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

351–360 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#351

Post by psaintla »

logicallee wrote: post #95
psaintla wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is easier to bully someone to do what you want.

sure, but it doesn't work. that's why companies give out equity and options, instead of trying to blackmail their recruitment targets. and startups around here described as being run by a bully implode or close soon thereafter.

I wish I could say the same about NYC startups. I once worked for a place where an employee left to a competitor which infuriated the CEO. As a result he had a meeting threatening to track down anyone who left and get them fired. In addition he made everyone sign a non-compete agreement or risk being fired. This startup is still around and doing just fine. I've heard similar stories from other nyc startups.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#352

Post by crusso »

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.

The whole issue of "if you have nothing to hide then you wouldn't mind the government looking into x" is a question of basic human rights. It's a question of whether or not the government has the right to invade your privacy even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing. In a society that believes in the "nothing to hide" principle, citizens have no choices. They have no rights to privacy. They are trapped.

The "if you have nothing disparaging to say, don't worry about it" is a question of making a choice. If you choose to be able to disparage your employer in the future, don't take the severance. It would be your choice. If you choose to be careful of what you say, then take the money.

Monopoly affects whether or not you have choices in a society. The government is a monopoly, a monopoly that has the right to physically force you into compliance. Because of that simple fact, everything the government does or is allowed to do requires much greater scrutiny.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#353

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#354

Post by smhanov »

In Canada, at tech startup seminars, the lawyers remind us that the government has a "Ministry of Labour", and it is NOT called the "Ministry of Employers" for a reason. Lawyers advice employers to make the employee happy, or risk costly battles due to a complaint to the Ministry. As far as I know, you are legally entitled to either termination pay or advance notice, and holding it ransom as coercion to sign some agreement would be very risky.

Apparently some companies still download employment agreements off the web that have the "at will" clause but this makes them invalid.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#355

Post by ScottWhigham »

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.

If "you're awarded legal fees", it only happens as a result of a trial/hearing. The cost to prepare + present at trial might be very substantial.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#356

Post by fit2rule »

entendre wrote: post #242
fit2rule wrote: post #200

The thing is, why disparage things? It never works in your favour, and the catharsis is never worth the ricochet factor.

Have you ever walked into a job that you thought would save your life and pull you out of a slew of bad breaks... your dream job? And then some miserable pissant with leverage over you and your position decides to make you a scapegoat? When you're going down in flames at least grab the pilot's parachute.

>miserable pissant

Lost me there.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#357

Post by ggchappell »

officemonkey wrote: post #280
ggchappell wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what happens when I sign and still rant about the company. Then you've broken your word.

Well, they have to get a court to decide that, now don't they.

Courts decide legal issues. If you give your word that you'll refrain from doing something, and then you do it, then you've broken your word, regardless of legalities.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#358

Post by gonzo »

flurdy wrote: post #349
chrismcb wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is all most large corporation will do, confirm you worked for the company. So is it a red flag that you worked for a large company?

Exactly, many large companies have a company policy that limits them to only confirm the dates and title at the company. Any further elaboration is prohibited (positive or negative) and a former colleague of my missus did get into trouble for elaborating positively in a proper reference when they had such a policy in place.

True, but there is an effective way around this:

"Would you hire Jack(ie) again?"

Tells you all you need to know.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#359

Post by redshirtrob »

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.

I think the usual response is that the clause is not a big deal, but removing it is--they have to get their lawyers to review the changes, etc. I have seen at least one employer go ahead and make a change without consulting the attorney so I'm not suggesting this is a canned response, just one I've gotten a number of times.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#360

Post by halter73 »

gonzo wrote: post #358
flurdy wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, many large companies have a company policy that limits them to only confirm the dates and title at the company. Any further elaboration is prohibited (positive or negative) and a former colleague of my missus did get into trouble for elaborating positively in a proper reference when they had such a policy in place.

True, but there is an effective way around this: "Would you hire Jack(ie) again?" Tells you all you need to know.

What if the response is "No comment." as per corporate policy? I think a lot of people would interpret that answer to simply mean "no", but it doesn't necessarily mean anything regarding Jack(ie).
Post reply on HN