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

101–110 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#101

Post by chiph »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #65

Lets say you were to sign something like this, but then 10 years later the company completely changed direction and their new business plan was stealing candy from babies. Then you wrote something about how horrible the company is now. What kind of recourse would this contract let them take on you? Would you just have to pay the 2 weeks salary back to them?

Your lawyer would tell you not to sign that agreement, because there wasn't a sunset clause on that portion. The ones I've seen are usually 2 years.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#102

Post by melindajb »

I love this. Yes, you want someone's silence, you're going to have to do better than two weeks of substandard pay that passes for a salary in SV startups. most employees forget that leaving is as much a negotiation as starting and EVERYTHING (in most cases, barring mass layoffs) is negotiable.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#103

Post by MartinCron »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #65

Lets say you were to sign something like this, but then 10 years later the company completely changed direction and their new business plan was stealing candy from babies. Then you wrote something about how horrible the company is now. What kind of recourse would this contract let them take on you? Would you just have to pay the 2 weeks salary back to them?

I wondered about this after I signed a severance contract that required me not to "disclose, defame, compete, or recruit" for a set period of time. Don't judge me, it was an emotional time and the severance was non-trivial.

I'm happy to say that time is over and I've gone on a disclosure, defamation, competition, and recruiting spree.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#104

Post by X4 »

Fired People need Help, Power and a Lobby.

>> Real story: I hated when I found out that I got presumably 2x more than other people and weren't allowed to tell them contractually. What I found out was that it was a lie and that some pet or favorite employees later or earlier got the same amount as I did. I don't like unfair payments even when I win! There are alternatives way of payment, like self-chosen salaries and collective efficiency based correction, but I don't know how such things are solved on a social level without causing anger and hatred. For example, I have a "friend", who is such a lazy ass, he would consider him smart for doing only what's necessary to get things done without doing actual work. That means finding ways to apply pre-made solution etc. and he hustles at every single job that you may have heard about. Yes he makes themes, IT-Stuff, changes your tires, washes your car, sells stuff on local classifieds ads, sets up stuff at events, works on your mc donalds and more. What would you do about such people? That guy would choose the highest possible salary for himself, his salary would get corrected by the employees based on performance, well if he doesn't try to social engineer his way up. You see, it's hard. I don't know a solution to fair payments to be honest. Do you?

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#105

Post by MartinCron »

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.

Yuck. This is the sort of thing that is nudging me from "I never ever want to work for EA" to "I no longer want to buy things from EA"

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#106

Post by crusso »

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…

I'll tell other engineers that two weeks' salary is a piddly amount for the company for you to surrender such rights

So it isn't worth just moving on with your career for, say, $3k (assuming a moderate $80k/yr salary)?

Seems like Internet bravado to me. I click okay on all sorts of terms of use agreements for my PS3 just to play some games.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#107

Post by dubcanada »

crusso wrote: post #106
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…

I'll tell other engineers that two weeks' salary is a piddly amount for the company for you to surrender such rights So it isn't worth just moving on with your career for, say, $3k (assuming a moderate $80k/yr salary)? Seems like Internet bravado to me. I click okay on all sorts of terms of use agreements for my PS3 just to play some games.

The stuff I agree too just to play video games, I'm surprised I still have legal rights sometimes...

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#108

Post by ww520 »

tostitos1979 wrote: post #39
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.

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?

Even if you are in California, it's a good idea not to sign such a clause. You might think that CA 2870 would trump a signed agreement, but 2870(a)(1) might hurt your chance, especially with large companies like Google that have involved in many areas of technologies.

For reference, CA Code 2870: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#109

Post by geebee »

I have serious misgivings about this sort of "hush money". In general, I'd prefer not to interfere in private contracts, but this one has such serious implications for everyone else. In particular, it can end up creating an information imbalance, enforced by the courts, that allows a certain group of people to remain "in the know", with everyone else unaware of what is going on.

I read a while back about a law firm that had evidently done something very dodgy - representing an inventor and the firm purchasing the invention at the same time. The engineers were eventually paid a settlement, but part of the settlement was a gag order - nobody was allowed to talk about what had happened or the amount of money paid. This included, of course, the press.

Now, what do you want to bet that well connected lawyers, upper managers, and so forth, are able to access the terms of this deal - even if they weren't involved? What are the odds that an inventor who approaches a law firm will know what transpired and why? The imbalance of information will put the inventor at an overwhelming disadvantage.

My gut feeling is that there is a third party in all of this - me. Well, me, and all the little people. I understand the need to enforce contracts within reason, but I'm having a tough time seeing my own personal interest, or the general public interest, in enforcing these "stay quiet" contracts.

I'd also point out that this isn't really a situation where we are prying into a private transaction and forcing people to talk. Our courts are actually enforcing the gag rule that keeps most of us in the dark about what is really going on out there. My misgivings about regulating private transactions aren't as strong when all we'd need to do is stop enforcing contracts that are clearly against the public interest [1].

[1] I am still thinking this through. I'm not absolutely sure this is against the public interest, or, even if it is, if we the courts should refuse to enforce the provision. It's how I'm leaning, but I have a sense that there may be more to this. I am generally glad that courts won't enforce certain terms of contracts, such as very long non-compete clauses and the like...

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#110

Post by greenyoda »

alextingle wrote: post #98
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…

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?

The consideration was the severance payment, which in the article was worth two weeks of salary.
Post reply on HN