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

191–200 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#191

Post by nitrogen »

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.

If they want to update the modem/baseband, why not just put "modem" or "baseband"? And why do they have to do it without notice?

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#192

Post by dwc »

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…

Learning a little and pondering a little is far less dangerous than learning nothing. Learning how it's been interpreted over the years is better, of course. But a simple reading of the text would benefit many people and the public discourse. Once you have that, adding the interpretation that congress shouldn't make laws be extended to "the entire government shall not interfere with" isn't a big stretch. But whatever level of understanding one hopes to achieve, the place to start is with the text.

And it's not just this article. See almost any discussion forum where moderation has come up and you'll find invocations of the first amendment. See Sarah Palin saying her first amendment rights were violated because she was criticized in the media (and the assenting opinions by far too many). On and on. These people, who make a very specific claim, have not even bothered to check the basis of it. They wouldn't need to learn too much of the finer nuances to realize their claims were invalid.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#193

Post by DannyBee »

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…

"California is an at-will state,"

California is an odd example of an at-will state, for various reasons.

There have been a lot of implied-in-fact exceptions to the at-will doctrine (see Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. ) essentially holding that your employment contract would not control if the employer gives you a different impression.

The general legal view is that california is not really an at-will state anymore, because of the routine exceptions that get made.

IE cases holding "evidence of a “long and distinguished career” supported finding of implied contract not to terminate without good cause", etc.

See http://ainleylaw.com/2012/10/25/avoiding-the-at-will-bar/ for a random list of cases and holdings.

Suffice to say, i would not hold up california as a typical example of anything employment law related :)

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#194

Post by schrodinger »

michaelt wrote: post #89
dasil003 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So rather than ask the person like a grownup they should wildly speculate in order to make everyone less uncomfortable? I mean you have a list of 9 reasons off the top of your head and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

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 I left a former job, I was very candid in my exit interview. My former boss and I discussed things that I didn't like about the job, and he was interested to hear some honest feedback from someone with nothing to lose. It didn't cost me anything and it helped him to get a feel for things that other people didn't like either but weren't comfortable coming out and saying.

Maybe if things were sour it would have been different, but in this case I thought it was productive and was glad to help.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#195

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

frogpelt wrote: post #174
rbanffy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fo…

> it's not like they can sue you for a million dollars in damages if your "disparaging" remarks are true.

They can sue you for slander/libel with or without you having entered into the severance agreement. If we're talking about getting sued for entering and then breaking the agreement, we're probably not talking about "millions of dollars" but rather whatever the contract specifies the penalty for breaking the contract would be (and this is still up to a court to decide what's actually enforceable).

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#196

Post by schrodinger »

kohanz wrote: post #70
silverbax88 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name another reason that doesn't fall under those nine. I'm honestly not trying to argue, just asking. There aren't really that many reasons why people leave. People leave because they aren't happy or aren't getting paid enough or they have a personal situation that dictates it. There are really just 3 reasons but I elaborated because I expected people to start chiming in with all of the reasons I missed.

Those reasons are so vague, though. Alright, so "people aren't happy", how should I go about fixing that as an employer? Step 1: find out what they are unhappy about. Hence the exit interview. IMHO, this information should be gathered well before exit, e.g. through regular 1-on-1's, but that's another discussion.

An exit interview allows you to be more candid than in a regular 1-on-1. When you're still an employee you're more worried about saying something that could affect your perception.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#197

Post by darkarmani »

jrockway wrote: post #153
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…

If this were 100 years ago, you could make the argument that by enforcing this contract, Congress made a law abridging the freedom of the press. I think that ship has sailed and failed, however, so it's too late now. But it is interesting to think of how the Constitution can become meaningless if the government is willing to create laws to allow others to take away your Constitutional rights.

> If this were 100 years ago, you could make the argument that by enforcing this contract, Congress made a law abridging the freedom of the press.

That's crazy. The point of the right is that you have choice where a law takes away that choice. You can choose to sell your actions to other people for a limited set of legal actions. Why shouldn't Congress enforce contracts when BOTH parties are willing to sign?

I hate the idea of this particular clause and find it very distasteful, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#198

Post by hercynium »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #161
hercynium wrote: post #140

Heh. Almost two years ago I was fired from a fairly prominent internet services company... Ah, who am I trying to avoid? It was Akamai. I speak ill of them all the time. Not about their impressive infrastructure and engineering, or the scores of brilliant people I had the privilege to work with. No, it was more my experience with the corporate culture and the pervasive games of "power politics" that anybody who wasn'…

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.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#199

Post by ceejayoz »

BlackDeath3 wrote: post #138
SamReidHughes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in a secret section of the constitution on employment law, that overrides the first amendment.

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

That's why companies are free to have this as a company policy.

The First Amendment prevents this policy from being a law.

Post reply on HN