571–580 of 615 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just be aware that the author really doesn't get much of the money you're spending. The publisher takes a sizable chunk, as does Amazon if you ordered from there.
The fuck are you arguing here? Should they not buy the book?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral. Having a leverage to force an NDA is not immoral, but breaking the NDA (no matter how unfair the situation that led to it being signed was) is immoral. Got it.
Sorry, what was forced about the NDA? Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head? If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd?
Look, I'm not here to kink shame, but that's not the right forum for that sort of fetish.
Anyway. You seem to have a trouble understanding the concept of severance.
Severance is just a form of compensation for work that was performed.
It is not given to someone who did not work for the company. It gets taxed as compensation. It is compensation.
There are limits to what an employer can demand of an employee for compensation.
There are limits to what employer can make the compensation contingent on.
Making a bonus contingent on engaging in your fetishes is definitely not OK.
Hope that's clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral. Having a leverage to force an NDA is not immoral, but breaking the NDA (no matter how unfair the situation that led to it being signed was) is immoral. Got it.
Sorry, what was forced about the NDA? Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head? If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd?
The pro-compensation crowd assumes that because severance is taxed as compensation, that it is payment for past work, and therefore any non-disparagement clauses are illegal.
This is something I have seen just stated as if it was an iron-clad fact, rather than something that the courts don't actually uphold at present.
The pro-consideration crowd says that while severance is considered compensation after it is granted, the procedure of needing to sign a contract saying "you cannot disparage us if you want this payment" together with the fact that severance is optional and not mandated by law, means that it falls into the consideration category, and your end of the bargain is to not disparage the company if you want the severance, otherwise don't sign the contract and you wont get the severance.
That said, what is a more interesting take is whether states should make non-disparagement clauses illegal in the same way that many states have made NDA clauses illegal. That would basically force companies to not demand this in exchange for severance. This has the upside of being legally unambiguous but the downside of needing to actually fight for states to pass these laws, as opposed to just assuming that non-disparagement clauses are illegal under existing laws, which isn't an argument that will find much sympathy in the courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, what was forced about the NDA? Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head? If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd?
>If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd? Look, I'm not here to kink shame, but that's not the right forum for that sort of fetish. Anyway. You seem to have a trouble understanding the concept of severance . Severance is just a form of compensation for work that was performed. It is not given to someone who did not work for the company. It gets taxed as compensati…
> Making a bonus contingent on engaging in your fetishes is definitely not OK
And yet here you are shaming me for my kink of making compensation contingent on provided service...
Severance is compensation given up front in exchange for the labor/service of signing and following through with the severance agreement.
It is not compensation for work that was performed. It is compensation for work that will be performed.
It is not something you are entitled to by virtue of having worked somewhere. The company is free to fire you with no severance whatsoever if they want (in the US).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Writing a book isn't covered whistleblowing. If she wants to go to the FBI or whatever, no one can stop her.
Ms Wynn-Williams has also filed a whistleblower complaint with the US markets regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), alleging Meta misled investors - which Meta also denies. The BBC has reviewed the complaint. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5zyq0250wo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, clearly the employee and the company have the same leverage in negotiation here. It's a free market! If she didn't like the offer, she could've just gotten herself fired from some other company instead. /s
The company offers you money in exchange for signing certain agreements. You are free to decline. There is no obligation on either side. If non disparagement clauses were illegal then perhaps the severance amounts would be smaller since there’s now much less value to the company.
...and the salaries would be higher, and some people would be make different choices regarding whether they want to accept an offer or not.
They aren't illegal, but, like non-compete clauses, they should be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, what was forced about the NDA? Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head? If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd?
This goes to the issue of whether severance is compensation for past work or consideration for future work, which is a legal gray area. The pro-compensation crowd assumes that because severance is taxed as compensation, that it is payment for past work, and therefore any non-disparagement clauses are illegal. This is something I have seen just stated as if it was an iron-clad fact, rather than something that the cour…
Here are more considerations:
- No person who did no work for the company gets to sign a "non-disparagement" clause, or get a severance.
- The severance amount is very commonly proportional to the length of service.
Insofar as the words "compensation" and work have meaning, severance is very clearly compensation for past work.
Fulfilling a non-disparagement clause is what no sane person would call work, no matter how many Orwellian mental hoops are jumped through to label it as such.
>This is something I have seen just stated as if it was an iron-clad fact, rather than something that the courts don't actually uphold at present.
Insofar as we're discussing the morality of these clauses, it's iron-clad enough.
>That said, what is a more interesting take is whether states should make non-disparagement clauses illegal in the same way that many states have made NDA clauses illegal.
The "pro-compensation" crowd argues that this indeed should happen, not that the clauses are currently universally recognized as illegal (the article we're discussing very clearly shows that it's not the case).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legitimate whistleblowing has rules. I doubt publishing a book counts as whistleblowing.
What rule says a legitimate whistleblower may leak top secret docs to a set of newspapers? https://oig.nsa.gov/Whistleblower-Information/
Snowden released classified data at great personal cost - he is now a US fugitive and will be promptly arrested if he ever tries to leave Russia.
Sarah Wynn-Williams wrote a tell-all book for which she was paid. My understanding is that she also signed the non-disparagement clause as part of her separation agreement, in order to get a substantial severance (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
I've only read parts of Careless People, and I think it's great that Wynn-Williams wrote it and exposed some details at the personal level of how nuts these folks are. But I take issue with framing her as some kind of victim ("Meta stole Sarah Wynn-Williams Voice" - give me a fucking break). Meta wouldn't be able to do shit if Wynn-Williams hadn't told them she'd keep her mouth shut for a pile of money. What did she expect would happen after she received that pile of money and then opened her mouth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This goes to the issue of whether severance is compensation for past work or consideration for future work, which is a legal gray area. The pro-compensation crowd assumes that because severance is taxed as compensation, that it is payment for past work, and therefore any non-disparagement clauses are illegal. This is something I have seen just stated as if it was an iron-clad fact, rather than something that the cour…
>The pro-compensation crowd assumes that because severance is taxed as compensation, that it is payment for past work, and therefore any non-disparagement clauses are illegal. Here are more considerations: - No person who did no work for the company gets to sign a "non-disparagement" clause, or get a severance. - The severance amount is very commonly proportional to the length of service . Insofar as the words "compe…
If severance was part of your compensation, it would be part of the contract you sign. Instead, it's something in addition to your contract.
So it's very hard to argue that severance is compensation for past work when the company can choose not to give any severance, or not give to someone who doesn't sign a contract.
Also, you only get severance after you sign the contract about non-disparagement, not before, so it's very much a consideration situation.
Basically the reality is that business offer severance as a type of bribe for people not to sue them or disparage them.
This is why the courts have rejected your line of reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from a European, this is definitely not normal. I would examine why your acquaintances are normalizing such creepy behaviour.
I agree it’s awkward. But I don’t find it creepy per se. It was a tradeoff to which all parties consented. In one case there was just that one room available stranded in the middle of nowhere. In other cases it was due to lack of financial resources.