Temperature Check - Universal Employment Framework

[Mrmamrezz]

Usually, the Hubblenauts will scope out the individual prior to the forwarding of a formal proposal for their onboarding, to ensure they are the correct fit for our ecosystem

[Set0x]

Not exactly.

So the T&C here is basically a binding contract for all future employees. The onboarding proposal that will be posted for each respective individual would cover their background / compensation packages and scope of work.

If the DAO is happy with it, then we will go to a formal vote to onboard the individual.

The onboarding proposal along with this framework proposal makes the complete employment agreement.

[Arad]

Amazing job tnx guys

[Art3mis]

@Set0xVincent

6(b) Non-Competition. During the term of the Employee’s active employment with the Employer, the Employee will not, directly or indirectly, engage or participate in any other business activities that the Employer, in its reasonable discretion, determines to be in conflict with the best interests of the Employer without the written consent of the Employer.

Just want to clarify this section, that’s how far I’ve reached till now. Does this mean the employee will be able to join another organization with say a similar idea/protocol after their term at Hubble? While I’m all for removing restrictive clauses that you see in normal employment contracts, I wonder if we should mention explicitly that the employee is able to work in a competing protocol after their term at Hubble is up as a gesture of openness and growth for all. Also some clarification on what we mean by competition in the non-compete part of the agreement just so that it is clearer. Let me know what you think.

[Art3mis]

@Set0xVincent

9(d) Post-Termination. The Termination Date specified by the either the Employee or the Employer may expire on any day of the month and upon the Termination Date the Employer will forthwith pay to the Employee any outstanding portion of the compensation including any accrued vacation and banked time, if any, calculated to the Termination Date.

When it comes to this clause. How are we tracking accrued vacation and banked time in the future, do we have anything in place ATM, are we looking to put something in place for the current members? What is considered “banked time”? Are there any severance requirements, are we looking to offer any severance if we terminate the employment contract earlier?

[Art3mis]

@Set0xVincent

Article 14: Governing Jurisdiction

14(a) Appropriate Jurisdiction. The courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (including a dispute relating to the existence, validity or termination of this Agreement or the consequences of its nullity) or any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (a “Dispute”).

Can I ask how we are under the court of england #serious question? IS the DAO formation in a British territory?

[Set0x]

Great question Art3mis.

The clause covers primarily for ‘during active employment.’. To answer your question, the answer is yes. I dont particularly see a need to explicitly mention the good will gesture. However, you make a valid point in having to define what ‘competition’ is.

The way the current term is drafted, it allows the Employer some discretion in being able to determine what is considered a conflict of interest. This gives the Employer fluidity from time to time when dealing with case by case matters should they ever happen. You do have a valid concern of it potentially bringing up confusion or show some arbitrariness due to the vagueness of the way its written.

We will take that into account!

[Set0x]

The DAO does not need to be formed in British Territory for a contract to select a preferred jurisdiction for legal matters.

It comes down to convenience, preferred judicial system and ease of enforcement should anything happen. An exclusive jurisdiction clause gives everyone a clearer picture on which laws would apply and as to how matters should be handled. It also offers greater protection to both parties knowing that either one cannot enforce another court of law where the judicial system might be more favourable to one or the other.

[Set0xVincent]

Would like to preface my answer with a huge kudos for asking great questions, highly appreciate you going through the temperature check in-depth!

Banked time is determined on a simple pro-rata basis, up to the calendar day of termination. For example, if an employee is terminated or terminates 15 days after the beginning of the month, they’ll receive their salary on a 15 day basis. We’ll introduce more clarity to this clause in an edit to this temp check, the accrued vacation portion shall altogether be removed.

Re: severance; this is an at-will employment agreement, so severance won’t necessarily be required due to the unilateral termination ability of either party.

[Art3mis]

@Set0xVincent

Words in the masculine mean and include the feminine and vice versa

I think this is a given, don’t know if it needs to be specified

[Art3mis]

I thought that was the whole point of this? since we are part of the organization Also I just signed an employment contract and would like to see our DAO be better than traditional employment contracts since again that’s the point of all this IMO. That we make better more amicable systems and not just co-opt the old way of doing things out of convenience. Maybe even redefining the employee employer relationship. I will say this is a fairer employment contract than most

[Art3mis]

@Set0xVincent

16(h) Waiver of Legal Action by Employee. The Employee agrees to waive any and all claims and legal actions that may be afforded to the Employee against any member of the Organisation or the Organisation in whole and will resolve any such potential dispute through the agreed upon methods of dispute resolution delineated under Article 11(b) titled ‘Dispute Resolution’.

In the same vein, I think this needs to be modified. I do not like taking this right away from employees, and this is a problem with traditional employment contracts that they do not allow employees to avail of legal services due to this clause. We are already paying for legal services according to 16(g) if that is the case we cannot waive the right of legal action against the DAO. I mean to be honest, it maybe hard for the employee to even get a court that will sue us since it is a distributed org. But you get my point, it’s a little counter intuitive to pay their fees but waive their right to legal action if they so choose. Please let me know what you think @Set0x @Set0xVincent . Thank you for all the work!

[Set0xVincent]

Just allows the contract to cover everyone who may be joining the DAO in a full-time capacity in the future! Clarity is always necessary, even if it may appear obvious

[Set0xVincent]

This is a conversation I’ve had with Hubblenauts, the reason these traditional employment contracts are necessary is to impose some actual substantive obligations upon the people the DAO forwards a salary to, and to protect the DAO generally against a bad faith actor. With any contract, you always prepare for the worst case scenario. Reversion to traditional methods provides some kind of actual recourse in the event of a significant breach of good faith, something which DAOs have zero power to engage in, due to the lack of a recognition of the legal status of DAOs.

We are very well trailblazing in this field through the imposition of obligations in a formal DAO proposal and framework, but there are certain important points that we would be awry to dismiss in the pursuit of innovation; we need some kind of referral to legacy systems at a baseline level to provide legitimacy to that which goes above the baseline level. With that being said, redefining the employee-employer relationship is something which is significantly out of our remit at the moment.

[Set0xVincent]

The reason this clause is implemented is because in some jurisdictions, the courts and regulators are considering DAOs as general partnerships, which means liability is joint and several amongst every member of the DAO. This may seem an impossibility logistically, but when it comes to regulatory action, they never need to pin everyone. They can go after whoever they choose in that ‘general partnership’.

Essentially without this clause, this would allow the employee to pursue anyone in the DAO for any reason pertaining to employment, which allows almost unlimited liability in tort. The coverage of fees is in the vice versa circumstance; where a member of the DAO pursues the employed individual in tort, the DAO is required to pay for the legal expenses of the employed.

The removal of liability for any and all members of the DAO should be the primary objective, to ensure the ecosystem remains healthy. As I’ve previously mentioned, with contracts of any type you prepare for the worst-case scenario, and the worst case here is an opportunistic individual is onboarded and has the intention to pursue frivolous litigation against everyone.

[CeyptoFortune]

I think it’s good to document and disseminate the framework of a decentralized organization in this way.