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

71–80 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#71

Post by chimeracoder »

neohaven wrote: post #55
danielweber wrote: post #35

And I was soon informed that the president wished to assure me that there is nothing unusual about such clauses Whoop whoop whoop! This sets off giant alarm bells in my head. It might be totally normal. That doesn't mean you should sign it. It's also an older-than-dirt salesman tactic to say that something you just made up is "totally common." Of course, the company can attach whatever clauses it wants to a separatio…

Depending on where you are, "severance", or the 2-week pay after you have been told you do not have a job anymore, may or may not be a worker's right.

IANAL, but while that may be true in general, California (where the author was employed[0]) is an at-will state, and most people reading HN (in fact, most people working at startups in general) are likely to be employed at-will. AFAIK, that means that they are not entitled to any severance unless their initial contract stipulated otherwise.

[0] Actually, where the company was based we don't know which employment laws applied to his contract without reading it. You can be a California resident employed by a Delaware corporation operating out of California and your contract can still be subject the the employment laws of a third state. I'm not entirely sure how this actually works in practice, but I know it is done.

EDIT Some quick Googling found this website, which has some interesting information (albeit a rather terrible layout): http://www.careerprotection.com/severancepay.html

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#72

Post by poopsintub »

300bps wrote: post #19
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…

The funny thing is the article is squarely aimed at the non-disparagement clause which to me is not very interesting. But the big deal is actually the "release of all claims" clause. Essentially they're trying to get a "get out of jail free" card for any unlawful actions they may have taken as part of your termination. Even if they did nothing unlawful (ex: terminate everyone over 40 years old to bring in younger che…

Right. They need the signature to get free of any wrongful termination suits. Though, the non-disparagement clause pretty much ties in with that, I suppose.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#74

Post by beat »

triplesec wrote: post #25

Sue them for breaching your First Amendment rights through employment termination coercion.

What "First Amendment rights"? You give those up when you take a job. As Bob Black said in The Abolition of Work, "There is more freedom in any moderately de-Stalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace".

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#75

Post by stkni »

I've grudgingly signed one of these a few years ago because the owner of the company had a habit of vindictively pursuing employees she didn't like until they were poor. That trumped the crappy termination clause so I signed it!

But ultimately I don't think it really matters too much so why not just take the money and have it both ways? I reasoned that it would be pretty hard to enforce if I ever did really feel like venting some serious spleen.

Having said all that, most sour-grapes aren't worth publicizing IMHO. Unless they're funny of course and this one wasn't funny enough.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#76

Post by jgalt212 »

neohaven wrote: post #55
danielweber wrote: post #35

And I was soon informed that the president wished to assure me that there is nothing unusual about such clauses Whoop whoop whoop! This sets off giant alarm bells in my head. It might be totally normal. That doesn't mean you should sign it. It's also an older-than-dirt salesman tactic to say that something you just made up is "totally common." Of course, the company can attach whatever clauses it wants to a separatio…

Depending on where you are, "severance", or the 2-week pay after you have been told you do not have a job anymore, may or may not be a worker's right.

If it's a mass layoff, the event will probably fall under the WARN act which requires 60 days notice for "full-time" workers.

http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryw/qt/WARN_Act.htm

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#77

Post by GotAnyMegadeth »

silverbax88 wrote: post #52
dasil003 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So rather than ask the person like a grownup they should wildly speculate in order to make everyone less uncomfortable? I mean you have a list of 9 reasons off the top of your head and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Name another reason that doesn't fall under those nine. I'm honestly not trying to argue, just asking. There aren't really that many reasons why people leave. People leave because they aren't happy or aren't getting paid enough or they have a personal situation that dictates it. There are really just 3 reasons but I elaborated because I expected people to start chiming in with all of the reasons I missed.

Just won the lottery

Close relative has received a terminal diagnosis

Believed their horrorscope

Got pregnant

Saved enough money to retire to Thailand

Spouse has had an affair with a co-worker (Trust aside this is still a good reason)

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#78

Post by chimeracoder »

JackFr wrote: post #62
alextingle wrote: post #20

I wouldn't sign that any more than I'd sign a contract that gave the company everything that I produce in my own time. Both are attempts by the corporation to dissolve my agency as a human being. The only right answer is no.

No they're not. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration Consideration is something of value given by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor. Typically, the thing of value is a payment, although it may be an act, or forbearance to act. Paying you not to speak is no more an attempt to dissolve your human agency than paying you to speak. Assumin…

> Assuming you have nothing disparaging to say, not agreeing is foolish.

That sounds an awful lot like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear", a statement which I know is very much false.

What you think is disparaging may be very different from what your employer thinks is disparaging. By signing away your rights using ill-defined and imprecise language, you are only opening yourself up to potential legal troubles later.

I could flip your final statement on its head: assuming you don't desperately need the severance payment, agreeing is foolish.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#79

Post by 6d0debc071 »

davedx wrote: post #8
badman_ting wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never been fired but I think of that as consulting. I have been asked for that kind of info on my way out, and said the same. I definitely would not be giving that out to to the company that just let me go.

You refuse exit interviews even when you are the one who's decided to leave?

If the company couldn't be bothered to learn what I thought in the months or years I've been working with them, I don't feel any motivation to tell them now. An exit interview is essentially saying, to me, "We didn't care until you left."

There's also the fact that I find most interviews incredibly dehumanising experiences. Someone sits down and reads some set questions at you... bleh. Does anyone enjoy that? You want to know what I think, try having a conversation. If the emotional and intellectual investment on your side is you deigned to read me a list? Just... stuff that for a game of soldiers. I'm not going to put up some of my feelings and concerns in response to a list-reading machine.

Ultimately, if I've got a good relationship with my manager, she or he will know why I'm leaving without needing to sit down and treat me like some stranger who they can interrogate. If we don't have a good relationship, then under those conditions all they've really done is pay my wage in return for code, and when they stopped doing so they lost the right to my time and effort in any form.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#80

Post by rayiner »

I would approach these contracts as creating an anti-competitive restraint on trade. Specifically, they seek to undermine the efficiency of the labor market by obscuring information about the working conditions at various employers. I think states would be quite justified in outlawing the practice on those grounds.
Post reply on HN