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

291–300 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#291

Post by njharman »

jaynos wrote: post #118
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…

IANAL, but is that clause even enforceable if tied to severance? Seems like a reasonable argument could be made that signing such a clause when tied to severance negotiations would fall under "duress" from a legal standpoint.

The opposite. To be legally enforceable each party to a contract must be receiving something of value.

Duress would apply if someone is forcing you to sign.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#292

Post by mcv »

Having previous employers as guaranteed positive references can be pretty valuable. On the other hand, if it's standard, what's the value of a positive reference?

If you get extra pay and the non-disparagement goes both ways, for most people individually it's probably a good idea to sign it. But for society as a whole? I'm not so sure.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#293

Post by [deleted] »

MartinCron wrote: post #105
huhtenberg wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yuck. This is the sort of thing that is nudging me from "I never ever want to work for EA" to "I no longer want to buy things from EA"

[deleted]

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#294

Post by danielweber »

GhotiFish wrote: post #212
crusso wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'That sounds an awful lot like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"' Then your pattern matcher is giving you a false hit. Your statement is about a government imposing unreasonable searches and seizure of you and your personal effects for the illusion of societal security. The subject under discussion is about exchanging value for value in a voluntary transaction with you and a non-monopolistic em…

I don't see a false hit. What's wrong? What's disparaging? If you've done nothing wrong, you have no reason to fear being searched for something wrong. If you've nothing disparaging to say, you have no reason not to agree to a non-disparagement clause. I don't see how unreasonable search and seizure or whether the employer is monopolistic or not even enter into this.

Maybe you don't have anything disparaging to say now.

Maybe it comes out that your ex-employer was engaged in fraud. When you hear the news on social media you say "wow, Joe in accounting always did strike me as funny." You didn't mean it as disparaging. But the company does.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#295

Post by mcv »

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…

> t isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job if giving notice was never in the requirements.

Depends on circumstances and the details of your profession. If you're just a badly-treated wage slave, then definitely: walk out as soon as you find something better.

But I'm an independent contractor/freelancer, and I'm currently working on a project that would probably take about a year. But my contract is always to the end of the quarter and gets extended by a quarter. I could probably refuse such a contract extension, and I considered it, because a previous client where I really, really enjoyed working, asked me if I was available. But I didn't because I felt it would be unprofessional to leave at this stage.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#296

Post by alextingle »

greenyoda wrote: post #282
alextingle wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really asserting that employers who don't ask leavers to sign gag-clauses usually pay zero severance?? On the contrary, I assert that severance pay is normal with or without the gag-clause. So the employer has put the "value" of signing agreement at zero.

Severance payments are not legally required in most U.S. states. The company might usually make a severance payment (because ex-employees usually sign whatever the company asks them to), but if you don't sign their agreement, they won't give you a severance payment. So the cost of not signing is whatever the severance was worth.

You are assiduously avoiding my point. I said nothing about any legal requirement to severance pay. I asked you about what is usual. If there is no difference between the usual severance pay from gag- and no-gag-employers, then employers value the gag-clause at zero.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#297

Post by alextingle »

vidarh wrote: post #229
huhtenberg wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tripl…

You can always opt back in to the Working Time Directive. You can do it at any time, and the employer is not permitted to discriminate against you for your choice.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#298

Post by jusben1369 »

danielweber wrote: post #218
jusben1369 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but you're not going to have a leg to stand on so any lawyer is going to tell you to settle immediately if they even threaten to go after you.

Maybe, maybe not. Legal action is costly for both sides.

Not if you're awarded legal fees.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#299

Post by cududa »

_delirium wrote: post #272
cududa wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can speak as freely as you want - there's just a difference between public and private speech. It's your own choice to publicize your opinions on social media and the internet.

I wouldn't say having to confine your speech to private quarters where word can't get traced back to you is being able to "speak freely". If you can't write a newspaper letter to the editor, or post an update on Facebook, without your creepy employer stalking you and disciplining you for it, you aren't able to speak freely.

At any point in history, if you wrote a "Letter to the editor" disparaging your company or boss, you'd most likely get fired. How is posting on a public web service different?

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#300

Post by mathattack »

jusben1369 wrote: post #213
mathattack wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, it is totally normal. In return for a payment, you agree to keep quiet. I don't know of any other firm that gives severance without this. What is abnormal is that someone is being asked to sign it for 2 weeks of salary.

Yes I'm with you. First thing that happens is i) BOD tells management to do layoff's to preserve cash then ii) Legal talks to outside or inside counsel and gets the generic playbook for layoffs (including termination template language) then iii) CEO, CFO and VP of HR discuss actual terms of severance. Maybe even one gets simply two weeks. Maybe more senior (time or responsibility) get 3 or 4 weeks etc. Either way dec…

And frequently the # is negotiable, though it can require a lawyer to do the negotiating. Some work on contingency. (I've never been through the process, but have seen enough layoffs to have watched people negotiate their #s)
Post reply on HN