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

301–310 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#301

Post by BlackDeath3 »

huhtenberg wrote: post #287
knappe wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Well, to be fair, given people like you, that's really no surprise." A personal attack? Can we save the ad hominems for somewhere else? I fail to see how being an informed consumer is a problem. I care how/where my dollars are spent.

It looks like a personal attack, but it's not. If you read the post you linked to, it quite reasonably says that EA is not the worst employer to work for. It's just that the Internet crowd thinks that it is. And what GP said was that this crowd comprises of people like yourself, which again is reasonable observation, not an attack.

Right.

My point is that, given that so many people love to hate EA (for better or worse, and regardless of whether their reasons make sense or not), it's really no surprise that EA is continually "awarded" such "honors".

Maybe you, knappe, have other (better) reasons to hate EA than those that relate to some ten-year-old drama that (probably) didn't personally affect you. Maybe you don't. But there is an Internet full of people who will probably never stop hating EA, no matter what.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#302

Post by BlackDeath3 »

wpietri wrote: post #241
BlackDeath3 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's fine and dandy, but chances are that the company composition is largely different today than it was when EA Spouse occurred. I understand that there is more to a company than a collective of individuals, but it might be a little misleading to still make EA-related decisions today based on the EA Spouse incident.

A tsunami is composed of entirely different molecules of water as it travels, but it generally retains its nature and force. If you want to stand on shore and say, "Hey, let's not assume that it's still the same when it gets here," I guess that's your prerogative, but I'll be watching from the hills.

Water molecules don't tend to have their own unique and distinct set of beliefs and philosophies regarding a near-infinite range of ideas, a structured hierarchy allowing for an uneven distribution over power amongst themselves, nor the ability to actuate their will upon the world around them.

This isn't to say that enormous, profit-hungry companies will never tend to act like tsunamis, but I don't know that your comparison is generally valid.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#303

Post by rsanders »

mathattack wrote: post #15

My 2 cents... The non-disparagement is a trade. You trade not saying anything bad about them publicly, and they agree not to say anything bad about you during a reference check. You get a positive (or perhaps generic "He worked here from X to Y, that's all we can say") reference, and they don't have to worry about a book coming out trashing them. The amount of cash is secondary. The real thing is, if you want to rema…

The mutual non-disparagement did not appear to be part of the original agreement, and was only mentioned as a possibility. Such agreements are usually asymmetric in who benefits and who bears the responsibilities, and the company dangles the severance pay to put itself in the superior position. I've never heard of a company offering any such thing, at least not as a standard part of a layoff offered to all affected employees.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#304

Post by CapitalistCartr »

cududa wrote: post #299
_delirium wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because now you risk your employment by writing a letter that isn't about your employer at all. Anything your (prospective) employer doesn't like is verboten. So people deliberately circumscribe their speech.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#305

Post by throwaway7808 »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #281
grellas wrote: post #277

Non-disparagement clauses can be seen as a throwaway item, a suffocating burden, an essential protection, or a damned nuisance, each according to taste or context. To begin with, lawyers tend to see these clauses as essential protections and they are sometimes right. But, right or wrong, they tend to insist upon them, especially in the employment context. This explains their prevalence but, of course, does not necess…

I'd like to see some fairness in the matter. I will sign all the non-disparagement clauses you guys like, if you do the same. In other words, the company cannot make any negative comments about me. In general, I think fairness should be pushed way up front. Want me to give you two weeks notice? Okay. You give me two weeks notice before you "terminate" me. It's all a contract, and there are two sides to it. I don't se…

Only the life is unfair and the distribution of power is completely asymmetric here. You may actually need a positive reference about you and the company usually don't care what you say. You also don't have any way to verify and prosecute a company, if your former boss actually makes a negative comment about you (think a start-up, an immature founder gradually turning into a complete ass-hole under the pressure of real life and when feeling that you are deserting, when you decide to leave).

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#306

Post by AgentConundrum »

loteck wrote: post #238
nathanb wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Contract law requires there to be "consideration" (usually money) given when asking you to give something up, otherwise the contract can be found invalid. Please stop taking business matters so personally, they aren't trying to offend you.

If you're asked to sign one when you're hired, the consideration is the job itself.

If you're asked to sign one when you leave, depending on your contract, any severance package might be considered consideration.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#307

Post by walshemj »

vidarh wrote: post #217
walshemj wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course asking for this agreement implies that they have done something wrong :-) "so mr employer you admit you have done something illegal either by omission or commission and you want me to sign a compromise agreement?" Well I am sure that my lawyers will be interested can you let me who in hr is your GC (lawyer) and I am sure we can sort something out or I will settle for 6 months right now.

No, it implies that they are worried about what you might say or do. And possibly not specifically you, but the odds in general of some employee or other deciding to cause a nuisance, whether or not they deserve it. Or they have an overzealous HR person or lawyer. Or any number of other things. Of course they might also be a bunch of criminals, but I don't think an agreement like that implies anything in either direc…

Well they asked first so "no smoke with out fire eh" putting it in writing gives the impression that they have something to hide.

Over zealous/incompetent HR is probably the correct answer.

Seriously if you where a cop questioning some one and they blurt out I want to do a deal at the start of the interview what woudl you think

Normally in NCIS when the person getting interviewed by Jethro asks for a deal - they are the perp.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#309

Post by ErikRogneby »

It would be interesting to turn the tables and draw up a termination of contract when you quit, and demand 2 weeks severance in exchange for a non-disparagement clause which you agree to.

I have a feeling that would raise a lot of hackles.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#310

Post by calibraxis »

grellas wrote: post #277

Non-disparagement clauses can be seen as a throwaway item, a suffocating burden, an essential protection, or a damned nuisance, each according to taste or context. To begin with, lawyers tend to see these clauses as essential protections and they are sometimes right. But, right or wrong, they tend to insist upon them, especially in the employment context. This explains their prevalence but, of course, does not necess…

Yes, governments and corporations hate whistleblowers (and critics who know in-depth what they're talking about). I agree that leverage is important, and that's why people should band together in groups which increase leverage. Not to mention making these things de facto unenforcable.
Post reply on HN