Fired? Speak No Evil • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#181

Post by enjo » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:53 PM UTC

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've used "peer-led exit interviews" to great effect. Essentially get one of their co-workers to take them out for lunch to talk about want went wrong. Folks are much more comfortable talking to their colleagues. The person conducting the interview is generally happy to pass along the criticism (usually because they agree with it) without having to since they don't have to put their name to it.

I've gotten some real painful, but incredibly meaningful, feedback from these interviews.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#182

Post by throwawaypoiu » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:53 PM UTC

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?

I'm in NYC and was able to strike it off. I just explained to the company that I enjoy working on iOS apps as a side hobby, and wouldn't want that to be a problem. They removed the clause from the contract, it wasn't a big deal. My company isn't that big though (~30 devs).

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#183

Post by mathattack » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:55 PM UTC

joezydeco wrote: post #32

yusyusyus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. A typical stealth question that is perfectly allowed is the "would you hire this person again?" question. It says a lot with one yes/no answer.

Exactly. And can sometimes open up follow-ups with, "Can you tell me why not?"

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#184

Post by ianferrel » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:55 PM UTC

dwc wrote: post #134

> Though such clauses don’t technically violate the First Amendment Not technically, not in spirit, not in any way related to the 1st amendment. Have so few people actually bothered to learn even a little about the 1st amendment? You can read the entire first amendment several times and then ponder it a little in just a few minutes, because it's very short. In fact, I'll paste the entire text: Congress shall make no…

You can't sign a contract that sells you into slavery because of the 13th Amendment.

Why can you sign a contract that limits your freedom of speech in spite of the 1st Amendment?

Yes, I realize the law is complicated and there are many years of precedent distinguishing the two. But it's incorrect to argue that this isn't even in spirit related to the 1st Amendment.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#185

Post by mathattack » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:56 PM UTC

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…

In this case, it is totally normal. In return for a payment, you agree to keep quiet. I don't know of any other firm that gives severance without this. What is abnormal is that someone is being asked to sign it for 2 weeks of salary.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#186

Post by gottagetmac » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:58 PM UTC

ianferrel wrote: post #184

dwc wrote: post #134

> Though such clauses don’t technically violate the First Amendment Not technically, not in spirit, not in any way related to the 1st amendment. Have so few people actually bothered to learn even a little about the 1st amendment? You can read the entire first amendment several times and then ponder it a little in just a few minutes, because it's very short. In fact, I'll paste the entire text: Congress shall make no…

You can't sign a contract that sells you into slavery because of the 13th Amendment. Why can you sign a contract that limits your freedom of speech in spite of the 1st Amendment? Yes, I realize the law is complicated and there are many years of precedent distinguishing the two. But it's incorrect to argue that this isn't even in spirit related to the 1st Amendment.

Well, because the 13th Amendment by its terms governs private conduct.

I agree, though, that there's a Shelly v. Kraemer type argument that could be made against the enforceability of contracts limiting freedom of speech in certain ways.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#187

Post by knappe » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:59 PM UTC

BlackDeath3 wrote: post #159

knappe wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I haven't purchased an EA product since.

And that's fine and dandy, but chances are that the company composition is largely different today than it was when EA Spouse occurred. I understand that there is more to a company than a collective of individuals, but it might be a little misleading to still make EA-related decisions today based on the EA Spouse incident.

No, I'd say their track record is spot on.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/04/09/ea-voted-w...

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#188

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:59 PM UTC

ianferrel wrote: post #184

dwc wrote: post #134

> Though such clauses don’t technically violate the First Amendment Not technically, not in spirit, not in any way related to the 1st amendment. Have so few people actually bothered to learn even a little about the 1st amendment? You can read the entire first amendment several times and then ponder it a little in just a few minutes, because it's very short. In fact, I'll paste the entire text: Congress shall make no…

You can't sign a contract that sells you into slavery because of the 13th Amendment. Why can you sign a contract that limits your freedom of speech in spite of the 1st Amendment? Yes, I realize the law is complicated and there are many years of precedent distinguishing the two. But it's incorrect to argue that this isn't even in spirit related to the 1st Amendment.

> You can't sign a contract that sells you into slavery because of the 13th Amendment.

Because the 13th Amendment doesn't prevent Congress from making a law to make people slaves, it prohibits slavery from existing.

In law, words make a difference.

> Why can you sign a contract that limits your freedom of speech in spite of the 1st Amendment?

Because restricting such a construct -- preventing you from trading speech or restraint of speech for some other good -- would violate the prohibition on government regulation of speech applied by the First Amendment.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#189

Post by BHSPitMonkey » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:59 PM UTC

ama729 wrote: post #173

at-fates-hands wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed I had a friend who was a contract lawyer, and pointed out several clauses in my wireless contract and my internet contract. It was pretty eye opening. Needless to say, you'd be surprised what you agree to when you sign contracts: "Please be aware that we may change your wireless device's software, applications or programming remotely, without notice."

> "Please be aware that we may change your wireless device's software, applications or programming remotely, without notice." Which mean they update your modem (which is not yours btw, it's a part of your ISP infrastructure) for you, not that ominous IMO.

Speak for yourself; I own my cable modem outright. But I do understand (and I don't care) that the ISP can essentially reprogram that device, since that's how the technology is intended to work. That device is just feeding into a router I control, anyway.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#190

Post by theatrus2 » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:00 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #160

As a programmer, the clause that always bothers me is the one about how they own everything that I do that's vaguely related to their business, even on my own time. I go ahead and sign it because I hear that the state of California protects me on that one. But I still make sure to hide my side projects from my employers and coworkers.

If you are operating in California, push back. Non-enforceable doesn't mean they can threaten all they want.

Note that good companies clearly spell out the CA legal section which covers this. Bad ones try to hide it.