Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fired? Speak No Evil

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#21

Post by netfire »

silverbax88 wrote: post #17
mathattack wrote: post #15

My 2 cents... The non-disparagement is a trade. You trade not saying anything bad about them publicly, and they agree not to say anything bad about you during a reference check. You get a positive (or perhaps generic "He worked here from X to Y, that's all we can say") reference, and they don't have to worry about a book coming out trashing them. The amount of cash is secondary. The real thing is, if you want to rema…

Actually, legally, they cannot say anything more than "He worked here from X to Y, that's all we can say". You don't need any agreement from them.

Can you provide a source for this? I've never heard of this before and am curious what legal restriction you are referring to.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#22

Post by spiralpolitik »

CaveTech wrote: post #12
crusso wrote: post #4

The company is offering extra weeks of pay in return for not attacking them. Why is this different than getting paid to do your job or meet a contract in other respects?

It must be different in California, because here in Ontario companies are legally required to give at least 2 weeks severance in most instances. If an employer isn't required to do the same in California then there's not much to complain about. Is this the case?

California is what is referred to as an "at will" state which means the company can let you go tomorrow without recourse or explanation beyond "we're letting you go" [1].

([1] There is legislation that comes into play if you let enough people go at the same time that its considered a "layoff". But it doesn't come into play for an individual termination)

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#23

Post by ceejayoz »

silverbax88 wrote: post #17
mathattack wrote: post #15

My 2 cents... The non-disparagement is a trade. You trade not saying anything bad about them publicly, and they agree not to say anything bad about you during a reference check. You get a positive (or perhaps generic "He worked here from X to Y, that's all we can say") reference, and they don't have to worry about a book coming out trashing them. The amount of cash is secondary. The real thing is, if you want to rema…

Actually, legally, they cannot say anything more than "He worked here from X to Y, that's all we can say". You don't need any agreement from them.

That's not true. Many companies have this as a policy to avoid defamation lawsuits from former employees receiving what they consider a bad reference, but that's not because there's a law forbidding it.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#24

Post by jasallen »

silverbax88 wrote: post #17
mathattack wrote: post #15

My 2 cents... The non-disparagement is a trade. You trade not saying anything bad about them publicly, and they agree not to say anything bad about you during a reference check. You get a positive (or perhaps generic "He worked here from X to Y, that's all we can say") reference, and they don't have to worry about a book coming out trashing them. The amount of cash is secondary. The real thing is, if you want to rema…

Actually, legally, they cannot say anything more than "He worked here from X to Y, that's all we can say". You don't need any agreement from them.

IANAL, but I believe you are technically wrong that it's illegal. Saying more, has however, been used against companies in civil court, with damages awarded, even when the 'more' said was completely accurate.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#26

Post by 300bps »

adricnet wrote: post #10
300bps wrote: post #5

If I don’t agree to this nondisparagement clause, I will not receive my severance — in this case, the equivalent of two weeks of pay. For two weeks pay, I would not agree to anything. For two years pay, I would consider it. I had no idea that professionals were given such ridiculous offers and expected to sign off on them. At my last job, I was guaranteed 1 year of severance in the event of losing my job. Fortunately…

Let me suggest with all respect and much jealousy that your situation may not be common across employeers or jurisdictions. And that many people may not have the finances or flexibility to decline two weeks pay, unless they already have another job (or lots of work). What you are discussing as an expected normal sounds like some utopian fantasy from here in Georgia, USA, an "at-will" hiring and firing state.

Let me suggest with all respect and much jealousy that your situation may not be common across employeers or jurisdictions

I have no college degree, work in the suburbs of a second-tier Northeastern US city but I have 20 years experience in IT.

And that many people may not have the finances or flexibility to decline two weeks pay

I respectfully submit that saving for an emergency fund might be their top priority while they are gainfully employed then. My goal since I was 18 years old was to have 6 months pay in the bank and it wasn't long before I had that. Since my parents didn't have two nickels to rub together though, I didn't have much of a choice and absolutely no fall back if I got into trouble so this was kind of a necessity for me.

Also, I'm surprised that anyone in IT is afraid of losing their job. Currently I work 40 hours per week at the investment bank I work at full time and 20+ hours per week doing side programming. Honestly I could work 24 hours per day and get paid for every hour if I wanted to. There is nearly infinite work for programmers right now. Losing your job is scary, no doubt, but in reality if you are a decent programmer you don't have much to be scared of.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#27

Post by yusyusyus »

silverbax88 wrote: post #17
mathattack wrote: post #15

My 2 cents... The non-disparagement is a trade. You trade not saying anything bad about them publicly, and they agree not to say anything bad about you during a reference check. You get a positive (or perhaps generic "He worked here from X to Y, that's all we can say") reference, and they don't have to worry about a book coming out trashing them. The amount of cash is secondary. The real thing is, if you want to rema…

Actually, legally, they cannot say anything more than "He worked here from X to Y, that's all we can say". You don't need any agreement from them.

This is simple misinformation. Most places will only say that much so as to limit unnecessary liability but, in most locales, an entity is not explicitly prohibited from providing additional information with respect to performance, etc.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#29

Post by crusso »

LanceH wrote: post #14
crusso wrote: post #4

The company is offering extra weeks of pay in return for not attacking them. Why is this different than getting paid to do your job or meet a contract in other respects?

Two weeks severance isn't traditionally "extra pay". It's generally a professional courtesy that they are now withholding until the no-longer-employee agrees to an everlasting requirement. The flip side: Offer two weeks notice, but only if they agree to speak of you on your terms afterward. No company signs that. They would be liable for anything anyone in the company ever said about you, forever. It's also exception…

It's also "professional courtesy" to not trash people... but there you have it, so what would you be giving up if everyone is being "professional".

You can forego the two weeks severance if it isn't worth it and you really want to trash them.

Having been both on the employee and the employer side of things, as an employer it really sucks to do something nice that you don't have to like give someone a severance package and then have them be a jerk by trying to hurt you in some way.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#30

Post by SamReidHughes »

netfire wrote: post #21
silverbax88 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, legally, they cannot say anything more than "He worked here from X to Y, that's all we can say". You don't need any agreement from them.

Can you provide a source for this? I've never heard of this before and am curious what legal restriction you are referring to.

It's in a secret section of the constitution on employment law, that overrides the first amendment.
Post reply on HN