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

201–210 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#201

Post by raganwald »

No disparagement clauses are a lot like non-compete clauses. I would never sign one, but at the same time, I am reluctant to speak poorly of a former employer or to go into direct competition with former colleagues.

I want the right to do those things, but I don't actually want to do them.

Now of course, they always say, "Yeah, maybe not you, but somebody." To which I say, "That's why you took so long to check my references before hiring me. I'm no longer somebody. And if it mattered that much, you should have put it in the employment agreement so that I could have declined the job before taking it."

The only people who should feel morally compelled to sign no-disparagement clauses before accepting severance are people who are being fired for leaking confidential information on the job.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#202

Post by swamp40 »

It seems to me like he would have quickly signed the agreement if it were, say, for 3 months salary.

So his "I'll keep my self respect" morality argument seems a little weak.

Like the joke goes, "We've already established what you are, now we're just negotiating your rates...".

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#203

Post by darkarmani »

comrade_ogilvy wrote: post #172
chimeracoder wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Keep in the larger context in mind: Your former employer (and anyone else you have done significant business with) can always find some flimsy basis for a lawsuit that will cost you several dozens of sleepless nights and $10k-$20k in lawyers fees, before it is thrown out by the judge. What is stopping the other guy is they are not pissed off enough to throw $50k-$100k in the toilet for the lawyers fees and distractio…

> Your former employer (and anyone else you have done significant business with) can always find some flimsy basis for a lawsuit that will cost you several dozens of sleepless nights and $10k-$20k in lawyers fees, before it is thrown out by the judge.

I think this actually cuts both ways, since companies usually have deep pockets and are responsible to investors. This is the only reason companies offer severance in the first place -- it's cheaper than dealing with the lawsuits.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#204

Post by oh_sigh »

Personally, I would sign it, and then if I felt I had something negative to say and wanted to say it publicly, I would return the money.

Also, could you use ASL to communicate your feelings about the company, since that is neither oral or written?

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#205

Post by JohnTHaller »

Let's say you sign such an exit clause and get paid your 2 weeks hush money. What's to stop the company blaming some performance or missed target on a project on you afterwards, possibly even publicly. And then you're not allowed to respond.

I have never signed a clause like this in a start/end employment contract nor will I ever.

If a company doesn't want to be spoken ill of, don't do ill. If the only way a company can keep its employees/former employees from speaking true ills of them is to contractually obligate them not to, that's not a company worth giving the time of day to.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#206

Post by toomuchtodo »

hercynium wrote: post #198
toomuchtodo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After having to work with Akamai as a vendor in several positions (it being out of my control to use a different vendor), their corporate attitude doesn't surprise me at all . Apologies for your experience.

No apologies needed, but thanks! I learned some valuable lessons.

The lessons you learned then are the ones I'm learning now.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#207

Post by ibrad »

nemesisj wrote: post #179
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 love it whenever anyone insists something "isn't a big deal" or they don't care about it that much. I will simply say that it is a big deal to me, so if it's not a big deal to them, they might as well do it my way. This works in almost all cases, or the other party has to backtrack and then at least we're negotiating on more transparent terms.

So what happens when I sign and still rant about the company. Say on my blog. The company is already struggling financially it will cost them to fight back.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#208

Post by snorkel »

Bah! The termination agreement is just a bunch boilerplate legalese cover your ass bullshit, really. So sign it and take the severance check, then go say whatever you want anyway. It's very unlikely that a company that can't afford its current staff will then spend time and money with lawyers just to smack you around for saying mean things about them.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#209

Post by officemonkey »

nemesisj wrote: post #179
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 love it whenever anyone insists something "isn't a big deal" or they don't care about it that much. I will simply say that it is a big deal to me, so if it's not a big deal to them, they might as well do it my way. This works in almost all cases, or the other party has to backtrack and then at least we're negotiating on more transparent terms.

Exactly this. If it's "no big deal" then ex it out of the agreement. Oh? You won't? Then I guess it is a big deal after all.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#210

Post by BlackDeath3 »

knappe wrote: post #187
BlackDeath3 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Well, to be fair, given people like you, that's really no surprise. That's not to save that they necessarily do not deserve it.
Post reply on HN