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.
Fired? Speak No Evil
241–250 of 378 posts
Re: Fired? Speak No Evil
#242The thing is, why disparage things? It never works in your favour, and the catharsis is never worth the ricochet factor.
Re: Fired? Speak No Evil
#243The thing is, why disparage things? It never works in your favour, and the catharsis is never worth the ricochet factor.
Re: Fired? Speak No Evil
#244The thing is, why disparage things? It never works in your favour, and the catharsis is never worth the ricochet factor.
Re: Fired? Speak No Evil
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd sign a non-compete clause for enough money in return. Same with a non-disparagement clause, especially if I had nothing bad to say. "Give me 6 weeks severance, instead of 2. Then I'll gladly sign it."
For me it's not about the amount of money but rather the freedom of speech restriction that you must remember for the rest of your life. Human memory is a rather shady thing. How many of the university lectures do you still remember? Now imagine yourselves 10 years down the road, at a beer with other people getting asked about an event related to that company. Will you assume the rights of speech you forfeited for th…
Re: Fired? Speak No Evil
#246Earlier 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…
> Assuming you have nothing disparaging to say, not agreeing is foolish The article stated the author would have to give up his lifetime right to make "any negative or disparaging statements (orally or in writing) about the Company or its stockholders, directors, officers, employees, products, services or business practices". That's a huge thing. Let's imagine the company you worked for starts selling organs of littl…
What it covers is what you say about the company in the context (which can be broadly defined) of your being an ex-employee. If you say, "I worked at Time Warner Cable and it was run by idiots", that violates nondisparagement, because you're saying it as an insider. If you criticize the product not under your real name, or in private while not representing yourself as an ex-employee, you're probably fine.
Re: Fired? Speak No Evil
#247No 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 ref…
You say you want the right but never expect to use it. If that is the case it is probably not worth very much. Perhaps they can pay you something for it... You don't have to sign severance agreements that give your rights and employers don't have to pay you severance over what is required by law. If those rights are worth more to you than the severance don't sign.
I know you mean well, so I say this without trying to be antagonistic and start up a "debate." The thing is, this is from the world of principles, and despite what you may have been told incessantly, there is no direct way to value a principle.
The whole idea of selling this principle breaks down immediately if you imagine the President saying this to me:
"We're paying you this money so that you can keep quiet about us." My response would be, "Why pay, you can have that for free!"
From an economic standpoint, it probably costs me far more than they would consider paying to disparage them. I could write a witty blog post, get some HN karma, maybe sell a few books, and feel grand. But forever afterwards, I'd be going to job interviews, or trying to raise money for a startup, or whatever, and people would be saying "He's a nice guy, but I worry that he'll write about our private business."
If we sit down and think of this thing in dollars and cents, they'd have to pay me handsomely to disparage them. The whole thing is ridiculous. I'm not insulted that they want to go through the exercise of asking and being rebuffed, but by response is always going to be, "How about you pay me the severance, and I don't sign this, and then I go about doing what I've always done, which to date has been exactly what you want."
And then the President says, "Why should we pay?" And I counter, "So that I can tell anyone who asked that you have been fair to me, instead of saying that I have nothing to say about how our business concluded." And maybe that is worth something to the company, maybe not.
But really, you can't buy principles. If you could, they weren't principles, they were "wouldn't it be nice if it was convenient to act this way" ideas.
Re: Fired? Speak No Evil
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: Fired? Speak No Evil
#249> 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…
Re: Fired? Speak No Evil
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
So rather than ask the person like a grownup they should wildly speculate in order to make everyone less uncomfortable? When a parent asks friends "look at this photo, isn't my baby beautiful?" the answer is information-free as everyone will say "yes, that is a cute baby". Exit interviews are the same. But unlike the stuff with a parent, it doesn't have the social-bond-building value of gossip. With an exit interview…
>When a parent asks friends "look at this photo, isn't my baby beautiful?" the answer is information-free as everyone will say "yes, that is a cute baby". One of my life goals is to always answer this question honestly.