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

221–230 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#221

Post by bradleyjg »

geebee wrote: post #109

I have serious misgivings about this sort of "hush money". In general, I'd prefer not to interfere in private contracts, but this one has such serious implications for everyone else. In particular, it can end up creating an information imbalance, enforced by the courts, that allows a certain group of people to remain "in the know", with everyone else unaware of what is going on. I read a while back about a law firm t…

There is a legal doctrine under which courts will refuse to enforce clauses that are against public policy. Some examples include: racially restrictive deed covenants, inheritance bequests contingent on remaining unmarried, and contracts where one party agrees to perform an illegal act.

In this specific case, the non-disparagement clause would probably be construed not to cover things like testifying before a legislative body or communicating with regulators, even if those communications were voluntary rather than subpoenaed.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#222

Post by gottagetmac »

spikels wrote: post #216
gottagetmac wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're never going to have a useful legal system where the laws are simple enough for everyone to understand. Free speech is a complex idea.

To put it in HN terms, suppose I were to say "It's pretty sad that we can no longer look at assembly code to understand what our computer programs will do. Instead we need to pay software engineers to tell us how they work even when it's doing something simple, like running a search engine."

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#223

Post by zafka »

kanamekun wrote: post #125
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...

South Park made a whole episode about this (re: Apple's terms of use) a few years ago: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humance...

That is where good intentions for wise use of time go....

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#224

Post by icameron »

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.

Exactly, nothing will happen. At some point you see the big picture; the company is struggling for money. They already know your financial situation (unemployed) so the will not waste resources going after your assets. Like someone else said too, the burden is on them to show something is disparaging. Why not take it to court and drain what little resources they have left. You can drag it out as long as you want, not like you have a job! What a silly clause, I don't ever see it affecting you just from a blog posting. Disclaimer; not a lawyer (thank god because lawyers come up with this bs)

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#225

Post by efuquen »

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.

+1 I've had to work with them a few times, Akamai has built up crazy infrastructure and I'm sure they have awesome tech behind it but getting them to actually help you as a customer if you're not a Fortune 500 company is useless. This is even when I was working at a company that was paying them in the 7 figure range per year.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#226

Post by genwin »

raganwald wrote: post #201

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 ref…

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."

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#227

Post by nathanb »

raganwald wrote: post #201

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 ref…

What offends me personally is the offering of money in exchange for signing the agreement.

If I had a choice to sign the agreement or not, of my own free will and with no incentive, I may actually do so. Like you, I have no particular desire to speak ill of anyone, deservedly or not. Time spent disparaging a former employer is time which could have been better spent moving forward.

But when you offer me an incentive for signing the contract? It makes me wonder why these rights I'm giving up are worth so much to the company. And feeling like I'm being bribed or pressured to do something is one of the best ways to manipulate me into not doing it, just because I'm so stubborn :)

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#228

Post by logfromblammo »

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…

Having recently experienced such rudeness from an employer, I feel fully justified in recommending tit-for-tat retaliation from employees. Holding to human standards of decency is no longer warranted when your employer no longer views you as a human being.

Given the behavior of my current company towards all of its employees, I am looking to go elsewhere, and when I do, I won't worry overly much about burning those bridges behind me. The at-will sword is two-edged, so let the other guy feel the backswing occasionally.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#229

Post by vidarh »

huhtenberg wrote: post #84
tostitos1979 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such contracts ("produced on own-time belongs to company") are common at large software companies. If you are in California, such a contract may not hold water. Any one have experience with a big co (outside Cali) where they were able to negotiate this clause away?

I can tell you that EA (Electronic Arts) won't hire you without this clause. Their line was "if you work for us, you shouldn't really have time for side projects." I kid you not.

I'd love for them to try this in a EU country. (EDIT: Except the UK, which, in its attempt to become the 51st state, have an exemption from substantial parts of the relevant regulation)

"So you intend to violate the Working Time Directive? Because if you don't, I will have lots of spare time outside of my contracted hours".

Of course if they'd given me that line, I'd told them that if so they'd need to at least triple whatever offer I might have previously considered.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#230

Post by genwin »

nathanb wrote: post #227
raganwald wrote: post #201

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 ref…

What offends me personally is the offering of money in exchange for signing the agreement. If I had a choice to sign the agreement or not, of my own free will and with no incentive, I may actually do so. Like you, I have no particular desire to speak ill of anyone, deservedly or not. Time spent disparaging a former employer is time which could have been better spent moving forward. But when you offer me an incentive…

Think of it as the opening of a negotiation. They want you to do or not do something, now what do you want in return? You get bribed for working, after all.
Post reply on HN