Are Nondisparagement Agreements Silencing Employee Complaints? (cnbc.com) 188
cdreimer writes, "According to a report in the New York Times, 'nondisparagement agreements are increasingly included in employment contracts and legal settlements' to hide abuses that would otherwise be made public." The Times reports:
Employment lawyers say nondisparagement agreements have helped enable a culture of secrecy. In particular, the tech start-up world has been roiled by accounts of workplace sexual harassment, and nondisparagement clauses have played a significant role in keeping those accusations secret... Nondisparagement clauses are not limited to legal settlements. They are increasingly found in standard employment contracts in many industries, sometimes in a simple offer letter that helps to create a blanket of silence around a company. Their use has become particularly widespread in tech employment contracts, from venture investment firms and start-ups to the biggest companies in Silicon Valley, including Google... Employees increasingly "have to give up their constitutional right to speak freely about their experiences if they want to be part of the work force," said Nancy E. Smith, a partner at the law firm Smith Mullin.
Three different tech industry employees told the Times "they are not allowed to acknowledge that the agreements even exist." And Google "declined to comment" for the article.
Three different tech industry employees told the Times "they are not allowed to acknowledge that the agreements even exist." And Google "declined to comment" for the article.
No (Score:5, Funny)
Is all I am allowed to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think they are illegal? If each party gets something out of a contract, then it is usually binding.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think they are illegal? If each party gets something out of a contract, then it is usually binding.
Okay. How about we sign a contract whereby I pay you $10 and in exchange I now own your firstborn child.
Even surrogacy contracts for 1,000 times that amount are dicey.
The simple, obvious solution is not to work for companies that have such an agreement. Nobody is forcing you to sell your soul (or your right to speak out against abuse) for a pair of golden handcuffs.
Re: No (Score:3)
Re: No (Score:4, Insightful)
If those are the only two choices available, then it's pretty obvious that you are not completely free in your choices. Don't try to justify mistreatment of workers because "we're the only choice they have."
If those are the only two choices, your economy is broken. Economic serfdom or starvation being the only two options for anyone is simply dysfunctional, and ultimately contributes to the breakdown of social cohesion and the rise of crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple, obvious solution is not to work for companies that have such an agreement.
So what do you say to someone who has offers only from such companies? Live on the street and starve?
Re: (Score:2)
The simple, obvious solution is not to work for companies that have such an agreement.
So what do you say to someone who has offers only from such companies? Live on the street and starve?
Eat cake?
Re: (Score:2)
If those are their only choices, then they are economic serfs. Instead of encouraging such serfdom, maybe it would be better to remove onerous contract clauses? You know, to level the playing field a bit?
Re: (Score:2)
If those are their only choices, then they are economic serfs. Instead of encouraging such serfdom, maybe it would be better to remove onerous contract clauses? You know, to level the playing field a bit?
I fail to see how telling them to write their congressman is going to help them find a place to sleep at night.
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how you could ignore the fact that Rome wasn't built in one day. Change takes time. There's no reason why someone who's signed an anti-disparagement clause can't also do as you suggest, and write their congressman to ask the law be changed. And can you imagine the absolute sh*t-storm if the company tried to say that writing your congresscritter is against your terms of employment?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason why someone who's signed an anti-disparagement clause can't also do as you suggest, and write their congressman to ask the law be changed.
Just a minute ago you said they shouldn't take the job. Make up your fucking mind, weasel.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people do sign these agreements. Not what I would do, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion. They still have the right (as does everyone else) to lobby the government at all levels to make these agreements illegal. So how am I a "weasel".
Also, nobody has to sign such an agreement. The original premise of "sign or starve" is bs. They can negotiate to have the clause removed, they can move elsewhere that bans such practices to get a job, they can start their own business, they can change
Re: (Score:2)
A contract to sign away your firstborn child is patently illegal.
Children are not property and legally can't be.
Furthermore, the child himself has legal rights of his own the moment he is born, even if until they're emancipated the exercise of said rights vests in their legal guardian.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, the child himself has legal rights of his own the moment he is born, even if until they're emancipated the exercise of said rights vests in their legal guardian.
We already deny children a number of supposed rights, like freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
And non-disparagement clauses are an unreasonable restriction on complaints about such clauses with the government and the courts, which is where you head when you run into this crap. Just filing the lawsuit get's it on the docket. Even if you don't do anything else and lose by default, the details are still there in your complaint and the default judgment. So, mission accomplished in terms of blowing the whistle publicly.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as I'm on the payroll, I'll keep my opinions about my employer to myself. Or between myself and my employer. Once I leave, the contract is no longer in effect. And I'm free to say what I want.
Why would I want to continue to work for a company that I disrespected to the point of bad-mouthing them?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I want to continue to work for a company that I disrespected to the point of bad-mouthing them?
Other people want to live a life without consequences for what they say. Probably because they have so little respect for themselves that they assume what they say doesn't matter to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, some companies want to operate with no consequences for what they do. If employees are kept from complaining, they don't need to acknowledge any problems and don't need to work to fix them. (And employees might not be able to simply quit due to lack of other jobs or might not feel that the situation is so far gone that quitting is their only option.)
Re: (Score:2)
Life must be really bad if you can't find employment other than at the worst shithole in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the difference between civil and criminal law. Not reporting a crime is different than not reporting an actionable civil infraction. If you know for a fact that I failed to follow the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), you are under no obligation to report that. If I say offer you $10/month to stay out of my business, and you report me, I don't have to pay you $10/mo any more because we no longer have a contract. If I gave you a lump sum, and it has to be returned on terminate of the contract with intere
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I almost didn't want to reply because on slashdot it is *well known* that first amendment protections only restrain the *government*, not private enterprises. Nothing stops a private person or corporation or whatever from attempting to limit your free speech.
You make an interesting point about access to social media though. An alarming trend is for employers to demand access to our facebooks and so on.
It's gotten so abusive that a few state legislatures have made it illegal for employers to demand such ac
Re: (Score:3)
True, but I would think that there would be laws to prevent corporations from limiting employees' freedoms outside of the office. Suppose you wanted to volunteer to help the campaign of John Smith, but your company didn't like his platform. If they forb
Nothing to see here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So, it's like fight club!
Double Down (Score:5, Insightful)
If these threats come in, it is time to double down.
Call the police to report the sexual harassment AND file a lawsuit.
Both of these (reporting a crime to the police and filing a lawsuit) are immune to any silly non-disparagement clause.
An anonymous tip to local and national media reporters about the court docket where the case was filed?
That's just the icing on the cake.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AC calling for people to bravely expose themselves on principle. Just another loudmouthed idiot on /.
You kinda just won the internet!
Re: (Score:2)
They can always go to the law regardless, this is for when they don't but want to get their pound of flesh in PR damage to the company.
He said she said cases are hard to prove after all. Especially for the company, since if they decide to punish someone based on thin air they are liable, their due diligence has a higher burden of evidence than a civil jury trial ... a jury has no liability at all, they can perpetrate injustice with impunity. Going after the women for slander when they say the company does n
Re: (Score:2)
It can be very hard to prove specific crimes to the required standard for the police to take an interest, but it's usually much easier to show that there was an atmosphere of sexual harassment. Emails, witness statements, text messages, evaluations etc.
That's why these things usually go the civil suit route. Emails can be saved, proving someone touched you when no one else was around is nearly impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Double Down (Score:5, Insightful)
Call the police to report the sexual harassment AND file a lawsuit.
Say someone did. These are only allegations made against the employer. Nothing is proof of fact.
Then when it comes to the lawsuit, corporate will bring its high-priced lawyers who are paid to know everything about corporate law. Up against that Goliath, most everyone chooses to settle. And in that settlement agreement? A non-disclosure clause.
So when the New York Times tries to write a story about what happened, all they can say was "According to public records, an allegation was made against the employer. A settlement was reached regarding the allegation. Neither side is commenting on the matter."
Re: (Score:2)
Again, the big company with the high priced lawyers will say "We'll tie you up in court for so many years that you'll be bankrupt for the rest of your life due to legal fees. Or you could sign this, get a few thousand in a token settlement, and never speak of this again. We also refuse to change the settlement in any way and if you try changing it, we'll withdraw the offer."
When faced with that, how many people, realistically, will say "I choose to fight them"? The big company knows it can bully small peopl
Re: (Score:2)
McD and others turn away the vast majority of applicants. It's damn tough to get a minimum wage job even if you have good references. And having a huge legal battle with your employer is not a good reference.
Re: Double Down (Score:2)
I wonder how much a truism that is. I get job offers, quite frequently. They pay much more than minimum wage. However, I am happily retired and that makes it moot.
I kinda suspect I could more easily get a six-figure job than I could get a minimum wage job, even if I don't disclose my Ph.D. on the minimum wage job applications. I should apply at a bunch of those types of places, just to see what happens.
I'd kinda feel bad, if they actually hired me. Though, I guess I could make fries for a few months while u
Re: (Score:2)
I think it may be as simple as a supply and demand situation. In my field there isn't a very large number of people that do what I do, and ignoring the unqualified applications there are often only two to five candidates applying to a position. (I know because I have to give technical interviews)
Notice the key here, "ignoring unqualified applications". Now imagine if every application is potentially qualified for the unskilled position. I'm sure your local fast food joint gets hundreds of applicants when a
Re: (Score:2)
LOL I don't really have a local fast food place. I'd have to travel for a bit over an hour, or longer when the weather is rough.
I have partial ownership of some franchises. They're located in small towns that are south of me. One of the problems that the other owner laments is the lack of applications. They are donut and sandwich places and he's complaints about a lack of applicants - and even offers well above minimum wage.
Another friend has a metal fabrication shop, and has plenty of applications. I'm not
Re: (Score:2)
I can believe it would vary greatly and it's really all anecdotal. I've lived and worked in big cities and the population density is big enough that there are lots of people to apply for jobs. And I've worked in small towns in the rust belt and there was a certain hunger for jobs (unemployment rate there was around 12% at the time). And when I say small town, it was big enough to have 3 fast food places and half a dozen stop lights. Food for thought I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be able to get a bit more of a pulse, in the next couple of weeks. I intend to ask a few people about it and I belong to a business association, which should give me some insight. I've never really considered it.
Where I live, to be a bit more specific, there is no town. Literally, I do not live in a town. I live in an unincorporated township - there's six residences that are occupied all year. There's a number of camps. There's no postal service, no stores, no anything. I like it...
However, there's a 1
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, my father lost his job a few years ago. He tried finding more work, but nobody wanted to hire someone so close to retirement age. He was forced to retire early due to lack of opportunities. Not everyone who loses their job is awash in job offers.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been pondering something, off and on, since I posted that comment. I'm very happily retired. I do have partial ownership in a couple of franchises. I also have a bit of business that I'm still involved in. However, I kinda want to go get a job for a little while. I'd worry about the ethics - as I'd be taking a job that someone else would find more beneficial. I'm in a fortunate place where I am financially secure. I already volunteer. Hmm...
Discourage, rather than enforce (Score:4, Insightful)
These types of agreements are always about the threat rather than the act.
That is, they exist not to actually stop people from reporting, but instead to discourage them. No reasonable judge would let you sue someone for reporting a crime.
But most of the time it is not entirely clear their is enough evidence of a crime going on, not until after the trial has begun.
So when your boss fires you after verbally demanding sex, you will think twice about suing, because you know that if you can't prove it, they might go after you. Honestly, chances are very low they would sue you for speaking out and even less that they would succeed.
But the threat of the law suit is enough to stop you from trying, at least unless you have a smoking gun email. (and now adays it is almost always an email.).
Who said anything about a crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
No reasonable judge would let you sue someone for reporting a crime.
What guarantee do you have that you'll get a reasonable judge? Besides, who said anything about a crime? It is entirely possible for companies to engage in highly unethical, but completely legal, activity e.g. hiring child labourers in third world sweat shops to make their products which now does not happen because it was brought to the publics attention. Zero hour contracts are another example.
Large companies are beginning to have as much power over our lives as governments and this means that they need to start having the same limits on that power as a government.
Re: (Score:2)
So you blow the whistle, they sue you, it's now on the court docket and the public record that they sued you to try to shut you up because of their alleged unethical activities.
Kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. We've seen how it's played out before [wikipedia.org]
The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.
It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters to suppress numbers, files, and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.
I'm surprised this isn't the first reaction to anyone confronted with such a situation. Anti-disparagement clauses are there to avoid bad publicity. If you go public, the existence of such a clause just invites them to shoot themselves in the fo
Re: (Score:2)
So you blow the whistle, they sue you, it's now on the court docket and the public record that they sued you to try to shut you up because of their alleged unethical activities.
Kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.
I'm surprised this isn't the first reaction to anyone confronted with such a situation. Anti-disparagement clauses are there to avoid bad publicity. If you go public, the existence of such a clause just invites them to shoot themselves in the foot.
It's like any form of blackmail. Once you go public with it, and whatever they had on you, it no longer works.
While I agree with you, the problem is everyone also knows you sued and thus are likely to think twice about hiring you. It's often best simply for both sides to move on; and non-disparagement works both ways, it's pretty standard for US companies to boot say anything about a former employee except verify dates of employment. When I worked corporate jobs we'd get periodic reminders from HR that any inquiries about a former employee were to be directed to them. They didn't want to get sued because someone sa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they think twice because you successfully blew the whistle on illegal activity, it's because they fear you'll expose their illegal activities as well. Consider it a great way to filter out the scum employers. It would be in their self-interest to hire whistle-blowers and use them to help clean up the company before they get hit with lawsuits.
Unfortunately, most employers don't think that way. It's not necessarily that they are going anything illegal, they may simply wonder what will this person take exception to, even if it is legal, and cause us a great big hassle? It's simply easier to not hire them than take a risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they have to hire risk management people to basically blow the whistle on the company before things deteriorate.
No one said what companies do make sense.
If the person has shown previous judgment in the past, not hiring them is an illegal discriminatory tactic. THAT is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
First, it would be hard to prove the reason your resume was ignored was because a web search turned up your lawsuit; even so whistleblowers are not a protected class for hiring.
Re: (Score:2)
> If they think twice because you successfully blew the whistle on illegal activity, it's because they fear you'll expose their illegal activities as well.
Not necessarily. I'd question the history of an applicant, especially one involved in such a lawsuit. Whistleblowers are not necessarily productive employees, especially if what they whistleblew on is ill founded. Would you consider hiring Leah Rowe, former primary maintainer of Libreboot, after her allegations of gender discrimination against the Free
Re: (Score:2)
If they think twice because you successfully blew the whistle on illegal activity
You wrote
especially if what they whistleblew on is ill founded.
So Leah Row was a poorly chosen example, since you admit her complaints were ill-founded (in other words, were not successful).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> It's only going to sue if you've already made the facts public,
"Public" isn't usually the problem. "Potential clients" is usually the problem. It's why a frank discussion between the developers and the client is often blocked: the developers do not necessarily know what sales has promised to the client, or whether the client and sales actually mean something else than the "term of art" means for a particular hardware or software tool.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with almost all of what you said about the threat, and the risk to an employee who reports misbehavior to anyone outside their immediate org chart behing large. Please permit me to point out that misbehavior worth reporting may be illegal, but not criminal. Also reporting it to someone else to _prevent_ a criminal or illegal act helps eliminate the evidence that an illegal act was planned, and can make proving it enough for a judge to say "you cannot punish an employee for reporting your behavior".
I
what happened to fuckedcompany.com? (Score:1)
we had the happy fun slander corner.
I can hear it now... (Score:3)
I'm going to predict a lot of people here saying "I would never work such a place" or "I would never sign such an agreement" ...
Let me just say bull shit, when you need a job you will work such a place and sign such an agreement.
But I wouldn't really care because like a lot of things, for all practical purposes, these types of agreements are unenforceable.
Re:I can hear it now... (Score:4, Insightful)
For all practical purposes, they are very enforceable.
If a company with all its resources decides to sue a single individual, it's a foregone conclusion. Unless they manage to find a backer with deep pockets, they'll be ruined fighting the suit, no matter the fact that the judge might throw it out. By the time it would have come to a hearing they'd already be in deep shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is perfectly legal in the UK. But I am not allowed to tell you about it...
Re: (Score:1)
If "The Company" has so many issues with an employee, they can fire them. The whole point of nondisparagement agreements is to basically not be honest about the shit companies are quietly doing, often on a regular basis. Boss tel
Re: (Score:2)
One of my former bosses attempted to get me to sign an "exit agreement." Stupid ass had already signed both copies, so I took both copies and walked out without signing.
Took more than half a year, but I got paid anyway.
You can't withhold severance pay if the employee refuses to sign an exit agreement. What you'll end up doing is getting audited by the tax department because anyone in IT has to know where a few skeletons are buried or they're not competent.
Sign away your constitutional rights? (Score:2)
I don't believe you can actually do that. I mean - you can certainly write your name on the paper, and you can voluntarily choose to act as if you're required to follow that agreement... but, before a judge, even if you said "yup I willingly signed away my constitutional rights" - that judge would at best laugh, and at worst hit you with his gavel for wasting his time with something which is not legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Long ago the Surpeme Court has interpreted this as no legal prosecution. Sure you can scream HITLER IS GOD in your office and have security and HR throw your ass off in the street and fire you, but no prosecution will happen as that is your free speech and right to say it.
So the question is whether you can be sued for violation of contract? YES. Don't worry you won't be prosecuted. Just like their are financial repurcussions for opening your mouth at work you can freely divulge trade secrets, violate agreem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The courts have also ruled that you can't sign away rights, unless otherwise explicitly defined in law. If that wasn't the law, then slavery would be legal. So, do you have the right to sign yourself into slavery?
THe issue is a fine vs a liability is the same in our pocket books. But in legal terms it is not illegal to be sued for free speech as only have rights to avoid being arrested and jailed or fined from government prosecution. That's it.
Otherwise how would companies create trade secrets and agreements. Yes it is protected speech but there is nothing illegal by paying another party damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No I am not. I am not talking about copyright either.
The US constitution gives rights to the federal government to enforce contracts. It's a contractual issue and you can't be prosecuted. Otherwise employers and parties would have no rights at all. But that doesn't mean you are not liable for damages for breaking said contract.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot sign away your right to free speech, but you can sign up for a penalty or two.
Contract law is all about keeping people "whole"
The judge cannot make you s
Re: (Score:2)
He apparently doesnt know that there is a difference between a civil tort and a criminal trial.
You cannot sign away your right to free speech, but you can sign up for a penalty or two.
Contract law is all about keeping people "whole" .. and yes thats a legal term. If you sign a contract and then break that contract, the judge is going to try to make the other party "whole" again. It doesnt matter one bit that the thing you promised to do entails exercising one of your rights.
The judge cannot make you shut up nor can the judge cannot make you say things that you don't want to say. However the judge can and will award the plaintiff a pile of money and can and will seize your assets if that becomes necessary. If you think that the 1st amendment is all you need to get out of a contract, then you are in for a rude awakening.
Exactly and well stated. Since the agreement was voluntarly you can also argue no rights were violated. The reason the TSA can search you is because you are not forced to go on a plane but it's voluntary.
However, I am no lawyer. I would imagine a lot of liberal states like California might have labor laws though where such an agreement could be illegal? Then a tort is not N/A. Workers do have rights like a non hostile work environment for example so even if the constitution guarantees free speech another la
Re: (Score:2)
I have read the court decisions on the matter, and you are talking about what "should" happen, not what has already been ruled and is considered settled law.
Re: (Score:2)
"The courts have also ruled that you can't sign away rights, unless otherwise explicitly defined in law."
And those specified legal exceptions, like assignment of intellectual property, are the cause of endless problems. If IP had to remain with the creator or work, life would be a lot simpler for both creators and entrepreneurs.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe you can actually do that. I mean - you can certainly write your name on the paper, and you can voluntarily choose to act as if you're required to follow that agreement... but, before a judge, even if you said "yup I willingly signed away my constitutional rights" - that judge would at best laugh, and at worst hit you with his gavel for wasting his time with something which is not legal.
In certain cases you can drastically modify your constitutional rights. If you obtain a security clearance, you commit a crime or at least a violation if you divulge any thing you shouldn't.
People have gone to prison for that.
But a nondispargement clause is almost certainly unenforceable in principle.
I suspect that this sort of asshattery has come about because of some of the high profile cases in recent years, especially when the results vindicated the companies in question.
It's asshat versus a
Why even ask the question? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are Nondisparagement Agreements Silencing Employee Complaints?
If they're working as intended, yes. Of course they are. That's their purpose.
Right ot not right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Employees increasingly "have to give up their constitutional right to speak freely about their experiences if they want to be part of the work force,"
It would seem that the U.S. has a pretty poor constitution if it can be superceded by contract law.
Isn't the whole point of a country's constitution that it stands above all "lesser" principles and laws.
Re:Right ot not right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Americans wouldn't know what real freedom is even if they got cock slapped by it.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution doesn't apply.
The first amendment only prevents the *government* from infringing your right to free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right ot not right? (Score:5, Interesting)
The role of the Constitution's free speech rights is to limit the ability of the government to infringe on speech. It doesn't have any influence on speech not involving the government. So private parties are free to negotiate contracts limiting what they will say and to whom, and thus you have NDAs and non-disparagement clauses and even civil settlements where the parties agree not to disclose the settlement terms.
I think there's a more general civil rights argument to be made that there should be limits on corporations ability to limit free speech in some circumstances.
Employer-employee relationships are inherently unbalanced and somewhat coercive, so I would bar non-disparagement agreements. You're not required by force of law to sign them, but for most people not signing them has substantial economic and career penalties which reduces most people's freedom to act.
I would also require that large public spaces that are privately owned (like malls) should be required to accommodate public protest. We're rapidly losing truly public spaces ("the town square") and replacing them with privately owned versions of them. More nefariously, these large developments are often underwritten by local government in some way (bonds, TIF, paying for infrastructure upgrades like roads and sewers).
Re:Right ot not right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thomas Jefferson said " the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." People concentrate on the "blood" part and assume it to mean that we must be willing to fight and die against tyrants who would take away our freedoms. I'm starting to think the "time to time" part is more important. If people don't occasionally experience living under tyranny, they grow complacent, start taking their freedoms for granted, and think nothing about signing them away. Only if you've had to fight and die for those freedoms do you truly appreciate their value.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY. If you hate that agreement, but signing it means you and your kids wont be homeless next month, you'll sign the damned agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, I keep hearing the argument that "the constitution only prevents the government from infringing on free speech", which is what it says, but this is a question of what it ought to do, not what it does do.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem that the U.S. has a pretty poor constitution if it can be superceded by contract law. Isn't the whole point of a country's constitution that it stands above all "lesser" principles and laws.
The US constitution was written with the mindset that it should be a meta-law to limit the power of an oppressive government, so it only says things like "Congress shall make no law (...) abridging the freedom of speech" and doesn't really deal with people at all except in the context of government action like giving you a fair trial. Everything else is just law, it's illegal to murder you not unconstitutional. So if Congress wants to do something about this, they should pass a law. The flip side of this is
Constitution (Score:2)
The constitution protects it's citizens from their government. Another way of looking at it is protects groups of people from infringing the rights of others via the government. It's far from perfect, but still works better than most other systems.
A contract is entered into willingly from all parties (if not, it isn't a valid contract) You are agreeing to give up certain rights in exchange for something, usually money.
If there is no exchange of value, then it's also not a valid contract
Can it prohibit disclosing illegal action? (Score:2)
I thought sexual harassment was illegal, and I presume a non-disparagement clause can't prevent an employee from disclosing illegal activity. If it can, then it seems the law needs re-writing.
Just my thought, I don't know anything about the actual legality.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought sexual harassment was illegal
Sort of [wikipedia.org]. Civil rights act mandates employers with 15 or more employees to not discriminate based on sex. Courts have ruled that certain types of sexual harassment, or say porn posted on workspace walls, results in discrimination in practice. But compensation is limited to lost wages plus damages for intentional violations. But, as far as I know, there are no prison sentences for sexual harassment which does not also constitute sexual assult.
This matches exactly my experience from 2009 (Score:5, Interesting)
...except it was a severance agreement. I'd been fired, and there was a reasonably decent (6 weeks of pay) severance agreement. However, it included both the clause that I would never ever make an disparaging statement about the company, nor that I would admit the existence of this severance agreement or disclose any terms in it. This was for a small (few hundred employee) tech company in San Francisco.
I pushed back. I thought it was completely unreasonable to give up a part of my freedom of speech for this. At the time, I thought I might stay in the same general field (I haven't), and it would have been very constraining to never be able to criticize this company again. But, also, on principle, I did not like signing away my freedom of speech like that. What makes me sad is that almost everybody I talked to told me not to be ridiculous, to sign it. I was potentially giving up four weeks of severance pay (beyond the "two week notice" requiredby law), at a time when I'd just been fired and had no other job lined up. I was told by friends that it was irresponsible not to think about my wife and my own economic need for a stupid stand on principle. This makes me so sad, because at least nominally it was exactly these kinds of principles -- freedom of expression -- on which this country was supposedly founded. But, now, people find it childish and unrealistic to stand on principle.
I didn't have any serious complaints about the company at the time. Over the previous ~year it had undergone some reorganization that I thought was destructive, and I thought the circumstances leading up to my firing were particularly stupid, but I didn't have any sexual harassment complaints or anything like that. But, still, just because you don't have a big issue right now does not mean you should sign away a fraction of your freedom of speech for all time.
The other sad thing was that at one point, somebody from HR told me on the phone, "we're not trying to limit your freedom of expression, we just want you to manage your communication". People in the corporate world really believe things like this, which is rather alarming.
In the end, I managed to convince them to change it to "no disparaging statements for a year, no untrue disparaging statements ever". I decided I could live with that. Technically, I'm breaking the agreement right now by talking about it, which is why I post anonymously and don't name the company. I think that's stupid too, but I also know more than to risk putting myself up against the lawyers of even a small company.
Re: (Score:3)
Or you go hardball with them and get a copy of the agreement and then tell them that either they strip out the language or you will go to the press and tell the 10 o'clock news that they are anti freedom of speech and trying to violate laid off employees first amendment rights and holding their severance packages hostage. Most companies fear bad press to begin with (which is why the clause was in there to begin with). My response has and always will be any contract beyond a standard NDA ends the day they
Happened to me (Score:3)
I had to sign one of these things when I left a company. They withheld wages until I signed. Totally illegal of course, but I needed the money.
Pathetic (Score:3)
Apparently we need a US Supreme Court ruling (again?) that you cannot sign away your constitutional rights, and all of these contracts are abusive. It would also be nice to have a federal law that says that any contract found to be abusive of constitutional laws in court is not only void, but also automatically awards the victim $100k per abusive clause, with no limit on damages. As soon as the cost outweighs the benefit, businesses will stop this bullshit. It's the same thing as non-competes.
The agreement is not valid ... (Score:2)
Seriously, corporations (as people) are psychopathic by nature because they have no innate morality or empathy. Even if individuals within a corporation are not, they are duty bound to act in the best interests of the organization and it's shareholders.
The agreements aren't the problem (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
prev plus (Score:2)
Ok, so non disparagement.
When you combine this with a previous article regarding noncompetes it's a disturbing trend.
California labor code (Score:2)
232.5. No employer may do any of the following:
(a) Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing information about the employerâ(TM)s working conditions.
(b) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose information about the employerâ(TM)s working conditions.
(c) Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who discloses information about the employerâ(TM)s worki
Don't sign them (Score:2)
Tell them you won't sign away your rights.
Find a better job.
If they still want you, and delete the clause, great! If not... see ya, suckas. I don't want to work for you anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Then if they cross that out and don't accept it, can we simply put them out of business? A business is supposed to follow all laws.
Or how about I'll keep the promises as long as I don't personally witness any lawbreaking. If that happens, then I am free from this particular contract. -Force- them to pass that thru the lawyers and see what happens.
Re: Hey Sherlock : (Score:2, Interesting)
The more secrets a society has the worse life is for all. Secrets are not supposed to be how you do business; we need more whistleblower protection, not less.
Re:Next... (Score:4, Funny)
He collided with Bennett Haselton and collapsed into a singularity of self-important hot air.