Fired? Speak No Evil • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#311

Post by jakobsen » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 10:49 PM UTC

Anybody with some law knowledge can help me get this right?

He says the clause doesn't violate the First Amendment because he is freely agreeing to "forfeit his right to speak freely".

Are constitutional rights not inalienable in the USA then? In my country, in case of conflict laws of "greater range" take precedence over laws of "lower range", and contracts are at the bottom of this hierarchy. That means that a clause as the one being discussed here would be void, since you can't give up your right to speak freely even if you wanted¹ Isn't there a similar concept in the USA??

¹ That also means that if laws mandate 3 weeks of holidays, you can't take only 2 weeks in exchange for a bigger pay even if you wanted (happened to me once).

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#312

Post by chavesn » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 10:54 PM UTC

nemesisj wrote: post #179

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…

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.

As a corollary, I try to think through this any time I say something "isn't a big deal". Is it really not a big deal to me?

What people often mean when they say "it's not a big deal" is "it's a big deal to me, but it shouldn't be to you". Usually, they don't have any right to make that decision for you and it's really just a manipulation technique.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#313

Post by Florin_Andrei » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 10:59 PM UTC

throwaway7808 wrote: post #305

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

> the distribution of power is completely asymmetric here

I'm pretty sure there is no fundamental law of the Universe that makes it so, only the fact that it is allowed to persist in this state by the multitudes who actually (but unknowingly, it seems) hold the power to change it.

You know, "if only there was a way" for employees to unite, and therefore increase their bargaining power with employers.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#314

Post by dreamfactory » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 11:04 PM UTC

gamerdonkey wrote: post #157

crusso wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you didnt't read it carefully You're accusing me of not reading something carefully when you're not considering the context of the quote to which I was responding -- which was specifically talking about the previous poster's advice to PROGRAMMERS? and are widely considered unenforcable Unless I was planning to really go after my ex-employer as some kind of vendetta, I wouldn't worry about a Non-disparagement ag…

Non-compete agreements may not be the best example for you. They can have large impacts on employees ( http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/non-compete-agreements-10... ) and far-reaching effects on entire regions ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml ).

That's precisely why they are usually legally worthless, where they act as a restraint on trade for the individual concerned.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#315

Post by wpietri » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 11:04 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #261

wpietri wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It isn't unprofessional to abruptly walk out on the job if giving notice was never in the requirements. I disagree. One of the things that distinguishes professional behavior for me is having professional standards. That is, no matter what your clients or employers do, there are certain ways you plan to behave. For me that would definitely include a good handover. Of course, my professional standards also include r…

When an employer treats the employee unprofessionally, is that not an indication that professional behavior is not expected? If you have an expectation that your employer will provide notice and severance before termination, as might be specified in an employee handbook and verified by departing colleages, then giving notice before resignation would be appropriate. If, on the other hand, your company has in the past…

No. If ethics are purely determined by how other people act, they aren't ethics.

I think that professionals have to be careful in who they choose to work for, but once they start, they should act professionally. That includes leaving professionally.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#316

Post by wpietri » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 11:10 PM UTC

BlackDeath3 wrote: post #302

wpietri wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

Ever watch The Wire? The whole point of it, at least in my eyes, is that often, the villain is the system.

It is perfectly possible to see a company change every person in it and still have exactly the same behaviors, especially the pathological ones. I understand that from the employee's perspective, managers and execs seem to have near-infinite power. But from the perspective of any one of those people, they are vastly outnumbered; trying to change organizational culture is at best incredibly difficult.

Waves tend to hold their shapes. Culture is a wave through individual humans. Or, perhaps more accurately, a standing wave through which humans pass.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#317

Post by vacri » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 11:19 PM UTC

jusben1369 wrote: post #298

danielweber wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not if you're awarded legal fees.

Someone who signs because they need two weeks' pay isn't going to be able to afford both sides of a legal fight. You still have to pay your lawyer while you're waiting for the other side to stump up the money.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#318

Post by mistakoala » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 11:26 PM UTC

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…

Just wondering - particularly as I have no experience of the US employment market - but is it common for soon-to-be employees to negotiate a standard severance package into their contract of employment?

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#319

Post by mrfusion » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 11:48 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #232

My general rule of thumb is that if the severance covers the expected time of the job search-- and allows you to represent yourself as employed during that time-- you should sign the non-disparagement clause and take the package. That's typically 2-3 months at lower levels, and 6+ months at higher levels. Offering nondisparagement is almost always worth it to move on with your career intact and your income undisrupte…

Is that common to present yourself as employed? I've never heard of it.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#320

Post by nsxwolf » Sat, Jan 04, 2014, 12:04 AM UTC

BlackDeath3 wrote: post #279

nsxwolf wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't. Nothing good can come of it.

Perhaps they'll initiate less meaningless smalltalk with me once they realize that I prefer to engage in honest, substantial conversations. Don't want to know what I think? Don't ask me.

They'll probably initiate less talk of any kind with you after pulling that.