > } At his previous job he was asked to > } redesign the schools web site. It was not in his job description and > } they said they would pay him to do the updates. > > Per the description we have, if it is an accurate rendition of the facts > as they occurred: oral contract proffered, accepted, work done under the > terms of that contract. Contract reneged upon, no way to prove > existence of the contract because it was oral. He says / she says.
Let me break that sentence down: - He was asked to redesign the schools web site (no mention of payment) - It was not in his job description and - they said they would pay him to do the updates (only payment for updates) The next part you did not quote: - they said they would continue to pay him for his updates None of these statements indicate there was any sort of agreement for payment for the initial work, only payment for the updates. The final statement I've highlighted implies that they were paying him for the updates without issue. These statements show that there was, in fact, no contract that was reneged upon. It actually shows that the verbal contract was held to exactly as specified (create the site - no payment, payment for updates). > I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge so have no idea what way such an issue > would be decided, but as others have noted, it's better for the young > gentleman's career if he chalks this one up as a learning experience. I > should have been clearer that I agreed with that course of (in)action, I > was just objecting to the claims that there was no kind of contract and > that he was being unreasonable. > > Since it's so *common* in the IT industry, as I've experienced it, to > take on work outside the defined scope of your employment, his situation > appears, to this IT professional / legal-ignoramus, to be somewhat > tenuous. > > John, you might point out to him that the way this industry tends to > work is that people use the opportunities they have to broaden their > skills and to demonstrate that they can do the job of a position which > pays better, then get hired/transferred for/to that position. People > _tend_, in my experience, not to be hired in the expectation that > they'll "grow into" any position except the entry level ones. I include > here jobs with particular application skillsets where people are trained > up for that app but then find their job made redundant when the app is > no longer used. > > If he uses the opportunities which present themselves to improve his > knowledge, understanding and skills, then sometimes he'll be rewarded > for it and if not, then he has more knowledge, understanding and skill > to demonstrate in his next job interview. > > When people say "not in my job description" then they tend to find > themselves penned into exactly what is in their job description. > > -Phil > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
