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

121–130 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#121

Post by _delirium »

spiralpolitik wrote: post #22
CaveTech wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

That's indeed true in California, but "at will" employment doesn't strictly require that. At-will employment means either side can terminate the employment arrangement for any or no cause, as distinguished from jurisdictions that require a reason for termination. It's still compatible with having a short notice period, e.g. requiring that employees give 2 weeks notice before quitting, and/or that employers give 2 weeks notice before termination.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#122

Post by ww520 »

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.

That's awful. Are they paying 24 hour work day then?

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#123

Post by mikestew »

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…

And "release all claims" is precisely why I didn't sign for a paltry two weeks severance at one ex-employer. Don't speak ill of them? Fine, whatever, I'm content to never speak of you again, positive or negative. But let you off the hook for when it occurs to me weeks later that you have illegal hiring/firing patterns? Umm, no, not for a measly few grand. (And though a solid case could have been made for unlawful termination, I left it be because I was a month from quitting anyway.)

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#124

Post by _delirium »

A friend summed it up like this:

Modern employment. Can't speak freely before you have a job (social media vetting), can't speak freely in your own time while you have a job (clauses in your contract), can't speak freely when you no longer have a job.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#125

Post by kanamekun »

dubcanada wrote: post #107
crusso wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

South Park made a whole episode about this (re: Apple's terms of use) a few years ago:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humance...

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#126

Post by knappe »

MartinCron wrote: post #105
huhtenberg wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

This is what pushed me over the edge.

http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#127

Post by waylandsmithers »

willvarfar wrote: post #16
bertil wrote: post #2

I’m puzzled by one thing, if risk management is the concern: why not replace that clause by a candid, confidential conversation on what is wrong with the company? Any significant issue most likely affects more than one employee, including remaining ones. It sounds typical of a culture driven by lawyers, rather than leaders.

Ah the notorious "exit interview"? Steer well well clear of them too! http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/haexit.htm

I had one of these recently but didn't realize I could just decline it. I stuck firm with my "Nothing personal, just moving on to something new" rationale for leaving and basically answered all the questions in a "10/10 would work here again" kind of way. I figured any actual constructive criticism would be ignored anyway.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#128

Post by rbanffy »

imgabe wrote: post #38

There's already established case law concerning libel and slander, do these not apply to corporations? This clause just seems like a way to give a company the option to sue you for anything at all, regardless of whether it caused them any damages.

> This clause just seems like a way to give a company the option to sue you for anything at all, regardless of whether it caused them any damages

Or if it's true.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#129

Post by coldcode »

jgalt212 wrote: post #76
neohaven wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am currently awaiting a 60 day notice, as 80% of the company is being laid off. Our parent company recently laid off a number of folks who only got 30 as the company is eliminating a large portion of the company.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#130

Post by danielweber »

jaynos wrote: post #118
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…

IANAL, but is that clause even enforceable if tied to severance? Seems like a reasonable argument could be made that signing such a clause when tied to severance negotiations would fall under "duress" from a legal standpoint.

If the company says "sign in the next 5 minutes or else" than maybe. But the company wants you to sign.

And the lawyers who crafted up the contract don't want it to be thrown out for some stupid reason, so they will advise your (about to be ex-)employer to let you take it home to read it and think about it.

Post reply on HN