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

91–100 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#91

Post by nsxwolf »

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…

I have never heard of such a severance package for a non-executive. Do you really think that your situation isn't just a fluke, and that you could replicate this package elsewhere?

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#92

Post by alextingle »

huhtenberg wrote: post #84
tostitos1979 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such contracts ("produced on own-time belongs to company") are common at large software companies. If you are in California, such a contract may not hold water. Any one have experience with a big co (outside Cali) where they were able to negotiate this clause away?

I can tell you that EA (Electronic Arts) won't hire you without this clause. Their line was "if you work for us, you shouldn't really have time for side projects." I kid you not.

One more to add to the long list of reasons not to work at EA.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#93

Post by crusso »

ojbyrne wrote: post #60
crusso wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 packag…

There's a difference between "not trashing people" and not saying anything under threat of lawsuit. Pretty well anything can be interpreted as disparaging. You could say something as simple as "they fired me, I don't think it was fair." and find yourself liable.

The reality is that bringing a lawsuit against a former employee is a huge expense and as others have mentioned - unlikely to even get anywhere.

So unless you want to cherry pick extremely unlikely situations, this separation agreement clause is a no-op and probably worth signing.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#94

Post by danielweber »

dredmorbius wrote: post #81
tostitos1979 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your data point. But I presume this was a small to medium sized company? At Big Co. HR is a faceless organization and I'm curious if people have succeeded negotiating with this beast? I'm also curious: did you negotiate this after they offered you a job? It seems frustrating to get the job first and then turn it down because it never met your requirements? Is it reasonable to ask a potential employer about…

I've pushed back on contract terms with a large company that had included a non-compete clause not enforceable locally. Turns out they had an alternate contract which met local statute, and had used it in previous hires / mergers. Still makes me itchy to sign such terms. When Marissa Meyer was hired by Yahoo, I found it interesting that her employment contract included some pretty familiar language: https://www.sec.g…

In the fictional novel "Lost Boys" (the author's name tends to start flamewars on HN so I'm not mentioning it), a software developer travels across the country with his family to a new job and is presented with a horrible IP contract. He sweats and is nervous and anxious about it all weekend, and on Monday he tells his boss he won't sign it. The boss shrugs and pulls an alternate contract out of a drawer and hands it to the developer. They give the first contract to people who won't bother reading it, and the second (read: "fair") contract to anyone who has an issue with the first.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#95

Post by logicallee »

psaintla wrote: post #41
logicallee wrote: post #7

The thing is, people who are let go are going to be in a sour mood. They are often going to think of negative things, even (especially?) if they had a very positive experience, and ordinarily this would not be a signal that is important. But for a company that is reducing its burn rate, obviously public signals like what someone decides to say are hugely important. So it is really a reminder: "don't bad-mouth us plea…

Because it is easier to bully someone to do what you want.

sure, but it doesn't work. that's why companies give out equity and options, instead of trying to blackmail their recruitment targets. and startups around here described as being run by a bully implode or close soon thereafter.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#96

Post by sdfjkl »

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…

Maybe you don't have anything disparaging to say right now. But that may change dramatically in the future.

Crass example, let's say you worked at a bank, parted on good terms, signed such an agreement. A few months later it turned out the bank had been laundering billions of dollars of drug money. This has no affect on the agreement you signed. Still got nothing disparaging to say?

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#97

Post by alecbenzer »

chris_wot wrote: post #47

Two things wrong here: 1. Isn't this against the U.S. Constitutional right to free speech? 2. I'd say that if you had this signed then it would be under duress. Not sure how this can be enforceable!

1. Free speech means you have a right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean you cannot voluntarily give up this right in part.

2. What part of this is duress? Nothing unlawful is going on; the author wasn't legally entitled to severance pay, even if withholding it is unprofessional.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#98

Post by alextingle »

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…

I don't think that employers pay any premium whatsoever for these extra clauses. Have you ever heard of jobs with these conditions being paid more?

So exactly what "consideration" are you talking about?

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#99

Post by TheCoelacanth »

chrisbennet wrote: post #66

I wonder if you could head this off contractually when you start a new job? Something like adding "Severance pay will not be made conditional on limitations of free speech." to the contract that you and your employer sign when you start a new job.

First you would have to get contractually guaranteed severance pay, which is a lot more than most people get.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#100

Post by crusso »

chimeracoder wrote: post #78
JackFr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

'That sounds an awful lot like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"'

Then your pattern matcher is giving you a false hit.

Your statement is about a government imposing unreasonable searches and seizure of you and your personal effects for the illusion of societal security.

The subject under discussion is about exchanging value for value in a voluntary transaction with you and a non-monopolistic employer.

[edit: added "voluntary"]

Post reply on HN