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

81–90 of 378 posts

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#81

Post by dredmorbius »

tostitos1979 wrote: post #64
[deleted] wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Thanks for your data point. But I presume this was a small to medium sized company? At Big Co. HR is a faceless organization and I'm curious if people have succeeded negotiating with this beast? I'm also curious: did you negotiate this after they offered you a job? It seems frustrating to get the job first and then turn it down because it never met your requirements? Is it reasonable to ask a potential employer about…

I've pushed back on contract terms with a large company that had included a non-compete clause not enforceable locally. Turns out they had an alternate contract which met local statute, and had used it in previous hires / mergers. Still makes me itchy to sign such terms.

When Marissa Meyer was hired by Yahoo, I found it interesting that her employment contract included some pretty familiar language:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312512...

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#82

Post by harryh »

jgalt212 wrote: post #76
neohaven wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on where you are, "severance", or the 2-week pay after you have been told you do not have a job anymore, may or may not be a worker's right.

If it's a mass layoff, the event will probably fall under the WARN act which requires 60 days notice for "full-time" workers. http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryw/qt/WARN_Act.htm

Only if it's part of a "plant closing."

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#83

Post by einhverfr »

alextingle wrote: post #20

I wouldn't sign that any more than I'd sign a contract that gave the company everything that I produce in my own time. Both are attempts by the corporation to dissolve my agency as a human being. The only right answer is no.

I signed a contract that gave my employer the right to everything I produced at my own time. Fortunately it was an hourly job and I kept records, and I found out very fast that HR really didn't want to pay me overtime for anything. So they didn't have to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars extra and I got to keep my work.

Now, had it been a salaried position, I would have been far more concerned.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#84

Post by huhtenberg »

tostitos1979 wrote: post #39
alextingle wrote: post #20

I wouldn't sign that any more than I'd sign a contract that gave the company everything that I produce in my own time. Both are attempts by the corporation to dissolve my agency as a human being. The only right answer is no.

Such contracts ("produced on own-time belongs to company") are common at large software companies. If you are in California, such a contract may not hold water. Any one have experience with a big co (outside Cali) where they were able to negotiate this clause away?

I can tell you that EA (Electronic Arts) won't hire you without this clause. Their line was "if you work for us, you shouldn't really have time for side projects." I kid you not.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#85

Post by jrs235 »

chris_wot wrote: post #47

Two things wrong here: 1. Isn't this against the U.S. Constitutional right to free speech? 2. I'd say that if you had this signed then it would be under duress. Not sure how this can be enforceable!

1. No. The first amendment pertains to government restrictions on free speech.

2. I highly doubt a judge or jury would believe that the individual's life was in danger if they didn't sign this.

Update: #1 is why having a few large conglomerate companies "in bed" with government is dangerous. The government can't hush you up but if you and most everyone else works for the few government appeasing companies then those companies could threaten to fire you... effectively diminishing [political and/or government] dissent and protest.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#86

Post by harryh »

qwerta wrote: post #57

What is "termination agreement"? You were fired with written or verbal notice. Severance and other stuff should be arranged in original contract you signed when hired.

It's an agreement that your company asks you to sign at the time of termination. You don't have to sign it (as the guy who wrote this article didn't). You're incentive to sign it is the severance pay they offer.

I don't really get why everyone here is so offended at the concept. It's the company offering a contract. You can sign it, or not. All the folks here that are being so high and mighty about it just come off as weird tbh.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#87

Post by jgalt212 »

jgalt212 wrote: post #76
neohaven wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on where you are, "severance", or the 2-week pay after you have been told you do not have a job anymore, may or may not be a worker's right.

If it's a mass layoff, the event will probably fall under the WARN act which requires 60 days notice for "full-time" workers. http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryw/qt/WARN_Act.htm

plant closing is loosely defined. I worked at a bank that closed a division, and the division closing fell under the WARN Act.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#88

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#89

Post by michaelt »

dasil003 wrote: post #40
silverbax88 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies could save themselves a lot of pretense with exit interviews and just assume the following: If a good person leaves your company, it is because of one or more of the following: 1. You can't (or won't) pay them as much as someone else. 2. They aren't happy in the culture of your company. 3. They aren't happy with the type of work they are doing. 4. They don't see a bright future with your company - either fo…

So rather than ask the person like a grownup they should wildly speculate in order to make everyone less uncomfortable? I mean you have a list of 9 reasons off the top of your head and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

  So rather than ask the person like a grownup they should 
  wildly speculate in order to make everyone less 
  uncomfortable?
When a parent asks friends "look at this photo, isn't my baby beautiful?" the answer is information-free as everyone will say "yes, that is a cute baby".

Exit interviews are the same. But unlike the stuff with a parent, it doesn't have the social-bond-building value of gossip.

With an exit interview, in the best case you learn nothing and know it; and in the worst case you learn nothing but mistakenly think you learned something. Not bothering with an exit interview helps you avoid that mistake, and saves you time as well.

Re: Fired? Speak No Evil

#90

Post by yajoe »

JackFr wrote: post #62
alextingle wrote: post #20

I wouldn't sign that any more than I'd sign a contract that gave the company everything that I produce in my own time. Both are attempts by the corporation to dissolve my agency as a human being. The only right answer is no.

No they're not. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration Consideration is something of value given by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor. Typically, the thing of value is a payment, although it may be an act, or forbearance to act. Paying you not to speak is no more an attempt to dissolve your human agency than paying you to speak. Assumin…

You both are right! (yeah, yeah, cop out...)

Listen to this: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/kling_on_the_th.htm...

Post reply on HN