Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

thetimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 615 posts

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#581

Post by margalabargala »

carefree-bob wrote: post #573
margalabargala wrote: post #517

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…

It's not at all a legal grey area.

If it was, people fired or laid off and not offered severance would have standing to sue.

They don't.

Calling it a legal grey area is like calling vaccines a medical/scientific grey area. Or calling perpetual motion machines a physics grey area.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#582

Post by alterom »

margalabargala wrote: post #574
alterom wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Look, I'm not here to kink shame > 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 compensati…

>And yet here you are shaming me for my kink of making compensation contingent on provided service...

The service to get a severance has been provided prior to termination.

You're aware that severance is commonly proportional to length of service, right?

Not length of expected lifetime after being fired.

Keeping one's mouth shut isn't a "service".

Neither is a non-compete clause, for that matter (which is illegal where I am), so better figure out how that is possible given that it perfectly fits your definition of "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.

Calling putting a signature on a piece of paper and staying silent "labor" wins the Orwellian dictionary redefinition of the day for me.

Didn't know I was doing labor by doing nothing at all.

Pray tell, where do I get to perform such hard labor and get paid handsomely for it?

Hope the answer isn't "some of the companies that I performed labor for in the past" (in a normal, human, dictionary sense of the word "labor"), because the payment that you get after performing labor - and only after doing so - is called "compensation".

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#583

Post by peddling-brink »

Henchman21 wrote: post #564
scrubs wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America doesn't own greed. Hardly. But like the movie American Psycho the American presentation of greed is starkly in your face ... it's something horrifying to see

This right here, this is it. You've nailed the reason I stopped caring about what Trump is destroying. Yes, yes he's destroying gestures wildly at everything -- but god dammit we need to destroy a lot of this stuff. We need to rebuild institutions that have failed us, from your local DMV and/or public school all the way up to Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive. All of it has been so thoroughly corrupted that…

Yes, once the orderly destroying is done, the sensible people can step in and recreate these institutions from scratch while everyone else waits patiently.

Or, everything just gets way worse, for almost everyone.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#584

Post by margalabargala »

alterom wrote: post #582
margalabargala wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look, I'm not here to kink shame > 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 compensati…

>And yet here you are shaming me for my kink of making compensation contingent on provided service... The service to get a severance has been provided prior to termination. You're aware that severance is commonly proportional to length of service, right? Not length of expected lifetime after being fired . Keeping one's mouth shut isn't a "service". Neither is a non-compete clause, for that matter (which is illegal wh…

> The service to get a severance has been provided prior to termination

And here is the root of your misunderstanding.

You seem to be under the impression that because some companies occasionally scale severance based on tenure, it's comp for work already performed. Severance is like tipping in that it's not required at all.

Keeping one's mouth shut is a service. They're paying for it. So would be not competing with the company, if it were legal to enforce. Not sure why you think otherwise, just your personal vibes I guess? Maybe look up what an economic "service" is.

Maybe you're confused because as you say, no one has ever offered you money to keep your mouth shut?

This service only gets paid for when the recipient has credible things to say.

Similarly, some people get paid tons of money to just say their opinion, and here you are doing that labor for free too. The people getting paid have valuable information to offer, which someone else either does or does not want shared.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#585

Post by krisoft »

killingtime74 wrote: post #569
krisoft wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have a system of laws that decide which private contracts are enforceable and which are not. And we are arguing that private contracts like this should not be enforceable. > we have decided I have not been consulted on this matter.

Unless you're on the supreme court that will continue to be the case

Sounds like you agree with me that “we” haven’t decided.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#587

Post by disqard »

lokar wrote: post #518
strulovich wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That chapter struck me as paranoia and hit piece. What really happens there, if you ignore the author’s spin on it and concentrate on the facts is Sheryl is repeatedly asking her pregnant employee to please come stay in the big bed in the private jet and rest. Then author has good points, such as Sheryl not taking into account she’s expecting ready deliverables. But she also spins it as if something sexual might happ…

I read it differently. I agree the basic offer was probably sincerely from kindness. What seems creepy is her continued insistence, her inability to relate to the human in front of her. I suspect she is just not used to anyone acting genuine towards her, let alone contradicting her. She always gets what she wants, even when it’s a whim.

I appreciate your nuanced reading.

Yes, it's possible that it came from a place of wanting to help.

And, after the offer was spurned, the kindness was immediately replaced with wrath, at "how dare she turn me down?"

So, both can be true: she can be kind and helpful, but also petty and vindictive, and unable to see other people's perspective. Being permanently surrounded by sycophants and yes-men/women will probably distort most people like that.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#588

Post by mathgradthrow »

krisoft wrote: post #538
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a system of laws that decide which private contracts are enforceable and which are not. So we can try to change the law but as it stands we have decided that this one is enforceable. FWIW I agree about not enforcing non disparagement clauses but legally that not the world we live in.

> We have a system of laws that decide which private contracts are enforceable and which are not. And we are arguing that private contracts like this should not be enforceable. > we have decided I have not been consulted on this matter.

Did you not vote?

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#589

Post by alterom »

margalabargala wrote: post #581
carefree-bob wrote: post #573

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…

It's not at all a legal grey area. If it was, people fired or laid off and not offered severance would have standing to sue. They don't. Calling it a legal grey area is like calling vaccines a medical/scientific grey area. Or calling perpetual motion machines a physics grey area.

You could say the same thing about the right to abortion access in the US until Roe vs. Wade was overturned (or equivalently, before Roe vs. Wade).

Comparisons to physics are unwarranted.

Laws change, and they are interpreted when applied. Very few things are black-and-white to begin with, and legality of non-disparagement clauses is one of them.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#590

Post by margalabargala »

alterom wrote: post #589
margalabargala wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not at all a legal grey area. If it was, people fired or laid off and not offered severance would have standing to sue. They don't. Calling it a legal grey area is like calling vaccines a medical/scientific grey area. Or calling perpetual motion machines a physics grey area.

You could say the same thing about the right to abortion access in the US until Roe vs. Wade was overturned (or equivalently, before Roe vs. Wade). Comparisons to physics are unwarranted. Laws change, and they are interpreted when applied. Very few things are black-and-white to begin with, and legality of non-disparagement clauses is one of them.

Yes, we agree on how the legal system works. Should existing laws be reinterpreted or new laws passed such that severance is treated as compensation for work already performed, then the arguments you've been making will begin to hold merit.

Until then, statements building from "severance is compensation for past labor" are imagined theories about a hypothetical reality with different laws than the world we live in.

Post reply on HN