Fired? Speak No Evil • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#211

Post by vidarh » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:19 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #71

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.

IANAL, but while that may be true in general, California (where the author was employed[0]) is an at-will state, and most people reading HN (in fact, most people working at startups in general) are likely to be employed at-will. AFAIK, that means that they are not entitled to any severance unless their initial contract stipulated otherwise. [0] Actually, where the company was based we don't know which employment laws…

> and most people reading HN (in fact, most people working at startups in general) are likely to be employed at-will

I'm not so sure about that. While Silicon Valley particularly, and the US in general, has a disproportionate number of high tech startups, you also have some of the weakest workers rights in the world, and while I don't know the exact demographics of HN, I'm not so sure it is that focused around California.

Pretty much all of Europe, with a population of about 800 million, for example, have protections that are vastly stronger. A substantial majority of countries have 1-3 months notice periods that are hard or impossible to get around, in some cases with a legal right to actually continue to show up to work and carry out the contracted work during that period even if your employer would like to pay you to stay away.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#212

Post by GhotiFish » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:19 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #100

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…

'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 em…

I don't see a false hit.

What's wrong?

What's disparaging?

If you've done nothing wrong, you have no reason to fear being searched for something wrong.

If you've nothing disparaging to say, you have no reason not to agree to a non-disparagement clause.

I don't see how unreasonable search and seizure or whether the employer is monopolistic or not even enter into this.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#213

Post by jusben1369 » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:21 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #185

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.

Yes I'm with you. First thing that happens is i) BOD tells management to do layoff's to preserve cash then ii) Legal talks to outside or inside counsel and gets the generic playbook for layoffs (including termination template language) then iii) CEO, CFO and VP of HR discuss actual terms of severance. Maybe even one gets simply two weeks. Maybe more senior (time or responsibility) get 3 or 4 weeks etc. Either way decision is determined and married to boilerplate RIF template. iv) String of events leads to a writer ($50,000 a year? $75,000 a year?) looking at a paltry two weeks of revenue in exchange for disparagement clause. Seems completely out of whack with his beliefs and the amount being offered.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#214

Post by jusben1369 » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:21 PM UTC

ibrad wrote: post #207

nemesisj wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah but you're not going to have a leg to stand on so any lawyer is going to tell you to settle immediately if they even threaten to go after you.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#215

Post by bradleyjg » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:24 PM UTC

cbr wrote: post #177

logfromblammo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While working in at-will states, the severance agreement may in fact be the first document you sign that is actually legally binding upon the company in any way. Most offers I see are clear that the letter is not a contract, and no contract can even exist without direct and explicit intervention by the CEO. And that seems to be a left-handed way of saying that if you do try to get an actual contract, you will not be…

It isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job if giving notice was never in the requirements. While you would be fully within your legal rights to quit without notice, and they would be fully within theirs to fire you effective immediately with no severance, both would be rude, contrary to custom, and unprofessional. It's reasonable and healthy to have customs that are not fully backed by the law, and tryin…

That's true in general, but conditional severance isn't the same thing as unconditional severance. Conditional severance, depending on the conditions, may well be a quid pro quo. If the money is compensation for e.g. a non-disparagement clause than it isn't also customary two weeks severance.

If such practices are widespread in a particular industry than that industry in practice doesn't provide severance. In those circumstances, it makes sense to withdraw the corresponding practice of giving notice. Or perhaps instead substituting a practice of conditional notice.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#216

Post by spikels » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:26 PM UTC

gottagetmac wrote: post #158

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…

Learning "a little about the 1st amendment" and pondering it "a little in a few minutes" is a dangerous thing. From just looking at this text, for example, you would think that it only applied to Congress, when actually it also applies to the executive branch, the judicial branch, and states and local government (since the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation cases). I also think this narrow view has made you j…

It's pretty sad but you what you say is correct: We can no longer just read our laws in order to understand what they say. Instead we need to pay lawyers to tell us what they mean even when they appear to be very clear like the first amendment.

And of course like your scholar they are free to make up there own interpretation at any time. If they can get enough of their colleagues to go along then that interpretation becomes the meaning. Maybe start with something reasonable like shouting fire in a theatre.

But after two hundred years that meaning can drift pretty far. What was originally purely a constraint on the power of government can be transformed into a constraint on the rights of private citizens - the very people the bill of rights was meant to protect!

Is there any wonder why the forth amendment has done so little to stop mass surveillance? Or individual health insurance mandates are constitutional because they could have been implemented as a tax? Or the commerce clause covers absolutely anything? Or words like "is" and "no" can simply be redefined as needed.

Perhaps I am naive but I would like laws that most people can understand by reading them. Too bad the people interpreting and writing our laws have every incentive to continue to do exactly the opposite.

Sorry for the rant!

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#217

Post by vidarh » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:31 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #167

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…

Of course asking for this agreement implies that they have done something wrong :-) "so mr employer you admit you have done something illegal either by omission or commission and you want me to sign a compromise agreement?" Well I am sure that my lawyers will be interested can you let me who in hr is your GC (lawyer) and I am sure we can sort something out or I will settle for 6 months right now.

No, it implies that they are worried about what you might say or do. And possibly not specifically you, but the odds in general of some employee or other deciding to cause a nuisance, whether or not they deserve it.

Or they have an overzealous HR person or lawyer.

Or any number of other things.

Of course they might also be a bunch of criminals, but I don't think an agreement like that implies anything in either direction.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#218

Post by danielweber » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:31 PM UTC

jusben1369 wrote: post #214

ibrad wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah but you're not going to have a leg to stand on so any lawyer is going to tell you to settle immediately if they even threaten to go after you.

Maybe, maybe not. Legal action is costly for both sides.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#219

Post by mcherm » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:33 PM UTC

robbiea wrote: post #143

I think the issue that Will Blythe might face now is that he has now alienated himself against future employers. Here is a guy who is willingly going to criticize a company he leaves (or maybe even currently employed at), just because he feels like it. There once was a hugely popular tech gossip newsletter in Chicago that once publicly criticized an employer for screwing over his part-time editor in some sort of busi…

He did not criticize his former employer at all, merely talked about the clause in the severance contract and his need as a journalist not to feel constrained.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#220

Post by ExpiredLink » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:33 PM UTC

> “You agree,” it reads, “that you will never make any negative or disparaging statements (orally or in writing) about the Company or its stockholders, directors, officers, employees, products, services or business practices, except as required by law.”

No consequences in case of violation? Sign it. It's meaningless, merely there to intimidate the judicial illiterate (i.e. most of the ordinary people).