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

171–180 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#171

Post by badman_ting »

davedx wrote: post #8
badman_ting wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never been fired but I think of that as consulting. I have been asked for that kind of info on my way out, and said the same. I definitely would not be giving that out to to the company that just let me go.

You refuse exit interviews even when you are the one who's decided to leave?

Outright refusing it seems awkward and overly hostile to me, but I have done it while giving very perfunctory answers. When they dug for more I told them I was available for consulting. Quite simply there is no incentive to do any more than that.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#172

Post by comrade_ogilvy »

chimeracoder wrote: post #78
JackFr wrote: post #62

Earlier 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. 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 distraction to punish you unjustly.

Not signing does not actually protect you from baseless suits, if you run your mouth.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#173

Post by ama729 »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #146
dubcanada wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stuff I agree too just to play video games, I'm surprised I still have legal rights sometimes...

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.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#174

Post by frogpelt »

rbanffy wrote: post #136
JackFr wrote: post #62

Earlier 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…

I could be wrong but I think what you'll find is that a court would not uphold that agreement any further than the original amount of severance pay was worth.

That would be tantamount to signing a release to play in a softball league and then one of the other players attacks you with a bat. So, you can't get your hospital bills covered, now?

If you sign the agreement and then renege, it's not like they can sue you for a million dollars in damages if your "disparaging" remarks are true.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#175

Post by staunch »

I agree with this person completely. It's the principle of the thing. There's absolutely no way I'd ever sign such an agreement...for two weeks severance. For 6 months severance? I think we'd both sign with enthusiasm.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#177

Post by cbr »

logfromblammo wrote: post #170
chimeracoder wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 trying to set up the law to fully match our senses of justice would be massive overengineering.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#178

Post by BlackDeath3 »

gottagetmac wrote: post #166
BlackDeath3 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment (and all the rest of it) has nothing to do with non-governmental, private interactions.

Of course it does, when you're talking about the government regulating non-governmental, private speech, such as this mythical law against employers saying truthfully that you were fired for cause.

Fair point. I suppose I'm really not sure.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#179

Post by nemesisj »

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.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#180

Post by at-fates-hands »

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.

unless your talking about your wireless carrier, in this case, Verizon.
Post reply on HN