Ninth law of worker entropy: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|negotiation|
{{a|negotiation|
[[File:Waterfall.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A [[security waterfall]] yesterday]]
[[File:Waterfall.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A [[security waterfall]] yesterday]]
}}Once known as the “[[anal paradox]]”, [[Otto Büchstein]]’s theory of {{tag|negotiation}} has since become recognised as the [[JC]]’s [[ninth law of worker entropy]] — numerically challenging since, by some distance, it predates the first eight, and indeed forms the basis for one or two of them.  
}}Once known as the “[[anal paradox]]”, [[Otto Büchstein]]’s theory of {{tag|negotiation}} has since become recognised as the [[JC]]’s [[ninth law of worker entropy]] — numerically challenging since, by some distance, it predates the [[Laws of worker entropy|first eight]], and indeed forms the basis for one or two of them.  


{{ninth law of worker entropy}}
{{ninth law of worker entropy}}

Revision as of 12:09, 17 September 2020

Negotiation Anatomy™

A security waterfall yesterday
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Once known as the “anal paradox”, Otto Büchstein’s theory of negotiation has since become recognised as the JC’s ninth law of worker entropy — numerically challenging since, by some distance, it predates the first eight, and indeed forms the basis for one or two of them.

The JC’s ninth law of worker entropy: As the number of people involved in negotiating a contract goes up, its brevity, comprehensibility and utility goes down. The longer a negotiation continues, the more compendious, and tedious, will be its“fruits” — the verbiage, in the vernacular — even as its meaningful commercial content stay constants (or, more likely, declines to vanishing point).

Hiring a dredger is expensive, and since the operating assumption of all lawyers is that no-one ever got sued for writing an unintelligible agreement,[1] you leave it (perhaps tossing in a disclaimer for good measure) until one day your contract nears the event horizon of intelligibility, beyond which it risks collapsing in on itself, by which the idea is that you will be well clear, having moved on to some other unsuspecting host. If you have not there is the risk of it taking you with it, and precipitating the boredom heat death of the universe.

It almost happened in 2008, so don’t joke about it.

See also

Plain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings

References