Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should I testify?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 250 posts

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#231

Post by humanarity »

pron wrote: post #226
Confusion wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

crypt1d's response on this level is invisible for being flagged, but I think he does raise a serious point: wouldn't OP be admitting that he has broken the law or allowed the law to be broken for a longer period of time? What would be the consequences for him because of that?

It's a civil suit, not a criminal suit, and he's not the one being sued. I think only company officers may be personally sued for company behavior.

Great point. I'm no law expert tho I've heard there's different types of companies ( Delaware c ? ), as a matter of curiosity I wonder if the indemnification changes depending on the type of company.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#232

Post by nmrm »

cauterized wrote: post #228
tormeh wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why were they (singular) subpoenaed, though? It's definitely possible that a prospective future employer would consider a subpoenaed person a person who talks too much.

Why?

I think the logic goes that out of everyone at this company -- probably dozens or hundreds since OP says it's well known locally -- OP was the one that the plaintiff knew about and called up. Probably because the OP is a big-mouthed trouble maker and everyone knew it. Or something.

Whereas everyone else at the company were good team-players and kept their mouth shut and head down, so the plaintiff wasn't sure if s/he could count on their testimony or if they even knew anything.

Again, just explaining how someone might fear the logic would go. Not saying anyone does or should actually think like this.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#233

Post by jmccree »

aaronyo wrote: post #218
mattvanhorn wrote: post #22

Tell them to subpoena you - then the choice to testify is not yours any more. You'll have to. But you can tell future employers that you were forced, if you'd like to.

If you want to testify, asking them to subpoena you seems smart. I can't see how a subpoena could make testifying look worse, and yes, it just might alleviate some employers' concerns. But your first step seems to be deciding, for yourself, if testifying is the right thing to do. What if someone asks, "Did you ask to be subpoenaed?" Most people won't go that deep, but wouldn't you still like to feel comfortable answe…

Of course you should never ask to be subpoenaed. You inform the Plaintiff that "I would never would willingly testify about all the illegal things I saw at former employer, you'd have to subpoena me to get me to talk!". You can then answer that question honestly with "No, I told them I'd never talk, but they subpoenaed me and forced me to."

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#234

Post by humanarity »

kaens wrote: post #229
humanarity wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Know who you are then you'll know what to do. The question isn't about career impact. That's just like when someone's words are different to their body language. The question is different to the words in it.

Whether or not he feels that testifying would be the right thing to do isn't about career impact. Looking for advice about what testifying could do to his career image in the long-term from a crowd that likely has relevant experience is about career impact. Explicitly.

Yes, you've correctly comprehended the literal explicit question, that's all there is to it, isn't it?

Except it really isn't about the explicit literal question, it's about the unasked real question.

What happens when you don't know you don't know something, or when asking what would be unacceptable?

A proxy question is substituted, and you hope someone hears what you're really saying.

Also, from a literal sense, I'd say whether you feel the choice is authentic is actually all about career impact. You're choosing to make your career something which isn't you, or something which is. What is the impact on you, and subsequently on your career, for each choice?

Thanks for saying that you're right and that my answer isn't addressing the question. I invite you to create an answer that addresses the question you see, so we can learn from you! :)

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#235

Post by humanarity »

kaens wrote: post #230
humanarity wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like a good listener, do you really think the real question is about the risks or is it about personal guidance? Hard to say, right? My feeling is personal guidance, because it just seems so overwhelmingly obvious to me the question is not about what it's stated about. That's just the packaging. Unwrap it -- real q inside! :)

I'd argue that those are simply two separate questions that both pertain to this particular situation.

And you'd have no argument from me there ! :) How would you consider each were you in this situation?

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#236

Post by jmccree »

wfunction wrote: post #185
gargarplex wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It belies the fact that OP prompted the lawyers to subpoena him.

Could you explain what exactly you see as the difference between "I won't cooperate unless you subpoena me" and "I would like to cooperate, but I don't want this to affect my future job prospects, so please subpoena me"? The OP is prompting the subpoena in either case, as far as I can tell. In either case, the other side can choose whether or not to subpoena him/her. I'm not sure I see any difference between the two.…

The first option could be legitimately said by someone who doesn't want to talk or be subpoenaed. It's the difference in occupy style protesters saying "They'll have to come arrest us." and "Please come arrest us.". Though in both scenarios there may be some that get the desired end result, the first option places the responsibility for the end result on the third party.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#237

Post by kaens »

humanarity wrote: post #235
kaens wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that those are simply two separate questions that both pertain to this particular situation.

And you'd have no argument from me there ! :) How would you consider each were you in this situation?

It would depend very heavily on the nature of the charges.

In general, however, I don't think that I would want to work for a company that would hold a bias against me due to my participating in presumably honest testimony when a previous employer was brought to court for whatever reason.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#238

Post by tormeh »

nmrm wrote: post #232
cauterized wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

I think the logic goes that out of everyone at this company -- probably dozens or hundreds since OP says it's well known locally -- OP was the one that the plaintiff knew about and called up. Probably because the OP is a big-mouthed trouble maker and everyone knew it. Or something. Whereas everyone else at the company were good team-players and kept their mouth shut and head down, so the plaintiff wasn't sure if s/he…

Exactly this.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#239

Post by strathmeyer »

evan_ wrote: post #51
fixxer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is smart. Guilty as sin or not, testifying against an employer seems risky for one's career. You want to be able to explain to future employers what happened in a manner that takes personal character assessment out of the equation: somebody broke the law and you got a subpoena. EDIT: I've worked at some shops that were "cultish" and would look at testifying without a subpoena as not being part of the team. Fucke…

> Fucked up, but organizations are often so. You can choose not to be a part of these organizations.

Not if their former employees won't testify against them?
Post reply on HN