I've been counseled that an employer cannot compel you to sign a new contract after starting a job, unless there is an incentive to offset any rights/benefits being forfeited. There's a huge gray area in terms of incentive/benefit value, but it's clearly illegal if there are no advantages offered by the new contract and it only benefits the employer.
In other words, it would be clearly illegal for an employer to say simply, "Here's the new employment contract identical to existing but with a new, more aggressive IP ownership clause; sign it or you're fired." Contracts signed under these circumstances have been struck down in court.
However, it would be legal for an employer to say, "Anyone who signs the updated employment contract (with aggressive IP changes) gets free lunches and can work from home 2 days a week." I don't understand the caselaw enough to know what would happen if they provided the incentive and added "or you're fired."
In general, I think the idea is that you have a lot of freedom with new employee agreements, but you cannot just change out an employment agreement on existing employees to strip them of rights.
> I've been counseled that an employer cannot compel you to sign a new contract after starting a job, unless there is an incentive to offset any rights/benefits being forfeited.
I would consider new council. I'm fairly certain that continued employment is enough "incentive" to make the contract legally binding. If you're an at-will employee, they can fire you at any moment, so any new contract seems as enforceable as the first.
I've gone through this before and the law is very clear that continued employment is not a valid compensation for changing the terms of your employment. The original employment agreement was the contract you are bound by. Coming to work each day is just both of you continuing to abide by the original contract. As you mentioned, the other side is the at-will part. It's pretty easy for them to just decide to dismiss you.
> I've gone through this before and the law is very clear that continued employment is not a valid compensation for changing the terms of your employment.
Please do not say things like this. A worker in Massachusetts, Illinois, or New York may read what you said, believe you because you said "the law is very clear," sign a new agreement thinking they got one over, and then roll out the other side to realize "oh, shit, that guy on Hacker News didn't know what he was talking about."
Whether continued employment counts as consideration is a state by state issue.
No, continued employment is not incentive, not under the law explained to me when I lived in AL.
Anyway, it varies by state and the exact situation. It's not necessarily true for any change, only if it withdraws a substantial right, e.g., forces arbitration or changes the nature of IP ownership. If you are concerned, talk to a local lawyer.
My real point was that it's not necessarily true that you just are automatically bound by the updated contract or that you have to sign it. It might be true, might not.
Counterpoint: my sister is an NP in Illinois and her employer did effectively this. She was asked to sign a new contract with strictly less benefits after having worked there for 9 months (specifically I think they wanted to reduce the vacation). She countered with requesting some compensation increase to offset the decrease in vacation, and they fired her. IANAL, but I'm also assuming that in at-will employment cases, this might be allowed. Again, I don't live in Illinois, so I'm not sure about how employment law is there, but while it might be shady, it might not be 'clearly illegal'.
In other words, it would be clearly illegal for an employer to say simply, "Here's the new employment contract identical to existing but with a new, more aggressive IP ownership clause; sign it or you're fired." Contracts signed under these circumstances have been struck down in court.
However, it would be legal for an employer to say, "Anyone who signs the updated employment contract (with aggressive IP changes) gets free lunches and can work from home 2 days a week." I don't understand the caselaw enough to know what would happen if they provided the incentive and added "or you're fired."
In general, I think the idea is that you have a lot of freedom with new employee agreements, but you cannot just change out an employment agreement on existing employees to strip them of rights.
*IANAL, and it may vary by state.