Slashdot Mirror
Can Companies Control What You Say After You Leave?
anonymousByGoodReason asks: "I worked for a company doing IS support for about 6 years. It's been over a year since I've left them, and because I still have friends there, I keep an eye on the stock price and message boards, etc. on Yahoo! As it turns out, several ex-employees are up there, some with fair opinions of the company, some with not so fair. Conversation on the board turned to the ex-employees, and I posted my opinion, and why I left. The reason was less than glowing, but I really didn't go into too much depth - basically I gave the general overview. What I've found out now, is that the auditing department of that company has since been keeping track of those message boards, and has identified me. I've been told that they may speak to me, and may also talk to the company I currently work for." Umm...Yahoo!'s message boards are public, and the guy no longer works for them (and had no contractual obligations to stay silent when he left), so what precedent gives his ex-company the right to audit his opinions?
"My question is this - because I left the company of my own free will, and had never signed an agreement that said 'I will only say nice happy things about this company after I leave'... what recourse, if any, do they have to my statements? Their stock price has been rock-bottom before I posted, and actually was gaining, albeit slowly, as the postings went forward, so they didn't lose any money because of statements that I made. Should I be concerned? Am I no longer entitled to have an opinion about a place where I used to work?"
It is rather important for us to know, for the analysis of this situation, whether he posted anonymously (or if he has admitted these were his own posts). I.e., can the poorly-behaving company prove he is responsible for the postings? If they cannot, he can definitely sue them if they say to anyone he is the one responsible -- they need proof, not speculation.
Second, even if they know it is him and can prove it, for them to (even threaten to) go to his current employer and interfere with his current job will not be looked kindly upon by the courts.
I would document *EVERYTHING* which has happened. Make a journal with dates and times of all the events so far. Get coroborrating evidence of these events: Print out webpages and emails, save letters with their envelopes, if you have any more conversations with these people, record them (it may not be admissable in court, but you have it for your record), and document any communications you make to them, although at this point I would suggest not communicating with them in any form until seeing an attorney.
Any further communication you have with this company should be through your attorney.
you == the orginal guy who posed the question
So what's the big deal? They want to talk with you? And they want to talk with your employer? It sounds to me like they're simply looking to exercise the very same right of free speech that you enjoyed when posting what you thought about them.
Sooo, I wrote the HR guy (Gary, you are a REAL tool) asking for a copy of the NDA I had signed. I received in return a lovely letter saying they are sorry I had misplaced my copy, but since I no longer worked for them they weren't going to extend the courtesy of sending me one.
Moral: in addition to reading anything before signing it, GET COPIES. Sign the thing at the photocopier and get yerself a copy before the ink's dry. I worked very hard for these people and had the best of intentions at all times, and when I did something I thought was in the company's best interest they turned around and made my life hell (did I mention I had found out the week before that my new wife had cancer?).
Work hard, but never forget that deep down a company will act in what it perceives as its best interests, and if that includes stomping a mud hole in your back, so be it.
worker beware
Capn Futile
if your former employer contacts your present employer to try to make trouble for you, well, that is illegal. if you get fired because of retaliation from your former employer and no fault of your own, you have the legal right to pursue them legally.
Don't put up with that. Have a lawyer contact them if they are trying to get you fired....
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
... but have a contingency plan :-)
:-)
I'd see a lawyer about this if I were you. As a number of other posters have said, calling your present employer is an outrageous act on the part of a former employer. It sounds like some loose cannon on deck is shooting off at the mouth, trying to scare you. However, it's certainly possible that whoever made this threat might be stupid enough to carry it out. Like I said, have a contingency plan.
Look at the number of posts to this piece. Employment issues have a way of touching a nerve.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
As long as you don't commit libel, anyway.
You're free to say you think they suck, and you wouldn't be surprised if the company officers performed unnatural acts with rodents. Everyone (in the U.S., anyway) has the right to express an opinion, but you don't have the right to spread false information. Just watch your phrasing and you don't have a thing to worry about (well, one less thing, maybe!).
Just junk food for thought...
Is just tring to scare you into not talking if they continue on a course and try to sue the counter sue for harassment charges.
Even if you did sign a "Gag" policy or what ever, in the US you can not sign away your rights. Even non-complete contracts are worthless, I don't know why companies insist on them. Personally I would tell the audit dept of your former employer that if they some much as peep one thing to your current employer that is not favorable, you will sue them until there eyes pop out.
It seems that companies these days have gotten so used to stepping on peoples rights that they do it with out second thought. Maybe some laywer can answer this but where in the US Constitution does it guarantee a company any rights? Our media and big business have been getting away with it for so long that big business think that they are right. Unfortuneatly most judges in this country seem to agree with them.
I would not let them get away with it, but then again it is not me being threatened.
I believe in the UK that your former company (or an employee of, including your old manager) can not provide a negative reference for you without getting sued. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's very very difficult.
If that's the case, what chance of not getting sued if they provide information that wasn't even requested?
Of course, any decent employer would ignore something from a previous employer. At least, I would hope so. And I'd tell my HR people as much.
~Cederic
6) Better yet, is he a stockholder? If so, turn up at a general meeting and repeat the comments. I am a stockholder in my current employer (ironically, through their own stock purchase scheme). I see that as giving me all the rights of a shareowner as well as those of an employee.
(and all the responsibilities as well, or something
~Cederic
Freedom of speech is guaranteed so long as it does not infringe upon someone else?s rights. i.e. racism is considered infringement (Canada anyway), manipulation of stocks is also infringement because it's not an real opinion! If I choose to say I hate Microsoft, there is no recourse because that is a real opinion. Companies cannot create laws to suit their needs, they must work within the boundaries set by the legislation of the country they operate in.
An exploration of mixology, spirits and bartending.
But so long as you avoid libel, spilling company secrets covered by an NDA, misrepresenting yourself as a company spokesman, and other dumb instant loser tricks, you're in the clear.
That isn't to say that a company won't try to make your life miserable. Giving someone a case of FUD works better on individuals than it does on operating systems. In exceptional cases, a company may try to take you to court. Such cases almost never make it to trial. That's usually because the threat is more than enough to make most people hush up.
Everyone has freedom of speech, few has the courage to use it.
Steven
Given that companies generally do not offer unsolicited opinions of ex-employees (and in many cases, are only willing to state "Yes, so-and-so worked for us during a certain time period"), I would think it should be fairly easy for a decent lawyer to prove that the company acted with malice.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Sure, he can sue. Would there be any legal justification in the lawsuit? Who knows... we have not been given enough details. What it comes down to however, is that he said something publicly about the company which was not nice and now they want to tell his current employer in retaliation. There's nothing illegal about this. Maybe he'll be smarter about criticism in the future.
As I said earlier, criticism, as I've experienced, has been accepted by all people when its presented in a respectable manor. Posting comments to a public billboard is not a respectable manor. They're holding him accountable for his actions. There's nothing illegal about it. He can sue, but he'll lose.
Slandering the company would imply that he lied about the company. I think that it was pretty clear that he was expressing his opinions, which were based on fact.
They would not be telling the story EXACTLY if they implied slander.
Caffeine underflow (brain dumped)
You should have mentioned who the ISP is, and what the defense/rationalization for their deletion action was.
The ISP probably should not have caved in. I would be furious if my ISP did this. And, due to the trust/reputation that they have earned from me over many years, I know that they wouldn't.
I'm serious, ISP's reputations need to be on the line for things like this. Make fortitude and integrity become a market force.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If you were to reveal insider information about your former (or current) employer,slander someone or threaten someone you could very well be in deep water.Hey..common sense applies.
Tired of being another body in the flock? Linux ! We are not sheep anymore.
Aside from the obvious reality that Non-Disclosure Agreements were designed to mitigate these specific types of occurrences, everyone should keep high in their minds that in the end, whether or not an NDA has been signed holds no bearing on a company's available legal recourse against an ex-employee.
While an active NDA certainly reinforces the legal position, a company can bring suit against anyone for just about any reason and petition a court seeking injunctive relief against that individual or group of individuals. In the final assessment, even if a court petition is tenuous at best, the individual is likely to face a significant cost for defending themselves. In this fashion, many companies can just discourage individuals from disclosing what they know by threatening costly lawsuits.
Unless the previous relationship with the company is more substantial than just being an "employee", everyone should think twice, no, three times, before publically disclosing ANYTHING about a company.
It's just not worth it.
--jordan
Sure you can, at least in the United States. You can sue anyone for any amount for any reason. It absolutely works both ways.
If you decide to go head-to-head with a company, though, you should well understand the significant cost of such an undertaking.
--jordan
It sounds like you were foolish to post what you posted without taking steps to protect your identity.
On the otherhand, if you weren't actually violating any agreements you had with your company, agreements which often don't extend more than a year, then I think any attempt to intimidate you or to damage your reputation by talking to your current employer could put you in a strong position to sue them.
Actually, I would be suprised if they did anything. A lot of companies don't even allow employees to give reccomendations for former employees for fear of getting sued if things don't go swimmingly well.
The kind of legislation they need is a 3-strikes law against the prosecuting *Lawyers/Legal Firms* who bring these frivolous cases to court.
3 strikes and you're disbarred.
It's the lawyer's job to know whether something is frivolous intimidation or a serious case. They should be the ones primarily (though not solely) punished for bringing such cases to court, or threatening people with such cases.
I agree. If they pursue you, sue their asses off for harrassment.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Forget about noncompete, or anything else in your contract or severance agreement. *Any information* you know about the company from working with them can be considered a TRADE SECRET. Trade secret law is well established, with case law dating back to the revolution. You can be sued for divulging trade secrets even if you never signed any agreement not to do so.
Terry Layne
Portland, OR
they can sue joo foo! but fakt iz joo protected by 1st ammendment. so phaqem!
A former employer tried to integrate a clients NDA and non-compete into "his" NDA/non-compete. When I started (as a contractor), I was only ever given the clients NDA. I was then hired full-time, and was never asked to sign anything. The day I left (on good terms), I was reminded to honor the various NDA's and whatnot. I didn't remember until the next day that I hadn't signed any of them...
:)
The important thing to remember is to review any and all paperwork they make you sign when you start. I'm always more than happy to sign NDA's, but I always read them and occasionally check them with a lawyer friend. A co-worker at the company above didn't like some of the language, so after checking with her lawyer, she got quite creative with her black marker. They didn't say a word, just accepted it. (which means that they probably didn't even notice her changes - guess they now owe her the Crown Jewels....
If you're discussing them (anywhere: public, private, in your head) they can't control what you say. As long as you don't breach your NDA (and it doesn't sound like you did) then you should be fine, so don't worry about it.
-=-
Computer geek for hire. Reasonable rates. Email me.
Exactly! Thanks for figuring out what I was trying to say.
Well, those message boards ARE public. If you say something in public, it's only reasonable to assume that it might be used against you. I don't know if they can retroactively dock your pay or anything, but there's nothing to stop them (or me, if I wanted) from reading the message boards and calling up your boss to tell him what you've said.
Seems to me that you were right to leave your old company. They're basically blackmailing you (and THAT'S not legal, right?) into shutting up by threatending to bad-mouth you to your new employer. I don't know if it's legal, but it certainly doesn't sound right to me.
...lets not be so exclusive here (unless you've got your J.D. and have read the paper-work.)
Chances are good that he signed numerous documents ranging from non-competes to the corporate handbook, but the wording of each of those determines the legality of his actions to follow.
-C
"This above all, to thine own self be true"
I am not aware of any general rule of law in any jurisdiction that says contracts cannot have terms binding in perpetuity.
It is very clear that you can waive some constitutional rights and that you can do so as part of a contract. What rights can't you waive? Well, you probably can't sell yourself into slavery, sell your right to refuse medical care, or sell your right to free speech in its entirety. But there's no general rule that says you can't agree as part of a contract not to say certain things, and in fact such contracts are regularly enforced.
And it shows. Nondisclosure, confidentiality and nondisparagement agreements are in most cases perfectly legal. That you have a right to free speech doesn't mean you can't bargain it away.
No, it's the company's error for believing such a ridiculous contract is valid. To be chastising people for their "undergraduate notion of freedom of speech", you have a naive understanding of contract law.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
uhh, no, they don't. did you not read the part where he said he did not sign anything stating he could not say what he wanted to about the company?
i myself have never signed such papers either and i've had quite a number of jobs. while some places do *request* that you sign such documents in order to get your severence pay, they can never force you to sign them, and many companies do not have such documents in their severence process.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Before all you liberals start loudly complaining (yet again) about the inadequacies of the marketplace, I'd like to remind you that if you don't like what this company is doing you can a) not work for them, and/or b) not buy their goods or services. The market is the best place to vent these frustrations, and whining incessantly about it like some fussy-headed Naderite or Democrat does no one any good whatsoever. Money has its own morality, and when you live in a society such as ours certain sacrifices must be made so that corporations can continue to thrive and grow. Your right to be free from coporate intimidation is something that is certainly desirable, but in certain situations (such as this) it is nevertheless unattainable. We must never forget about the bottom line. As Clinton said and as Bush learned: "It's the economy, stupid." Cross paths with corporations at your own -- and your nations -- peril.
- Rev.
But usually not in perpetuity. Most perpetual clauses in contracts are not enforceable in many jurisdictions.
That said, there are no restriction on the company's collection and aggregation of information that has been made public. If they try to get him fired by his new employer, they may be treading on thin ice though... There's nothing stopping them from grumbling and threatening, and gathering information, but if they interfere with his new contract, they may be getting in too deep.
But perpetual contract clauses may not be binding, depending on the jurisdiction.
Truth is not always a defense in libel and defamation cases.
Not quite true. In the case of employment, a former employer is very limited in their available contact with the new employer. When you put down the list of companies for which you have worked on your resume and when your new employer contacts your old employer(s), the former employer can only confirm or deny the contents of your resume. However, if you list someone at your former company as a reference, you are giving that person permission to give their opinion on your behalf -- for good or ill.
Your former employer may NOT contact your current employer for the purpose of spreading gossip. If you have done anything seriously out of line, they have recourse with the legal system. If their grievance has no legal standing with law enforcement, that's it. They're SOL.
But then again, this is California. I don't know about other states or federal law.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
Odd... I can't think of a single inalienable right. I know that some pieces of paper have words on them that say that there are rights that can't be taken away, but just about all of them can be... it's just that they shouldn't.
Bolie IV
If they're not attempting anything illegal, is there anything that should stop a company from attempting to speak with its critics or even one's current employers?
Certainly there's nothing stopping an individual from doing the same.
Having said that, I'd certainly publicize the name of any jerk who tried to get me in trouble with my employer for remarks I posted elsewhere. And it's not that infrequent, especially if you're commenting about areas of high controversy (think abortion...)
Contracts like this presented after you already work there are completely bogus. I'd get a verbal admission from someone who matters that such a contract isn't worth it's weight in toilet paper before signing it, though. It's not necessary to be a troublemaker, but if they're trying to pull a snowjob on you, you're better off leaving than putting up with a bunch of scam artists.
I've learned, also, that simply crossing out the parts you object to, initialling your X marks, and sending it back is a good way to win the war of patience. They will sometimes be happy just to have a signed piece of paper, so they can pretend to have done their jobs, and you don't agree to things you don't intend to agree to. Make sure to have a personal photocopy.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
You didn't need to say that you are a lawyer. I could have imagined it, because I did not understand a word of what you said! ;-)
Angel
>That you have a right to free speech doesn't mean you can't bargain it away.
Any inalienable right cannot be bargained away. They are part of the nature of things (dare I say "God-given"?), and it's not for you to negotiate them away for yourself or others. Of course, that doesn't mean "saying anything, anytime" is an inalienable right...
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I guess I was flying out there in some ideal world. You are right; inalienable rights _shouldn't_ be taken, but often are. That's why one of the inalienable rights is self-defense. You don't _have_ to exercise it, but you are justified if you do. And if you don't, you haven't given up that right; you can pick it up any time, if you have the means and the will.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
This is true. A lawyer of mine was fond of saying, "They can sue you for anything; they just are unlikely to win." It's an important distinction, as defending a lawsuit isn't cheap.
Still, that shouldn't scare you too much. Many companies are very sensitive to public image, so you can counter this by raising a ruckus if they threaten you. Publish their correspondence with you, contact reporters, open a legal defense fund, post again to slashdot, and so on.
Make sure you discuss this with a lawyer first, and make sure you have a clear idea of how far you are willing to go. But I encourage you not to give up quite yet; many more people threaten to sue than are really willing to do it.
Oh, and if they do actually sue you, I'm in for $100 for your defense fund.
However, if you said, "I'm an Initech employee, or was, anyway, not any more, because they suck," you have probably gone too far. This is not the first time that Yahoo! boards have been the subject of ligitation. What you have done, in the eyes of the court, is substantially similar to picking up a megaphone and broadcasting your opinion about Initech.
I don't like it, America shouldn't be this way, but it's probably the way it's going to be. Don't forget, there are laws in place now that would have given every one of the Founding Fathers of America, were they to reappear tomorrow, the death penalty.
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
Talk to a lawyer, not these jokers on here.
They're putting dimes in the hole in my head to see the change in me.
When I sign contracts I take this into account - I ignore, and anticipate breaking, all of those that are legally unreasonable.
The problem is going to going to court is a crap shoot. Some times you go home in a Mercedes, some times you're hitch hiking. I really would prefer to avoid the risk.
My Weblog
Bullshit. The ONLY thing the company could possibly do is sue you for slander. Even if you sign something, they can't make you give up your Constitutional rights (Free Speech).
BTW, IANAL
-- Will program for bandwidth
this is the naive thinking that gets us shit like like the dmca. just because it *used* to be that way, doesn't mean in the 'new digital age' that the claims have to be false. it all comes down to who has the most money and influence.
That anything you signed that made you an employee would be void after you left. I mean, the contract is a contract for employment, so if you are no longer employed with them it wouldn't have any teeth at all.
It would seem fishy for a company to be able to say 'you may only work for us a finite time, but you will forever be bound by this employment contract.'
This is also this only place where you'll hear the company lawyer say, "Let's SLAPP her ass."
When you apply for a serious post, the application form or interviewer typically asks why you left your previous/current employer. At least, here in the UK they usually ask. Did your current employer ask you that question, and did you give broadly the same answer? If you said something different, I can understand your boss being annoyed. Either you lied to get the job, or you are now spreading lies about an ex-employer.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
So what happend next!? Did they follow up on
their threats? Or, as I suspect, did the whole
thing fizzle out because you didn't make any more
public comments about the company?
What can I say... Maybe you should use a privacy tool, there are some good ones out there. What your company did is really not ethical, but if you are realistic then you should expect many companies to act the same...
Seriously though, you should protect your privacy yourself, don't expect companies to be ethical.
If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.
Alternatively make sure you have a good lawyer.
threadeds blog
Did you notice that the people at the Chase site (didn't look at the other one) wouldn't use their full names?
I have to disagree. By contacting his employer, they are harassing him. Now, they are free to go into a public forum and state that he's wrong, that he talks too much, or whatever. They have no right, however, to contact his employer and jeapordize his job simply because he's exercising his right to free speech. That constitutes harassment and that's illegal.
Now, if his current employer contacts them, and they say that, that's a different thing altogether. If he uses them as a reference and they say that, then he's in trouble, but if they actively seek out to inform his current employer and put his career in jeapordy, simply because they don't like what he's saying, then they're screwed and he can make quite a bit of cash in a lawsuit.
Sure, how about the Supreme Court Case: Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. (1997), where the Supreme court decided that a former employee can file a discrimination charge claiming that he has been retaliated against by his former employer based on alleged negative job references. This would be considered retaliation in this case.
Pete Davis
Okay, I'm wrong. This is a quote from my cousin who is a lawyer. You'll have to excuse the language:
Those are all discrimination cases. If this person is in a protected class (minority, female...) and the company is discriminating against him based upon race, religion, gender, age, disability... then he could have an argument. But if you are just an average white guy, these protections do not apply. In fact, if your boss calls a company wide meeting and fires you in front of everyone screaming that he thinks you are an asshole and he is sick of looking at your ugly face, get your shit and leave right this second or he will have you arrested for being a dick head, you have no employment based claim you can make against him. He can call anyone he wants and say that in his opinion you are an asshole and not worth hiring. You could sue in tort for slander, tortious interference with contract (a good one for this person if he gets fired) or intentional infliction of emotional distress, but he has a right to voice his opinion and fire you. In fact, there is an added protection to speech between employers when it relates to an employee's performance with the prior employer. You might not be able to force them to answer interrogatories or testify in court about such discussions because there is a qualifed privelege involved. The courts feel that the public benefits when employers can speak freely among one another without fear of slander suits. Otherwise, every employer would have a policy of saying "he worked here and that is all we can say."
Pete Davis
Just to put a little weight behind what I've said, see the following web pages:
. html h tm
http://www.chasebanksucks.com/workingatchasesucks
http://members.tripod.com/fusa1/examples/321-325.
Clearly these pages wouldn't be around if these companies could do something about it.
As an ex-employee, without signing anything, you are not legally bound to withhold your opinion. Microsoft has employees sueing them because they feel they were unfairly treated. Microsoft can't sue them for having that opinion and stating it publicly. Your former employer in the same manner has no right to censor your opinion.
That's what freedom of speech is all about. Even if you had signed something with them, I've never heard of any employment agreement that restricts a person's right to publicly speak their opinion about that company.
Now, that said, I don't know what you signed when you became an employee, but my guess is that they have no grounds with which to restrict your speech. I would do the following:
Ask them on what legal basis they believe they have to restrict your speech. Get it in writing.
If they continue to harass you without proof of some legal basis for their actions, send them a letter stating that if they refuse to stop harassing you, you will sue them. Keep a copy of this letter and have it dated.
If the harassment continues. Go to a lawyer. That's what they're there for.
Good luck.
If you must talk about your former place of work, fuckedcompany.com is the ideal place to do it. As anonymous as you want to be, and a great virtual water cooler for anyone else who has had the same situation you've had.
My name is Carlos Montoya. You share files of my music. Prepare to die.
Which are things that not everyone signs, or is asked to sign. While its a standard practice for many jobs, he doesn't say what he is doing and many technology jobs (like sysadmin) don't require them.
Course, This is one of the many reasons that I refuse to sign NDAs and their ilk. I wont bargain away my free speech, never have and never will. Its worth a hell of alot more to me than some silly green peices of paper.
(well ok, I would sign an NDA if it only covered stuff that would be unethical to disclose anyway - like individuals medical records and such)
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I am not a lawyer, but what was told to me was that slander is the act of speaking false or misleading information when the person who is speaking knows what they're saying is untrue.
Responsibility is the punishment for compentenc
Well, the interesting difference here is that in our totally free market society you are calling freedom of speech a commodity, instead of some sacred Right of Man.
The U. S. Government, for one, would be legally prohibited from making a contract with you to categorically give up your constitutional rights, such as from slavery, etc.
Corporations, then, would not seem to be so bound: they are permitted to treat any of these rights as just another commodity that factors into good bottom line results for their stockholders.
Since the vast majority of people typically need active employment to buy food, I would guess that come the next high unemployment recession, that employers could make fantastic progress towards getting their employees to relinquish all kinds of supposed Rights if they thought it might help their bottom lines. "Pee in this cup." would just be the beginning.
The free market is a remarkably powerful mechanism for getting independent agents to come to some kind of equilibrium. But, in this and in other instances (eg, my current cost of polluting public air costs me nothing, costs others' grandchildren a bundle), I think you need to think about the longer term ramifications of the equilibrium you will get unless you want to live in a distopia.
Why not become explicit and make human life a commodity instead of pussy footing around the implications?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
That's ridiculous. I can be sued for libel by a company that I never worked for. Or by a person that I never met. You don't have to agree to not libel or slander anyone in order to be accused of it.
I signed a non-compete when I started working here. Now, I'm a professional SRAM designer. I am not thinking about leaving the company, but we've seen a few leave over the years. Non-compete only makes sense for us if we leave to design SRAMS for another company. Our skillsets are more flexible, so we can leave and do circuit design or anything else that does not involve actual array work without violating the clause.
Keep the scope of the clause in mind before ignoring it.
if you won, you might never need to get hired again
Yet another example were a company is out of touch and acting like a 10 year old child.
If this ex-company is so worried about what is being said on a public board by an ex-employee, than I think this company has spoken out by its own doing of how poorly they are doing that such a small wind would effect their bottom line.
But than again, not knowing *what* was said on the public board leaves allot in the unsaid.
---------------
Sig
abbr.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
Yep, probably true, but they're certainly allowed to (try to) do so.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
As long as you're telling the truth, I don't think you should have a problem. If you're telling lies about the company, then you could be sued for libel. However, if that was the case, the burden of proof would be on the accuser (that's them). Of course, if the company has spare lawyers to throw at you, they could try to intimidate you, but I doubt it would ever come to that. It would be a lose-lose situation for them to pursue it.
If you have evidence or witnesses backing up your claims against the company, so much the better for you. But if you're telling the truth, not to worry, buddy.
One final thing: please, let us know who you worked for, so we don't make a mistake and try interviewing there, eh? :-)
-ygp Yekrats
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
I believe that Yahoo has a nice disclaimer that says something like there is no guarantee to the validity of the statements made on the message boards.
That's not quite what it says. It says that Yahoo does not guarantee the validity of these statements. That's the standard disclaimer just about any message board has, since they can't go through every message and verify everything. The people who post have the same responsibility to the truth as they would in any other forum.
The fact that the company is even considering "going after" this guy is just funny (see: sick and wrong). Seems to me that they need a reality check - or they're afraid simply afraid of what was posted and are panicking.
No argument there.
Either way, the company can do nothing.
Not quite true. If it is libel, they can take it to court and win. But the strongest argument against a libel case is, of course, the truth. If he can back up what he said, they can do nothing.
You may be right. But it is theoretically possible, and IMO people should always behave in any sort of public forum as if it is likely; never saying overly negative things except in a professional manner, and being able to back them up. I imagine the original questioner did that, but I would have to see the message and really know the situation to be sure.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Katherine Harris was W's campaign manager, at least in Florida.
Standard Disclaimer ==> IANAL
Unless you slandered them or broke an NDA/noncompete, then they don't have much in the way of legal or ethical recourse. However, based on what you've said here about why you quit, I wouldn't count on them being ethical. They probably can't sue you, but that won't stop them from talking to your current employer and saying things that could get you fired. Assuming that you have a decent relation with your current boss, it might be a good idea to go talk to him/her preemptively and explain your side of the story. That way, if you ex-company calls, your boss will be on your side.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
Here in Georgia you can be dismissed, no matter what.
Reason Given: None = Acceptable
So... it depends its state to state.
Jeremy
I would be of the opinion that this is more indicative of the disparity in worth as it exists in the typical corporate environment. If that knowledge is worth that much more than the salary, then something is amiss, either in personal values of the individual or personnel values of the corp.
My point isn't in refuting circumstances as they exist - I'm aware of how shitty things can get when IP trading is involved. At the risk of sounding like a Pollyana, some combination of the techie having some integrity and the company properly valuing and treating its employees should make industrial espionage a non-issue. I know that ain't the case - but that doesn't make it suck less.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
Says who? Suits who want to participate in having too much corporate control over every little detail. Assuming no personal/personnel issues, why would someone leave and take IP with them? Maybe the first company wasn't compensating them adequately. If someone else was willing to pay said researcher more to lure them away from you, capitalist principle alone says that you weren't paying what it was apparently worth on the market to keep them.
Just my thought on that li'l nugget.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
The bad news is that they have the same rights. You cannot prevent them from talking to your current boss and tell him that you spoke badly of your previous employers.
But that does not mean your boss has the right to fire you because of that. You have rights and if you are fired you can try to sue your company.
Just my opinion, of course.
On the other hand, if what the poster said was true, the company should have very little recourse. If it was his opinion, the company has almost no recourse.
If I were the poster, though, I would talk to HR at my current employer to advise them of the situation; and talk to a lawyer (you can bet the former company has lawyers involved).
Jon
If one signs an agreement with a company giving them carte blanche over your free speech for the rest of your life, then you have noone but yourself to blame should you find yourself being asked to shut your mouth at some later date.
Here's a little snippet from the Declaration of Independence, cornerstone of the U.S. institution:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
I direct you to the phrase "unalienable Rights". That is, that there are rights that cannot be taken away EVER by ANYONE, whether it be by a government, corporation, or contract. Among them is "Liberty". And that this seems "self-evident".
It made sense 200+ years ago, it makes sense still.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I don't think they should be allowed, with the proviso that whatever you say doesn't land you in court for libel/slander etc. This smacks of more corporate Big Brother to me.... Zoonie
A good rule-of-thumb to apply here is that you probably oughtn't to say in public anything about a previous employer that you wouldn't be prepared to say to a prospective employer during a job interview.
--
Athy, athier, athiest.
It's worth remembering that free speech really refers to freedom from prior restraint. It means that no one should be able to prevent you from saying anything you darn well please. It does not mean that you should be able to say anything you want without any consequences.
For example, as an employer I would have no right to stop you from saying vile, racist things. But once you've said them, I have every right to decide that I don't want you representing my company.
The specific case here is a bit more complicated, but I think the principle applies.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
Don't take this as a flame, but you make a pretty strong statement here, and I would like to see it backed up.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
Simple.
I have. I am in the process of suing a former employer, and I still pick up contracts for work, get offered permanent positions.
The thing is, I don't volunteer that I'm suing my former employer because it's none of their business. When they ask why I left company X, I tell them why I left, and continue on with the interview.
Opinion: Scientology is a cult you should avoid. Follow the
Maybe. Or maybe their stock price would have gone much higher if you hadn't made the remarks. Personally, I think you should be able to say whatever you want, but don't assume what you say has no effect.
http://www.ewatch.com/services.html
http://www.hiredinsight.com
www.hiredinsight.com
Even if you signed a non-compete, a non-disclosure, or sundry other exit documents you should be okay. As long as you aren't spreading corporate secrets.
Legally your former employer most likely has nothing to go on. However, your current employer, may have something. Does your company have an Internet use policy in place? If they do, you may have violated this policy if you made your posting s while at work. If you are on good terms with your employer, I would probably give them a heads up. If you did the posting from home, neither your current nor your former employer has anything on you.
So, legally, you are okay, BUT, at this risk of sounding pedantic, I hope you learned your lesson. Seriously, contributing to a discussion about your former employer on a stock forum is just bad judgement, even if you were just telling the truth. I remember the best advice I was ever given about the Internet: If you wouldn't say it over the PA system at a football game, don't say it on the Internet. And as you have learned, these things have a way of coming back to you.
I think the worst thing that is going to happen to you is you will have the biggest regret hangover in your live.
If you, like the rest of us, signed an NDA which covers information for some time after you leave, your comments could certainly be construed to be in violation of your NDA.
Since we don't know what you said (and you didn't provide a link to it, or a copy of the text) we can't really make these judgements, so your question is incomplete, or at least you're asking the wrong question. Rather than "Should I be concerned? Am I no longer entitled to have an opinion about a place where I used to work?" it should have been "Could these specific things I said about my former employer get me into trouble, and why?"
First of all, let me mention that there are things you could have said which could be considered a violation of law even if you weren't violating a contract (the NDA.) If you're saying something negative about someone (and naming names, or providing enough information to identify someone) then you could be guilty of slander. Since you've made a publication (unless Yahoo censors content; Then they could be guilty of that) of this information, you could also get busted for libel.
But all that notwithstanding; Ultimately, a company gets to decide what information they should be keeping secret. They don't have to lay it out for you, necessarily, if they can show that a reasonable person would have realized that it could be important to the business. If you let just one wrong word slip in your post, you could find yourself in court for breach of contract. The company can then burn your village, rape your horses, and ride off on your women... or however that's supposed to go.
No one is challenging your right to an opinion. I imagine it's pretty hard to get slander to stick. But when your information was published you put yourself at risk. You must be very careful what you write. To be at your safest, you should only repeat things which are already public information. You can hint at the events behind the scenes, saying things like "One person in the chain of command..." and similar, but identifying people, projects, or events positively is a no-no.
If you don't like that fact, well, the way to change it is not to make postings like the one you could feasibly have made (again, I have no idea what you wrote, so your question is, for the most part, meaningless IMO) but to work to challenge the laws. If this is your way of getting into that situation, so be it, but I can't help but think there must be an easier way.
--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fuk em I say and if they contact your current employer and affect yout current contractual arrangements sue them assholes tooooooooo!!
In the case of the original posting, it seems the former employee's under no strict legal obligation to restrain himself from speaking about his former employer.
His former employer can sue him - or, "better," threaten to sue him - anyway.
The larger the business, there's a legal apparatus in place and thus there is a lower the relative cost to that firm of using legal pressure on individuals such as former employees, small press and web publishers, etc. Will the firm win if something gets to court? It doesn't have to. The costs of responding and defending - in time in money - is often prohibitive to the target. Firms believe they can modify your behavior with implied threats if they don't like what you are doing or saying.
This is the sodden underbelly of the 'free market' that Ayn Randists and right-libertarians like to trumpet. Markets depend on information, but if firms can distort that information by coercion, they can gain leverage that has nothing to do with the quality or price of their product or service, how they treat their employees, etc. Bottom line: we have the rights we're willing to defend, and large corporations are out to grab as much control over their environment - including you and me - as they can, both by legislation and by intimidation. If you doubt this statement, you have been reading a different Slashdot than I have.
If you get intimidated by these folks, speak with the ACLU in your area, and see if they are willing to advise you, or help you. The people who harass others get to hide behind the corporate veil, the legal 'personhood' granted them by a state government somewhere. You can't hide, so you need a weapon of mass destruction, like a civil rights attorney (or a shark, depending on whether you want to fight a defensive or offensive war).
If you don't want to face even the remote possibility of a fight, then follow others' advice on this board and post anonymously or, as someone else suggested, talk with friends and don't post.
Dave
Funny thing is, almost every project I worked on that was classified was documented pretty throughly at some point in Aviation Week and Space Technology, or similar publications.
A message from our sponsor
...if you still work at a company and start posting messages about them. It's amazing the things that companies do, especially if they're high-tech.
Recently, the company I work for had a major event take place that caused a lot of people to go posting some really heinous messages on Yahoo, Motley Fool and fuckedcompany.com boards. Some of them were waranted, but the majority weren't. Well, of course, the "company" isn't stupid, so they've been looking at the boards... but, I had no idea just how much they paid attention until I heard my boss mention that HR would likely be keeping track of who said what and keeping it on-file.
And, of course, we've been warned not to post messages about the company in general, as it could cause "insider trading" problems... or, whatever.
There are states with state employement law that say this. They are "at will" states. These laws are in conflict with federal employement law, and federal case law. In other words, these "at will" laws are not entirely enforceable. In other words, you are incorrect. They do need a reason to fire you. Firing you is depriving you of your property - your job. This cannot be done arbitrarily and without reason.
Case in point: A few years ago, a large discount department store chain (who shall remain nameless in a public forum) was investigating an internal theft ring. They hired a private investigations firm to follow suspected members. PI reported that a particular woman, a manager, was involved in an extramarital affair, but not in the internal theft ring. Chain fired her, because they have a reputation of believing in "family values." She sued for wrongful termination. By the time the chain's lawyers explained the law to them, they settled out of court for at least six, and probably seven figures to avoid putting it in front of a jury, who would have awarded more.
What an employee does on their own time, that does not affect their work, is none of their empoloyer's damn business. That's the law of the land, everywhere in the US.
As for "Anyone who does is asking to be sued", yes. You can be sued for picking your nose, and given a certain judge/jury could be found guilty and owe penalties. This guy said bad stuff in public. Some ex-employer can do the EXACT same thing to him by telling his current employer.
He didn't say things with the intention of hurting them. His action didn't hurt them. His place of employement isn't a public place. Telling his employer anything with the intention of interfering with his job is defamation, even if it true.
Defamation is not like libel and slander. The 1st Amendment compels the law to recognize the truth as an absolute defense against libel and slander; it something is true, it cannot be libel or slander. This is not true of defamation. Defamation derives (thought not directly) from the right to privacy implied in the Constitution, and the right to privacy trumps the right to free speech in US case law. That means that if you say something damaging to someone's reputation, you have invaded their privacy. The only defenses against defamation are:
None of these conditions exist here. If you tell a friend that a mutual friend owes you $20 and won't pay, that is newsworthy within the context of the conversation, because your circle of friends have an interest in each other's behavior. Telling the newspaper (assuming they'd print it) is not newsworthy, because strangers have no interest.
Since the statements in question were made on the ex-employee's own time, and did not in any way relate to his current job, it is, by law, none of his current employer's business. The are prohibited, by law, from caring what he does on his own time. Therefore, telling them something with the intention of damaging his employment comes up as defamation in my book. Not only would they be asking to be sued, they would likely lose.
(My opinion is that they're bluffing, or the person who started this isn't getting a complete and accurate picture.)
But, the bottom line is, you're simply wong. California is an "at will" state, and we still have to obey federal labor law, and federal labor law says you do need a reason to fire someone.
Note that IANAL. These are professional opinions from working in a supervisory position - a manager who did hiring and firing. But you need legal advice, consult a qualified employement attorny in your own state.
Study your employement law. It is not legally identical to depriving someone of, say, a car. But it is governed by the same legal principles. What Georgia law says is completely, utterly irrelevant when it conflicts with what federal law says, because federal law says it preempts state law on things federal law covers. And federal law says you cannot be fired without a reason, and that what an employee does on their own time is none of the employer's business.
If they contact you directly at all, and threaten any action that is detrimental to you at all, contact an attorney, and sue them. If they contact your current employee at all, do the same.
This is pretty simple. A person out of work is generally considered a burden on society (unless said person has enough personal resources...) Therefore, most states have laws that say a person can get in big trouble if said person intentionally sabotages another's job. For example, if a prospective employeer calls one's previous employeer for a refference, the most the previous employeer can say is "Yes, Jack worked here, from this date to this date". If they state any opinions such as "Jack was a slackoff, lazy good for nuttin'...", then Jack can sue said former employeer. At least thats the way it is in my state.
If you chose to post in a public forum they (your ex-employer) should have the right to read it. If you post in a public forum devoted to discussion of your ex-employer you should EXPECT them to read it. If you have concerns WRT your current employer finding out what you have to say about your past employer you probably should not have picked a public forum. Accountability. -michael
Tell the auditor to send you a copy of the document which mentions this agreement and also has your signature on the bottom. Company policies do not apply because you are no longer an employee.
Step 2 - If there is any questionable language, spend $100 or so and talk to a lawyer.
Setp 3 - If you are in the clear, post a message on that board and tell the story. I would recommend doing it in a non-inflammatory way to avoid looking like a vindictive ex-employee.
Most companies have non-compete agreements where you agree not to talk to "the competition" about your company's products or services. But as long as you discuss working conditions and personal conflicts (typical reason for leaving) you should be fine.
Also, tell your manager/supervisor what is going on and that they may be contacted by your former employer. That way they are prepared if the call does come.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Are you serious? The company has exactly as much control over you after you leave as they have over me or anyone else in the world; none. It amazes me that grown people who work in large corporations constantly bitch and grumble when they have to sign agreements regarding what they can and can no do when they leave. The best manager I ever had when I was a PFY overheard me griping about signing a non-competition agreement told me that company lawyers know they are meaningless and unenforceable.. they just hope people are stupid and sheepish enough to obey them. Obviously they can attempt litigation if what you are saying is untrue and they can prove damages but outside of that tell them to piss off.
If I were you I would very seriously talk to a lawyer about suing them if they do speak to your current employer.. it has been done many times before.
All entities have a right ot listen to public speech about any topic including themselves. So what. What they do not have a right to do is harrass you about, intimidate you about it or otherwise try to slience you...unless they wish to sue you for making material and libelous statements (a popposed to opinions and statements of fact), disclosing confidential information, or violating a contractual obligation to remain silent. barring that, tell them off.
All people have the right to SEEK employment and be considered for employment without bias, unless you do something that causes that right to be revoked (ie: criminal act).
Having the right to HAVE a job would imply that you could just walk into some government agency and demand your job. Clearly not a capitalist concept.
Woody!
Please mod me up. My grandma might not make it to the weekend and she always wanted me to hit karma cap.
What was the question?
--
Garett
If so, then there may be SEC regulations under which his public discussions could fall.
IANAL, but I do know that "internal" information is quite a tricky subject. One non-public company I know recently informed their employees that they cannot discuss anything regarding the size of the company, the head-count growth/shrinkage, non-PR'ed contracts, etc... right now, specifically due to potential SEC-type filings.
If they go to the trouble of obtaining a court order that orders Yahoo! to release your regestration info, you're gettin' sued.
There's a lesson here...
Blah Jones (blahjones@hotmail.com)
123 Blah St.
Anytown, USA
That's a lot closer to right than a lot of what's been said in this thread, but it's not quite right yet.
To be precise: The first amendent prohibits congress from passing laws that infringe on your freedom of speech. The first amendent isn't intended to grant you any rights; it serves to take rights away from the government.
Companies can legally read email that you get at work, but the government can not
Again, close but not spot on. This is a matter of property rights. Companies can legally read your email at work, not because they aren't the government, but because they own the network and servers so they can do anything they please with them. The government does have the right to read email to and by government employees using government-owned computers, for the same reason.
And that piece of paper your employer makes you sign, saying that you have no expectation of email privacy.... That's not granting your employer the right to read your email. It's just to make sure that you can't claim to be surprised when they do read your mail. They had the right to read it all along.
include $sig;
1;
Did his former employer sign away _their_ rights to talk to whomever they please when the hired this guy? Why can't they voice _their_ opinions as well? Where is the lack of reciprocity here?
Flat5
Actually, according to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23, "Everyone has the right to work...and to protection against unemployment."
This is further developed in Part III of the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Andrew
Ask any HR person. There are very strict guidelines about what a company can say about a former employee without opening themselves up to lawsuit. Basically all they can say is that you did work for them from X date to Y date. They cant even comment on if you were fired or quit.
IF they are dumb enough to contact your current company get a good lawyer. It should be pretty easy to find one since this would be a slamdunk case with tons of precedent for a big judgement.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
I have just recently left my position at I guess what you could call an 'internet firm'. One of the main reasons was the 'CEO/Owner/Savior' of the company was a total ass. He demanded all of our passwords so he could check our emails, and use our computers. There was even rumors that he was about to install a video camera system in the office.
My boss tried to make me sign a contract that would make anything I even thought of while I was working for the company property of the company. Even if I was not at work.
I can fully understand a company worried about people stealing code, spreading false rumors, and even worry about people competing with the company once you leave. But should they be able to use those tools that are meant to 'protect' them against employees who are trying to tell the TRUTH about a company. My boss even went as far as saying "I was not allowed to have any conversations with any employee if the topic of the conversation was negative in nature". But negative to what? If the people in a company are treated like shit, and the employees talk about it, is that forbidden in your contract? I would hope not.
Personally I would rather not have a job, than have to sign a contract that could possibly be used against me where my free speech is concerned.
~~R~~
Who would ever get hired again with the stigma of having sued their former employer?
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Of course, public forums may also be read by a former employer. And of course they can take actions as they like when they read things they don't like. Why shouldn't they?
On the other hand, I can see why this company's stock probably went down, when they spend their shareholders' money on tracking down former employees on public forums and newsgroups...
"We suck!" is a trade secret? If so, then I'm afraid the cat's already out of the bag. Several companies have already made extensive use of the concept.
---------
I take drugs seriously.
Yes, but this privilege (note the spelling)... is also a necessity. (Try telling your parole officer that you are just not privileged enough to hold down a job, so you had to rob a bank). In this case, the former company seems to be more on the edge of harassment and invasion of privacy. Yes, you are right, a man may speak his mind and wag his tongue, but I don't think that he can be fired for it.
Well, not really.
Commercial speech is differently recognised than individual speech. A company is not allowed to give a prosective employer any info about the former employee other then to acknowledge that the employee was indeed employed.
If you currently have an employment contract with your current employer, you could sue the former employer for tortious interference with a contract. Having a job is not a right, but not having former employers fuck with your current job status is a right. Further, truth is a valid defence to a slander charge, so if you told the truth and they sued you, you can counter with a frivolous litigation charge.
I love the law.
Clearly I can't give you legal advice without knowing more and this does not constitute a legal relationship, but I would not roll over if they fuck with you.
That said, I would stop posting things about the old corp and move on with your life. It is a small world and you don't get ahead badmouthing people. Even if it is the truth.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
And this law was passed while George Dubya was Governor, right?
Teen Angel - a Ghost Story
Never did understand what they were trying to do. Don't think they did, either.
A.
I used to be employed by the Taco Bell Corporation. That is a Division of TriCon, which is a Division of PepsiCo. I hate Taco Bell. They Suck. They Suck. They Suck. They Suck.
Uhm, Yeah
It's funny, just reading the first handful of messages. Most every one is filled with knee-jerk indignation. Sue... SUE! How dare they!
Face it, you guys have no idea what this ex-employee did or said. You have no idea what his employers did or said. Did the employee make up vicious lies that will damage the reputation of the employer? Is the employer unfairly targeting an employee for honestly expressing his side of the story? Did the employee sign any non-defamation agreements before leaving the company? Do those have a time limit? What does it mean that "they may speak to me"? Does that mean "sue"? What harm does it to speak to someone? What harm does it to relate facts to his current employer?
Without those facts, recommending action would seem to be naively premature and a reflection of more than a little bias.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Watch your back. You never want to burn bridges with a company, even if it was a lame ass job. They are a future reference for years to come, and perhaps a future customer to you. And if you're stupid enough to openly post it direct to yahoo, then you might as well come clean and post your full name and address there too. Either be 100% anonymous, through maybe a dozen shell accounts (ones that dont log!), or face up to your words for god sake.
===sam=== free nessus vulnerability scan = www.vulnerabilities.org
Hmm. Well, the poster can at least do the same thing that the company is doing. In other words, if the company is going contact his current employer because he's saying libelous or slanderous things publically, he can certainly sue right back for their slanderous statements. And almost anything his old company says will be.
For instance, if the old company says to the new company, "your employee is slandering us" -- then they better have proved the slander in a court of law, or they'll be in a world of hurt. If his old company instead merely says, "look what your employee said" then they better have proved or at least have proof that that employee actually said it. If the company is merely going to lob accusations, they need to understand they're playing a dangerous game that may get them stuck with absurdly large punitive damages.
This is the very same reason that many employers will only confirm someone's job title and dates of employment. Saying anything else, such as "he worked as hard as everyone else" may sound nice, but open the company to a lawsuit if in fact that employee felt that his 80 hour work weeks meant he worked harder than everyone else. Boom. The company is in legal trouble.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
...but have your old company the right to do it? Isn't this diffamation? You said what you had to say on a *public* board, so if your new company would have known it they could have gone to the yahoo board and check it.
...or am I wrong?
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
If your reasons for leaving truly happened and are with merit, your current employer should have no problems with what the jerks say, better yet they may tell them to piss off, get a life, and leave their employees alone. On the other hand if you current employer starts bothering you over this problem, you may have found out that you ended up working in a bad situation again.
"My mother works for Microsoft now. A whole other cult."
omega_rob
Well somebody trashed the idea. They did it intelligently and used again some advanced physics to demonstrate the hole in the idea.
Says the first guy: You Fsked up my IPO, I'm going to sue!!!!
AFAIK, he didn't but it shows you the kind of mentality.
The point is that your former employer is probably upset that they can not gouge any shareholders in the same way. That is the route they would take to compensate themselves. Great isn't it!!!!!!!
See my journal, I write things there
"By the way, this is the way Liberace got back at reporters for implying that he was gay. He actually went to court and swore that he was straight! Since no one could find evidence to the contrary, he won the case. "
Oscar Wilde tried the same thing after someone reported that he was gay. He actually went to court and swore that he was straight. Since they found evidence to the contrary, he ended up in the clink (okay, okay, not because he lost the case, but because homosexuality was something one went to prison for in turn-of-the-century England). Just a thought...
a freind of mine in a MUD I play, Nexus got banished (his account was deleted) when he created a website that made fun of the admin. It was (mostly) harmless, and should have been protected under use of fair parody.
However, it wasn't that way. The company contacted his ISP and had the content deleted. He had backups, so it hardly phased him, with only about a 2 hour downtime.
His problem with it though, was that they deleted the content even after he was no longer under the EULA that said he couldn't do a site like his.
He doesn't want anyone blatantly giving away the URL, but his name was genji, it was works.org
I hope that's not too blantant.
"I have not slept a wink"
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
The thing that strikes me is that in reality people do worry when they get C & D letters or when they hear rumors that some corporation is unhappy with their criticism. Since the vast majority of people don't have easy access to a forum like Slashdot they might be spending a lot more time worrying about it than most of us do. At the very least it might cost them a night's sleep or cost them a consultation fee with a lawyer. The company however, loses pretty much nothing. They pay a retainer or have a lawyer on staff so they might as well use him for something. It seems to make for an unfair advantage and I would imagine that it is actually a fairly effective tatic for most corporations. Only occasionally do they run into someone who is well informed enough to find our what their rights actually are. I ll bet that most people just shut up and hope the problem goes away, who has the time or money to fight some big company with a fleet of lawyers?
What it boils down to is that even thought the company really can't do anything legally, there is nothing to stop them from making it appear that they can. Well worded threats probably silence a lot of critics. The end result is that a freedom gets taken away without a fight, thus the company wins.
Currently, in the US, if a company has a lawyer on the payroll, this is a more or less risk-free strategy for them, but it's risky for the defendant, since it costs you money.
Maybe the Brits have the right idea. In some civil suits (for example, libel), if the judge finds in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff can be ordered to pay the defendant's court costs. This is to deter exactly this kind of tactical lawsuit.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
Shouldn't they enjoy the same rights to speak on the matter to whomever they wish? Where does all this sentiment toward implied prior restraint come from? Why should those who operate the company be bound by different rules? -B...
I worked for Cotelligent and we would receive "threats" from the CEO not to post on Yahoo message boards and that CGZ was going to take legal action against those posters for driving the stock down. I thought it was an attempt at the CEO to pass the blame on others for the crappy stock prices rather than to take responsibility for his own actions. They spent something like $6M to build some WAP technology on a discontinued Nokia phone. After a few months they backed out but the money was gone. Sure, some employees and shareholders bitched about it on Yahoo but we weren't the folks who made the stupid investment to begin with.
'Same speed C but faster'
Just Tell them you will be in contact with your Solicitor if the bother you again..... And Can you tell me how can the Verify it was you??? The Track you down?? THIS IS AGAINST THE LAW Only Law institutions can do this WITH only a Judge Order and BE VALID under a Court of Law. If they try to contact your New Company then you better start Packing your Bags you are going on HOLIDAYS all expences paid by your old Company. Sue them and you will see how fast the Run.... This IS ONLY MY Opinion. The Choice is yours how you will handle this.. Best Regards Just Tell them to go to >>
''Imagination is more important than knowledge'' ---Albert Einstein---
If you are in need of assistance - the number one place to go is to a NELA lawyer. The National Employment Lawyers Association can fix this problem. They used to eat at our Restaraunt every week, and they have helped when needed (I'm not an attorney). Don't let yourself be bullied - and don't post slander either on a public board. Your opinions are yours, but because they are posted on a public stock board, they may legally be considered slander (if they are extremely harsh and they can prove you wrote them), or they may even be considered an SEC violation if they are publicly traded. If, however, you put them somewhere else - then they can go jump in a lake. Just my two cents, but if you need help - go to a NELA lawyer. It is worth it.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
I'm currently a college student workin at good ole wally world. *kills the sarcasm* I remember when I started, I had to sign an agreement not to tell the "secrets" of the store under any circumstances. Well I guess I just broke that agreement. =) I can see where they can stop me from telling their "trade secrets" or something like that. But if I go out and tell the truth about anything that has happened, they have no right to stop me. This is exactly like the situation in the early 1900s with Upton Sinclare. For those of you who don't know, he wrote a book called The Jungle in which he exposed things that really go on behind the scenes in meat-packing plants. His book made a complete revolution and brought about inspections by the USDA. Your goal should be to inform and not to commit slander or libel, which are illegal. If you signed no obligation, I don't see how they can stop you from saying anything. If they do try something, just inform your current employer of the situation. anyway, enough of my ramblings.
--
Tres_Status
stephen
You have the right to post what you want and say what you want about the company. You don't really have insider information anymore so there really isn't anything they can do to you (AFAIK).
/. so we can /. the site and take it down.
/.? ;0
Spam the link to
Who needs DDOS when you have
Until someone gets sued, anyway.
Reality is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced fantasy.
All such restrictions can apply only for a limited time after employment ends -- and he says it's been over a year, so most contractual restrictions would have expired anyway. There is a possibility that the company thinks his comments were untrue and therefore libel or slander -- or that they know the comments were true but think that a libel or slander lawsuit will scare others out of criticizing them even if it loses. The US badly needs a "loser pays" principle for cases like this -- yeah, you can sue because we said X, but first we'll prove in court that X is true (and all court proceedings can be reported without fear of lawsuits), and then we'll charge you for the cost of proving it.
Well that's completely wrong. The value of info you bring with you as industrial espionage is worth far, far more than your pitiful salary to other large corporations. Just the knowledge of the status of an opponent's project can be worth far more than years of a bloated techie's salary.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Not necessarily. NDAs are often signed by all employees of a company as a safety precaution. Non-competes are usually left to developers. This is why I no longer do instrumentation development. My question is...Is saying that something is f**ked generally, without specifics, a violation of disclosure agreements. Of course it depends on the language of the agreement.
From the different NDAs I have signed, I have noticed a trend. You are not allowed (in general) to say anything good OR bad about the company. They also are not allowed to say anything good OR bad about YOU.
However, I believe it does NOT apply to speaking with other people who have signed the NDA. For example, I got my girlfriend her current job. Since I no longer work for the company, she can not, in Theory, tell me even where she works -- BUT I AM THE ONE WHO TOLD HER. And what it came down to is that I am still under the NDA, and thus we can speak to each other as if I was still employeed there. But, I can NOT talk to "outsiders" (people who never signed the NDA) about my opinions.
At least, that is the way I understood what I read.
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
The company has the right and is obliged to it's stock holders to monitor what is said about it in all forums. Their having found your opinion is not suprising. They also are motivated to address any negative impact on thier image that may arise through whatever cause. That they might want to speak with you to discuss your view point is reasonable. On the other hand they have no greater right than anyone else to control your expression. As long as there is no slander or liable involved they cannot take any action. If they speak to your current employer they do so only on collegial terms and not in the effort to silence you then you have no reason to prevent that. If however they slander or liable you to your current employer then you would be able to sue them. I would think that this sort of thing should be well enough covered by normal slander and liable laws and should be addressed by either side through those channels. If you have body odor and I tell people that you stink then that is that. You can't tell me to shut-up. If on the other hand I just go around telling people that you stink and in fact you don't then you should be able to stop me - not by threatening to go around telling people that I stink - but rather by enjoining me through the courts.
There is one fatal flaw in your assessment of freedom of speech. Companies are not individuals, they do nor should not have the rights of an individual. They are powerful enough as is.
Slander only applies if what he was saying was:
(a) Unfactual - Since he was relating his personal experience I doupt that was the case
(b) Deiberately used to hurt the company - This was not the case as he apears to be posting his opinion to counter the opinions of others.
I choose quick and cheap.
What an odd choice of an example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "what goes around, comes around" presumably wouldn't be the main reason why you wouldn't sound off to your law or politics colleagues about your fascinating personal views regarding Katherine Harris's fashion sense.
The reason you wouldn't do that is because you would never want to embarrass yourself by advertising the fact that you judge a woman by how she dresses, and are so superficial as to conclude something about a woman's character from her level of sexual attractiveness. While your hypothetical colleagues would presumably be busying themselves studying the legal or political issues surrounding Ms. Harris and her job performance, becoming well-versed and erudite on the subject and legal precedents and political issues involved, just picture yourself chiming in with a silly comment like "And she dresses like such a scarecrow, huh!" What would your colleagues think about such a comment?
It has nothing to do with whether you'd be "informing" (saying all that you know) on Ms. Harris at all, because such a comment reveals more about you than it does about her. (You don't "know" that Ms. Harris dresses like a scarecrow, you simply think so.) So the reason you (presumably) wouldn't want to make that comment is much different from any reasons for not wanting to become an "informer" (which dilemma arises in cases where one has actual limited information to share, such as "he said he was gonna kill someone", which may or may not be out of context or incomplete. Your statement, "I think she dresses like a scarecrow", doesn't even qualify...).
In short, the reason you would never say such a thing around your legal or political office is because you wouldn't want to advertise the fact that you are an unprofessional superficial boob.
Right?
IANAL, but as far as I know, if you didn't sign anything forbidding you to discuss the company in public, and your statements were entirely truthful, I'm not sure what grounds they have to threaten you with any legal action. If the stuff you said was factual and accurate (i.e. you didn't lie and say your former manager had intercourse with farm animals or something... ;) ), they can't get you for defamation, and if you didn't reveal any "inside" information or anything that might be considered a company trade secret, they can't get you for...well...whatever you call revealing inside information and trade secrets... ;)
;)
However...you might want to get a lawyer anyway, and make sure you have a record of exactly what you said. Also, be careful...I believe that, in some cases, things like accounting systems or other business methods may sometimes be considered "trade secrets"...so if you talked about some management system or something that was unique to your company, they *may* have some sort of legal ground to come after you. I don't know how well such a thing would hold up in court, but it may be enough to force you to defend a lawsuit.
In any case, good luck, and don't let them intimidate you!
DennyK
If you have to spell out an acronym, don't use it!
Someone my last comment came out Anonymous, but that wasn't my intention. Sorry.
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
If you signed a no disclosure agreement with the company the could turn around and say your offering priveledged information on a public place which could jeapordize their business.
Surely this is not likely the case, but companies are really leery about having anything negative said about them and will likely attempt to make it seem as if your somehow slandering them. This can be presented in court in a number of ways and most of the times a person does not have the resources as the company does to fight their case and voice their opinions.
Simplicity, use about 3 different proxies, a totally wacked out name, and have them waste resources proving their case. I've been bullied by some companies for the spoofs I pull on my site, and to be honest if someone asked me nicely to remove them I would. But when someone wants to be bullyish about it, I sit it out knowing it'll cost them more to be a pr#ck than to just be humane about the situation.
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
on what you said and what kind of contract you signed before you left. Often companies will have an employee sign an extrememly inclusive non-disclosure contract at the beginning of employment. Also depends on if what you said could be found slanderous. Honestly, if the company is not doing so well, then they're probably not going to have the legal resources to sue one ex-employee. As a piece of advice, never admit guilt.
As was mentioned in the summary at the top:
Umm...Yahoo!'s message boards are public, and
the guy no longer works for them (and had no contractual obligations to stay silent when he left), so what precedent gives his
ex-company the right to audit his opinions?
What precedent prevents his ex-company from auditing his opinions?
By 'audit' I mean: why shouldn't they be able to watch what he says??
The sysadmin is really just an IT janitor. Computer hard drives may contain information that the sysadmin should not poke around in, but so do the wastebaskets and file cabinets that the 'meatspace' janitors maintain, and they don't sign NDAs. So it makes sense that sysadmins shouldn't necessarily be under an NDA, like software developers generally are.
Although not a lawyer, as I recall for a SLANDER lawsuit to have a shot in court there has to be obvious indications that the person telling the story or making the comments made them with the intent of harming or hurting the other.
Post on a yahoo message board hardly fit that description. Now if he was holding meetings with investors or current employees with the mindset of "I may not go Postal with a gun, but dammit they will pay" sure he would have something to worry about.
Razzious Domini
Razzious Domini
I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
I had a similar experience almost a year ago. Basically, I resigned from the company I was at due to cashflow problems - ie, they couldn't pay my wages for four months - I didn't think that this was an unreasonable reason to leave. I went to a job agency in one of the cities nearby, and as it turns out, he was a friend of the MD of my previous company - I'd told the agency exactly why I'd left, and as it turned out he was on the phone as soon as I walked out the office to let them know what I said! A friend who was still working at this company at the time (he was a trainee on low wages who they could afford to pay) called to let me know that the MD had been in touch with his solicitors to begin legal proceedings against me due to my 'opinion' of my ex-employers. So, how did it turn out? The legal case was dropped by the solicitors because this guy could not afford to pay their last bill (around $40!). Sometimes you just come up against power-crazy people who think that they are a lot more important than they actually are - they had even initially tried to sue me because my new choice of job was supposedly in breach of my contract with them - believe it or not they based this on the grounds that I was still dealing with IT and they thought this was unfair! Suffice to say that I've now got an excellent job with an excellent company, who have totally ignored all the so-called 'true' information that my ex-employer passed on to them - their reason - my old company was a tin pot organisation who did not know their arse from their elbow! These things usually turn out okay in the end!
A fired, terminated, or recently quit employee is hardly in a financial position to pay lots of attorney fees and take even more time away from finding a new job. Win or lose, the lawsuit itself is a form of punishment. And legal fees and time lost from your life are not always recoverable. Big loss to you. Part of the normal legal budget of your company.
having sold a company last fall, part of my leaving was a non-compete agreement so i wouldn't run out and start another firm and steal customers. as it happened, things got ugly when the new owner(s) a defamation campaign as cheap insurance that i wouldn't try and steal customers. i spoke out in my own defense and got a love letter from their attorney quoting all sorts of legal BS and reminding me to shut up. the only evidence against them was hearsay... not necessarily admissible in court. legal? yes. fair? no way. did they win? yes. it just wasn't worth suing over. i guess the moral of the story is to choose your battles carefully and if you don't have deep pockets for frivolous suits, just move on quietly. welcome to America.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I found a little article about Texas law in this area. It's only about 8 months old, so it should reflect the current state of texas law.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If you didn't disclose any inside information or sign something that says you won't talk about them. This is assuming that you are in the US, in other countries the law may be different.
I think you need to get real legal advice. Spend the money and get real council. It probably will save you a bundle in the long run.
And if they send you a threating letter, the first thing out of your mouth should be "Please speak to my lawyer".
Good Luck
Erlang Developer and podcaster
That's why the *BSD'ers re-implemented a whole load, to avoid nasssssty lawsuits with Sauron^H^H^H^H^H^H AT&T.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ah, the American way! Free speech. If you can afford the lawyers.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
If you post false information to a stocks discussion board for the purpose of trying to move the price of that stock, and then you trade that stock or have your friends do it, you can go to jail.
If you post true information to a stocks discussion board and you are an insider, it also could be a crime (if the intent is to do it to make money on a stock deal), and it's perfectly appropriate for a CEO to check this out before the feds start pounding down the doors, if shady dealings to make a buck on the stock market are suspected.
--
Let me get this straight; you're wondering what gives his previous employer the right to read a public web forum, and express an opinion about something they read in it?
Uhm, the First Amendment?
-
In this fluid job market and company formation,
there have been a lot of times former co-workers
have become co-workers again in a different company.
Else they become vendors and customers.
Even if you move to other states and countries.
So don't say too many negative things that may haunt you in the future. I know from experience.
Companies are made up of individuals. They can publicize the fact that an individual was slanding (IF HE WAS SLANDERING) his former employer. If he wasn't slandering, then they can still TELL THE TRUTH about what he was saying. e.g. "He publicly criticized the way management handled a release."
This statement is neither slanderous, nor infinging on anyone's rights. It is simply holding him accountable for his actions. There is NOTHING wrong with holding someone accountable for their actions. In fact, it doesn't happen enough if you ask me...
If they're publicizing his actions, then there's nothing wrong with it. If his current employer feels that he needs to be held accountable for his actions, then they can fire him. There's just no argument there.
If you trash your employer, especially in public, they can fire you. They can ALSO tell your current employer. There's no laws against holding someone accountable for what they have done in the past.
I'm speaking in the legal sense. If you believe this should be a moral right bounded by law, then move to France or some other socialist country.
Do you understand the definition of defamation?
Defame: To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel.
Slander, as in tell his employer falsities. THAT is defemation. If he posted negative material on a website about his former employer, then they can tell whomever they want about it. If his current employer finds that he is untrustworthy as a result, they can fire him.
He could sue. He would lose, because he DID post the comments.
He can say whatever he wants to. However, people can hold him accountable for his words because they're HIS words. Free speech protects you from going to prison or being exiled, not from keeping your job.
Only for actions that affect his job. Nothing else. What an employee does on his own time, that does not affect his current job is none of his employer's business.
This is true in principal, but since an employer does not need a reason to fire you, they can therefore fire you. For example, a school teacher has a porn website and gets fired. Why? Because its "indecent". Can she sue? Hell yes, however she'll lose because they don't NEED a reason to fire you. They are not firing her because she's female, or a certain color or because she's in a wheel chair, they're firing her for her actions.
As for "Anyone who does is asking to be sued", yes. You can be sued for picking your nose, and given a certain judge/jury could be found guilty and owe penalties. This guy said bad stuff in public. Some ex-employer can do the EXACT same thing to him by telling his current employer. Its that simple. Lawsuits will fly but there's nothing legally restricting them.
I think this depends on the state you live in. Most states they do not. But cause for termination could simply be "Budget does not allow".
On the contrary, it sounds like this company is out to criticize someone who is defaming them. They have every right to trash someone just like the individual does.
es, you are right, a man may speak his mind and wag his tongue, but I don't think that he can be fired for it.
Wrong. You can get fired for laying a smelly fart. A company doesn't NEED a reason to fire you; they only provide a reason as to prevent them from being sued. Just because its your necessity have a job does not mean that the employer is therefore obligated to employ you. If you're a jerk and trash your company publicly then they _should_ fire you.
In my company, I criticize my superiors on a daily basis, but I do it in good faith. I tell them where I think they're going wrong, which is a healthy relationship. If you cannot have that type of relationship with an employer, then you bite your tongue, quit your job, or say something publicly and get fired. Its that simple.
Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
_FALSE STATEMENTS_ is the key term here. They can tell his current employer exactly what he's doing. I NEVER said anything about them slandering him.
Thats precisely why I said "(if he did)".
Basically you agree.
There is probably a case of someone saying something about a company after they left. I know that the company that I used to work for many people left and were laid off or fired, and many went to the press and told why they left.
You must be careful what you say about a company after you leave. Make sure you do not slander them.
I think it says something about the company though when they monitor people after they leave a company. The question is is it a public mailing list or private? Yahoo groups can be public (anyone can see the data) or private (you must be on the list). My suggestion would be to make it a private mailing list or to talk to the list moderator.
Something to think about. If what you say on that list got out to the tech community and we find out the company name, and this causes them to have a tough time finding people to work for them, and thir business suffers. Then they can probably take action against you.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
IANAL, but it soundslike you should contact one _now_. Just threatening you like they did (and make no bones about it, that _was_ a threat) may be actionable. If they so much as breathe to your current employer, they're blown.
I've read several comments where the esential point is "they can't do that". Unfortunately they can. Here's my story:
In February 2000 I went to work for Breakaway Solutions in Orlando, FL. (www.breakaway.com, BWAY). I left 87 days later in May, 2000. I got a good starting salary and stock options. I was told that the Orlando office was on track to become a solutions center, which is very high up in the pecking order. Along with that I was told my travel would be about 10%/15%, and that I had a pretty solid shot at becoming a team lead. All well and good. As I started to work on Breakway I worked on several side projects in defense, waiting for commercial work to start (I had done quite a bit of commercial development). Along the way I discovered that travel was 50% or higher, that Orlando would not become a solutions center because there was one in Boca (via the purchase of Eggrock Partners by Breakaway), and all those lovely options were rapidly turning into scrap paper. Other negative issues began to surface, and I eventually left Breakaway and went back to the company I worked at before Breakaway.
I was angry at how it had all turned out. On the Yahoo stock message board someone who identified themselves as another former employee made a comment about the company. In support of that comment I related my own experiences. I got a phone call and a letter from Breakaway legal telling me I was in violation of Breakaway's NDA clause of my seperation papers. I have since watched in sadistic satisfaction as Breakaway's stock tanked and they've gone through two rounds of layoffs (see www.fuckedcompany.com for more interesting details).
There is nothing more chilling when the legal cannons are shooting at you. At the very least I don't have the financial reserves to defend against, let along challenge this interpretation of their NDA clause. It's a hard choice sometimes when the choice is between being right and broke or knuckling under and staying solvent.
If he had committed slander or libel, that's a completely different topic. If, however, the company is simply attempting to shut him up for no good reason, then they should be stopped. In either case, the company in question has NO right to call his current employer and harass him in that manner. If they feel wronged, they should prefer charges, or shut the hell up.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
A company has to show just cause for termination, however (unless you signed that away and are an "employee at will"). It is very hard for a company to fire somebody if they are actually doing their job well but the company doesn't like something else about them. -m
> What I've found out now, is that the auditing department of that company has since been keeping track of those message boards, and has identified me. I've been told that they may speak to me,
In order to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings, make sure they know your hourly rates up front.
> and may also talk to the company I currently work for.
That's what God invented lawsuits for.
Ream 'em for what it's worth, plus a bit more for their better education.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Now if his former employer starts running to his current employer to tell them all of the nasty things he's done, that might be harassment.
To answer anonBGR's questions, 1) the only recourse that they have to your statements is to refute your allegations, 2) assuming that you didn't break any laws in your statements, you shouldn't be concerned, and 3) of course you're entitled to have an opinion about a former employer.
I'm a bit uncomfortable when kevlar says that having a job isn't a right. Sure, having a particular job may be a privilage, but can I deny a job to minority because they don't have the right to a job?
IANAL, but I don't think they can touch you, aside from a threatening letter or two. If you didn't sign anything limiting your speech regarding that company when you left, then they really can't do anything about what you say. As long as what you say is true, you can't be sued for libel or slander. And if you don't have any stock or options, they can't hit you with insider trading or anything. My advice is to tell their lawyers to screw off.
Then why is it that when I'm out with a woman and I talk about what great lovers my ex-girlfriends are, I never get anywhere? Birds of a feather, my ass.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
If you post your opinion publicly, you are doing so specifically so it is read. It seems that all the old employer is doing is spreading what you said -- and that you said it.
If I were the new employer, I'd probably be quite unhappy with Mr. Employee. Why? Because loose lips sink ships. You, as the employee, have every right to badmouth former companies, but if you do, new companies are going to be less likely to hire you. All the old company is doing is informing other places of business of your propensity to badmouth, even if said gripes are legitimate.
The old company has incentive to do so -- they'd rather not have their dirty laundry aired. But they are not stopping you for saying anything; rather, they are going to make it know that you tend to blab. Just as you have the right to speak, so do they. But you do not have the right to a job, and one's tendency to speak ill of (former) employers is certainly something worth knowing, from a hiring point of view.
It'll sound much better coming from you and your current employer may actually see this as an extremely positive thing. I don't know what your current employer is like, but I would think that most sane employers would appreciate this gesture. It will also GREATLY reduce the impact of them hearing it from an external source.
Management is usually looking for employees who keep them informed of possible problems, and this gesture would only show maturity.
Best of luck.
Damien Byrne.
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
- Monty Python meets the Matrix
Amazon.com had a scheme where they provided employees with greater compensation to do this but backed off on it.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Most of country is a little less anti-business then California. Besides, California's laws would probably fail on Federal Appeal, as a restriction of Free Speech. The company has as much free speech as the individual.
Federal law doesn't cover this stuff, only prohibits certain kinds of discrimination. Most states allow corporations reasonable leeway.
If you can sue an employer over harrassing you over fair (but unflattering) comments, could you do the same thing over them trying to get your web site pulled? In this case, I'm especially thinking of the overly broad "Cease and Desist" threats that sometimes result in "preventive site amputation".
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Why not? What means is there to legally prevent company A from talking to company B about employee Z, product Q, or the weather?
As long as the companies don't slander or libel the employee, they can say whatever they want, to whoever they want. You can disagree, but that's the way the law is. Unless the companies involved are explicitly violating his rights, they're not restricted at all.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
From what I see, Anonymous posted something about a previous employer. Previous employer tracks what previous employers say about them (which I see nothing wrong about). Then, "I've been told that they may speak to me, and may also talk to the company I currently work for". Being cynical, I ask "By who?". We don't know that the company told him this, and even if they did, so what? If he is worried about his new company finding out what you said, posting it on a public board was pretty silly.
Everyone likes to jump to conclusions and imagine that big bad company is trying to blackball him out of the industry, but I see nothing to support this. As far as we know, the company has found out that they can just use paranoid employees and ex-employees to do something they know they could never do themselves.
So, as usual, we have several people trying to beat the world record for the long jump (to conclusions)
Or, I might be on crack.
MrTaz
Just ignore them, if they talk to your present employer, you can sue them, although IHAFL (I hate all freaking lawyers) their legal department will be aware of that, so they should say nothing. Probably just trying to shut you up.
If they talk to you... what are they going to do? Tell you you are a bad person? BFD (Big Freaking Deal) If all you said was the reasons you left there is not much they can do about it.
Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
The EFF is currently fighting a case just like this. In this case Yahoo is being compeled to disclose the identity of anonymous posters to message boards.
2 07 _eff_pressrel.html
This is a big consitution question since the framers were very big on being able to anonymously write about the crown. In fact is was British law that forbid writing anonymously.
However, in the legal system, if you're not named, you're a Doe (as in John Doe), and as a Doe you don't have much in the light of legal representation. So, Yahoo gets slapped with this thing and the EFF is involved.
Basically, at issue is this. Every message on the Yahoo boards has a disclaimer that the the message should not be taken as fact. Even with that, a company *should* have to prove they incurred damages and that the statements were lies before a Judge would compel Yahoo to disclose the source (Although with Doe cases this usually doesn't happen.)
Check out the EFF press release:
http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/RMC_v_Does/20010
I get threats all the time, because I run Downside, which reports on failing dot-coms. Companies huff and puff, but don't actually do much.
I'm taking a business law class right now (my main course of study is computational chemistry, as a side note). IIRC, most contracts (yes, including NDAs and noncompetes) cease to take effect when you leave the job. Now, if you sign an NDA or non-compete as part of a severance package it's a different story, as that contract is being made with the explicit understanding that the time period under consideration is post-employment. Time-of-hire contracts are on much shakier ground. (Basically, putting restrictions on your freedoms as an individual after you cease to receive compensation from the corporation is giving them something for nothing, and this is frowned upon in the judicial system.)
The "Rights of Man" do not apply to corporations, and corporations do not enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights in America than an individual would (e.g. corporations are not protected by the 5th amendment). Further, corporations have a much more limited access to the 1st amendment free speech guarantees than individuals do. Corporations only win cases as frequently as the do becuase they can afford better and more lawyers, dramatically underscoring that what is legal and what is just are widely divergent in many cases.
Leaving aside your puerile assertation that undergraduates are somehow less clued than the work force, the freedom of speech is for all intents and purposes and absolute in America. There are certain very specific instances where this can be restricted, generally only when your excercise of that freedom presents a clear and present danger of harming the rights of another person. Eg. yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is none impinges on the right of theater-goers to not be trampled in a mad stampede for the exit. Note that this DOES NOT in of itself imply that freedom of speech is taken away if if might cause a loss of money to the corporation, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to make money.
In short I suggest that you actually read the law at least somewhat before trying to base arguments on it.
--
Fuck Censorship.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Never send anything in writing/email that you don't want the world to see.
Yahoo!'s message boards are public, and the guy no longer works for them (and had no contractual obligations to stay silent when he left), so what precedent gives his ex-company the right to audit his opinions?
You answered your own question. "Yahoo's message boards are public." They have every right to read them and use the information in them. And if you go saying bad (true) things about them on public message boards, they have every right both legally and morally to say bad (true) things about you to your current employer.
As long as what you say is completely true, and not protected (trade secret would be the biggest worry), you shouldn't have any legal worries. It's usually a good idea to let bygones be bygones though, unless you yourself have nothing at all to hide.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
actually, you can't be sued for slander (or libel) if it is clear that either your comments are your opinion only or if you can prove your comments are true facts.
on the other hand, if a former employer goes around making accusations to your current employer or prospective employer that causes you to lose a job or fail to get a job, then the former employer may be liable for damages. however, the threshold of prooof is high since you have to convince your current or prospective empolyer to testify and that your former employer behaved with malice.
readers may want to go to www.sorehands.com for a case study on someone dissing a former employer.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
Even in the US, this varies from state to state. And even in states (such as Kansas) that require a "reason," the law may still be somewhat toothless (you can sue here, but IIRC all you're entitled to is unemployment insurance benefits, which the company probably didn't contest anyway).
(Speaking of dissing former employers, I once worked for a company whose handbook stated that you could be fired for sleeping on the job, fighting, or doing something illegal. A lawyer I showed it to got a kick out of that particular line, because, as he pointed out, by stating that, the employer had limited himself to those reasons... and had also limited himself to firing you. So he couldn't fire you for not doing your job, as long as you didn't fall asleep. And you could embezzle all the company funds, and he couldn't take you to court (civil, anyhow) to get his money back. Duh.)
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
Still sounds dangerous. Even if you are legally right, and you know it, and you don't need to pay for a lawyer, since you are one, you can still lose if you get a corrupt or misguided judge. (remember the DeCSS fiasco?)
The court systems never cared about what is moral, but lately, they don't even care about what is legal... (e.g. the complete discounting of fair use in the DeCSS trial in spite of the law)
I know my examples are of something different than what is being discussed here, but the principle still applies. You can be legally right and LOSE even if you do fight it.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I think it is in the US, but not in the UK. I may be wrong. And I don't know what it is like in other countries.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Free speech. If you can afford the lawyers.
Well, given things like the conviction of Michael Diana for drawing a comic book, free speech doesn't exist in the U.S. On the other hand, if you're a famous football player and want to stab some people to death, it appears that you're good to go. Just don't expect to do a Hertz or Disney commercial afterwards.
Will you tell us the name of the company so that we can avoid it or avoid doing business with it?
Legal rights are much different from ethical considerations - a company that doesn't require such agreements is trying to do the right thing by its employees, current and former. They generally don't plan to pro-actively slag off former employees (although they may give a bad reference if asked the direct question), and it's not ethically right for disgruntled employees to slag off the company they worked for previously just because the company wasn't a big enough bully to get a "don't talk" agreement.
Where legal considerations do enter into this is with listed companies. There are scary laws around this, and if the SEC decides you are either disclosing inside information improperly, or you are trying to manipulate the stock price to your own ends (even if that end is self satisfaction) using inside information or by telling fibs, there is this possibility of both civil and criminal charges.
...As long as the reasons that you cited for leaving are factual and provable, and not simply an expression of opinion. The only exception for this is that the factual information not be any legally protected trade secrets of comany. If your boss, for example, was asking you to come to work on your days off to do some extra work and not giving you any compensation for that, you _could_ say that. What you could not say is that your boss wouldn't pay you what you deserved, or worse, that your boss was a cheapskate. The former is a provable fact (that can be supported by the testimony of witnesses and the amounts on pay stubs), the latter is opinion. The worst that can happen when you state a truth that they don't want anyone to know about is that they threaten litigation. The important thing to realize is that this can be nothing more than a threat. Any attempt to actually follow through with their threat would be stopped cold in a court of law.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I'm not sure how unionization comes into play here, but I'll set that aside.
Government regulation is not necessarily the right answer to privacy protection. I think education, fighting apathy, and consumer action are higher on the list. In that order. The general public (of which the /. audience is NOT representative) doesn't fully understand privacy, or even really care all that much about a lot of the issues. In order to fight apathy, you have to educate the general public about privacy issues and why they SHOULD care about them. Only then will you have consumer/voter action to reverse some of the (scary) trends that we are seeing with respect to loss of privacy.
By consumer action I mean not doing business with companies that have shady privacy practices. I don't mean a boycot -- that's too organized for what I'm talking about. I just mean that if people understand and care about privacy they won't do business with companies that don't take this into account; those companies wouldn't be providing the service that their (now ex-) customers require.
Voter action is somewhat less powerful, because there are so many issues that voters have to account for when casting their ballots. Being vocal about privacy to their representatives would be a tremendous boost. But I still think that "voting with your dollars" is a more powerful statement.
On a VERY small scale: For my part, I prefer to not do business with companies whose privacy activities (from what I can glean anyway) do not mesh with what I want. I don't shop at Best Buy in part because they insist on asking for personal information at the checkout -- which I refuse to give. I only shop at EMS if they're having a big sale and then refuse to give my phone number at the checkout. I ensure (as best I can) that my ISP is not going to monitor my online activities -- and even then I don't trust it.
Anyway, sorry for the long rant, but I wanted to point out that government is not the best way to ensure privacy. But then again, I don't trust the government to do anything right...
-bluebomber
The Daily Build
rr
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Just look at ROP
or this little message on Yahoo
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
This is true, to an extent. So long as they tell the truth.
If his current employer feels that he needs to be held accountable for his actions, then they can fire him.
Only for actions that affect his job. Nothing else. What an employee does on his own time, that does not affect his current job is none of his employer's business.
There's just no argument there.
Untrue.
If you trash your employer, especially in public, they can fire you.
If you trash your current employer, they can fire you because it affects your current job. What you say about your former employer, on your own time, is none of their business.
They can ALSO tell your current employer.
Probably not, unless it affects his job now, and even then it's questionable unless it's reporting an illegal act. At best, it could be considered harassment. If it is done with the intent of having a negative effect on his employment, it moves towards defamation, and the fact that it's true is not a defense against defamation.
There's no laws against holding someone accountable for what they have done in the past.
There are laws against harassing people who have done nothing illegal, and there are laws against interfering with someone's employement. A job is a posession in the eyes of the law, just like a car or a computer. To say that someone can interfere with your job for no good reason is legally the equivalent of saying they can interfere with your computer for no good reason. The law says that's not allowed.
I am not a lawyer, but I have worked in management positions, with direct supervisory responsibilities, most of my adult life. What you are saying is simply wrong, at the federal level, and in nearly every state. It is not legal to talk trash about someone to their employer becase they legally excercised their right of free speech. Anyone who does that is asking to be sued.
This is not true. A job, legally, is your property. It's also the company's property, in some ways, but you are entitles to due process before it can be taken away from you. Even in "at will" states, such as California.
And I would be very careful about contacting someone's employer with the intent of damaging their job. The truth is an absolute defense against slander, but it is not against defamation. And employees have special protections against being harassed at work, especially where constitutional guarantees are concerned. Consult a qualified employement attorney before assuming you have no rights.
Uhm...geepers. Have you read the first amendment? Has anyone here?
Last I recall it didn't say that a company couldn't talk to other companies about its former employees because of things they've said. In fact, if we were to prevent one company to talking to another about an employee, wouldn't we be violating the company's freedom of speech?
(Long ago the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as humans. Not that I don't think that's a bit suspect, but they did.)
-- dR.fuZZo
Let's look at this from a different point of view...
Dude is totally within his rights to post his opinion about his old company. Let's not get into whether these opinions are well founded or not, because there is no such thing as a "truthful" opinion.
Old company is totally within their rights to audit his postings.
Old company is totally with their rights to communicate the fact that dude posted negative opinions about his old company to dude's current employer. Something along the lines of: "Our former employer posted opinions about us at this URL..." They are simply communicating a fact, and there's nothing wrong with that, right?
Dude's current employer might not really appreciate the fact that they have an employee with a track record of voicing public negative opinions about a former employer. As an employer, I would have the same concerns. I mean, all employers at least believe that they do the right thing, right?
His current employer, depending on the state laws, probably has the right to terminate his employment for any reason, at any time.
So, without talking about ethics, and morals, there is no LEGAL reason why his old employer couldn't indirectly cause him to lose his job. Right?
I think that this comes under the classification of not burning bridges.
Serious jail time is in order(up to 15 years).. Next time, ask them to repeat the statement for your tape recorder.
---- From Florida statutes ----- Your state may a have a similar law.
836.05 Threats; extortion.--Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
---------
- I've been told that they may speak to me,
- and may also talk to the company I currently work for.
(1) is not bad, they want to talk.Maybe to know more about what you reproach them with.
but...
(2) *sounds* bad.
because:
But if you gave enough details about this company to let some private information concerning them filter out to the public, it is obvious you might have problems, so, ensure you remained politically correct or you might be sued for diffamation.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
If they go after you legally, the ACLU may take up the case, but I doubt they will. What kind of compensation could they expect? Was it slander? Otherwise, you could prove in a court of law what kind of stupid things they were doing, which wouldn't be that great for the stock price.
At the same time, they could play dirty pool and call your current employer. If your current employer is close-minded, you may have to sign some sort of gag agreement, or you may get fired.
These days, when you change jobs regularly, and they often take the contact information for your last two or three jobs, it makes good sense to stay on good terms with former employers. It's a little more professional, and a bit more courteous. You are hurting your former employee enough just by not working for them anymore.
Besides, what kind of person gets stock tips from ex-employees? A little inside information may be good, but I'd have to expect a lot of bias. It almost as bad as getting legal advice from a bunch of geeks.
However, if you posted a view of the company which they perceived to be malicious, inaccurate and defaming the company, then they could certainly unleash their lawyers onto you and sue you for libel. I'm sure that your ex-company has deeper pockets than you and I'm equally sure that they could afford lawyers who could win a libel lawsuit against you. This may seem unfair, but that's the way the legal system works.
Contacting your new employer about this seems rather petty of them. Of course, if they did this you could always counter-sue them for slander/libel. The legal system is fair after all! :)
Your best course of action is to deny that you posted the comments. There's no way that they can prove otherwise.
I hope you learn an important lesson from this incident - bitching about your previous employer is unproductive, immature and is bound to lead to trouble. You must think of the consequences before you post anything - if you aren't prepared to live with the consequences, then don't post it at all.
--
--
Donald "Don Juan" Kerr
After I left, I made a few calls back to former co-workers. Through the switchboard, doh! And received a message from my former boss, who, as it turned out, was under the impression I was trying to poach. (Actually, I was moving out of state, and two co-workers had expressed an interest in my house). But not trying to lure co-workers was part of the non-compete contract. He did have a legitimate right to be concerned.
Comments, OTOH, as long as they don't violate the non-disclosure, are perfectly legit. The simple act of them calling your current employer _might_ be considered grounds for harrassment ... I cannot think of a good (i.e. legal) defense they could raise. Talk to the people in your company they spoke with, and find out what was said. Depending on that, you may want to see a lawyer.
How to improve the bottom line? Fire everyone in the "Espionnage Department." Your shareholders will thank you for it.
"Before all you liberals start loudly complaining (yet again) about the inadequacies of the marketplace..."
If no one complains, nothing gets fixed. And even then, things only rarely get fixed.
"...if you don't like what this company is doing you can a) not work for them, and/or b) not buy their goods or services..."
Ok, brighteyes, you tell me: HOW? What company is it, huh? Do you know? Do *I* know? No. We don't, and do you know why? Because the company is trying its best to gag anyone who speaks up about how much they suck. How does one boycott a company when one NEVER KNOWS THERE IS A PROBLEM? It is because of conscientious and brave people like this guy, speaking up, that problems are brought to the public's attention.
Of course, it doesn't matter to you, and I'm not going to waste time flaming you because you're clearly expecting and desiring it. You're doubtless too busy right now despising me to listen to me. Whatever. But when your wonderful new president and his corporate friends decide a telescreen needs to be installed in your house to monitor you, you might finally start complaining about your "bottom line".
The "bottom line" is freedom.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
" the threshold of prooof is high since you have to convince your current or prospective empolyer to testify and that your former employer behaved with malice."
If this were a case where they gave him a bad reference and he failed to get a job, I'd agree with you. It would be extremely hard to prove.
BUT, with a documented threat (which is what they've done), as evidence of intent, if they were to contact his present employer, and THEN he were to lose his job, it would be very easy to prove.
By contacting him and saying what they've said, the asshole company is plainly stating that they intend to punish him for expressing his opinon about them by getting him fired.
Especially as he'd be able to subpoena the relevant whitnesses from both his former and present employer. For what reason would his present employers commit perjury in a court and risk imprisonment/bad pub/both, just to protect another company they have no interest in?
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"FALSE STATEMENTS_ is the key term here. They can tell his current employer exactly what he's doing. I NEVER said anything about them slandering him."
Which is correct. They CAN state the FACTS to his present employers. But they better make sure they ARE facts. If they allege ANY wrongdoing at all by the former employee, it is THEY who are comitting slander.
Which is why the legal recourse is supposed to be a lawsuit. It isn't slander until they PROVE it in a court. Until then, it would be slanderous for the former employer to allege slander.
BTW, nowhere in the story is there anything about the ex-employer saying that anything he said was UNTRUE (slander), only that they seem to be under the impresion that he's not allowed to say ANYTHING about them.
Which is a legal right they do not have.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
In the end, the world is not perfect people, and though many of you seem to have a sweet undergraduate notion of freedom of speech being absolute, in the real world it is often not practical. And there is no world more real than the world of industry
Why is idealism always seen as "undergraduate" or immature? What a disgusting notion that the world of business is the only truth, and that anyone who has beliefs that don't follow a "market uber alles" mentality must be a naive child. This is the kind of lie that saps our value as individuals, and turns us into "resources" instead of living, breathing creatures. I refuse to lower my standards for myself and others simply because most people can't see a purpose in life other than to make a buck and continue the line, both at *all* costs, above all else. This makes us little more than animals, and throws out all that makes our lives important and worth living.
The Free desktop that Just Works
For some info on SLAPPs go here or Here or even here.
This is a handbook on SLAPP from firstamendemt.org, so take that for what you will.
And for the DIY out there, this is the google search for slapp.
Brant
Brant
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
wouldn't it be sweet if your new company (if contacted by the old company)stood behind you, and told your old company: "Maybe if you didn't suck, people wouldn't say bad stuff about you."
for either the employee or his employer. If he didn't sign a legal agreement stating he wouldn't discuss the company after his termination, he has the legal right to talk about the company as long as he doesn't slander them. Likewise, his former company has a right to talk to his current employer, as long as they don't slander him. In either case, if the comments cause measurable harm to someone (his comments hurt his former employer's stock price, or his former employer causes him to lose his current job) AND it can be proven that what was said was untrue, either party could be in legal trouble.
IAAL, and if you use confidential information gained during the course of your employment, you are probably in trouble.
Simply describing incompetence or whatever is perfectly reasonable.
The only thing you could get in shit for is, for example, revealing confidential information (such as trade secrets), or dealing with their customers if the contract of employment reasonably (this is key in contracts in restraint of trade, which are enforced leniently by the courts).
Make sure:
(a) what you say is true
(b) what you say is not a trade secret
and you'll be fine.
But what you say is not true.
They do not have those rights. They can put that in the contract, but because it is considered a bad thing by the courts to restrain people's freedom of employment, they will not necessarily be enforced.
For example, forbidding you from working in the same employment would be unreasonable, whereas forbidding you from dealing with the company's customers for a specified period (not forever - that would be unenforceable) after the end of your employment would not be allowed.
When I sign contracts I take this into account - I ignore, and anticipate breaking, all of those that are legally unreasonable.
If I were a free software author living in Texas, I most probably would not be able to take a job in the computer industry, because Texas law, the way the Texas courts intepret it, gives employees the rights even to Open Source software that you write in your spare time on your own equipment.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
By the way, this is the way Liberace got back at reporters for implying that he was gay. He actually went to court and swore that he was straight! Since no one could find evidence to the contrary, he won the case.
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Umm...Yahoo!'s message boards are public, and the guy no longer works for them (and had no contractual obligations to stay silent when he left), so what precedent gives his ex-company the right to audit his opinions?
How about Freedom of speech. They can tell his current company that he slandered his former employer (if he did). They can tell the story EXACTLY how it is. Free speech does not cover your ass from getting fired from your current job because you can't hold your tongue! Having a job is a _privilage_, not a right. They have the right to say whatever they want and so do you.
Assuming you were reasonably accurate and didn't violate any (reasonable) NDAs, what are they going to tell your current employer? That's a legal minefield - any contact at this point runs the risk of you making a claim for slander or defamation.
It doesn't even matter what they say - the mere fact that they contacted your current employer because you've kept in touch with former coworkers will cast a shadow over every "negative," or even "non-positive," decision for the next few years. Didn't get a promotion, maybe the company said something to your boss. Maybe that guy advertising on late-night TV can find out exactly what your ex-employer said.
As for direct legal actions against you... again, what are they going to accuse you of? In the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander, so the only concern would be NDAs. Maybe there was an NDA in the pile of papers you signed when you started working there, but NDAs almost always refer to clients and the company's process, not the working environment. They didn't review the NDA in your exit interview, it's a year later, you're discussing the circumstances of your departure from a long-term position....
So again, direct legal action is a minefield. The mere fact that they're accusing you of some misdeed here opens them up to a countersuit. Their case may be frivolous, but yours will not since you're forced to hire a lawyer, etc.
Overall, it sounds like its nothing more than saber rattling by the former employer. The "audit" department does have a legitimate interest in countering false claims about the company... but they have no right to counter honest-but-unflattering speech. Furthermore they should realize that empty threats don't work well in the IT industry - too many people like me consider it an "instant death sentence" for the employer if they try something like this. There are plenty of other employers who don't act like schoolyard bullies out there.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
One person had posted bad information on the same stock messages board. The CEO found this posting and had came down to the IT department to try and find out if there was any way to track them down. I believe they planned on sending the lawyers after him for whatever they could drum up, including libel.
While not exactly the same as what you mention here, I think this is at least related: Anonymous posting on the internet isn't really anonymous - and it can come back to bite you. For example, linuxtoday recently posted an article about MS Astro-Turfing Linux Today. They actually revealed this persons IP address to the entire community because it was a Microsoft address. It sure was newsworthy to know who posted that article, but I tell you what - it's a serious violation of the trust of people who post anonymously on Linux Today. Is it a common practice for them to divulge this information? Not to mention it was against Linux Todays own policies (read their privacy policy). It looks like they have since pulled that article though.
What if the CEO from a company who had been slandered had asked yahoo's message board service for the IP address of the person who posted it? What if the message board gave it out?
I find it bad practice to use anonymous postings against the person posting in any situation. Whether for a news story in Linux Today's case, or to put pressure on someone to keep them from harming their stock values for voicing an opinion. --
Twivel
There are a lot of reasons that the former employer is entirely within their right to do many of these things.
1) Did the employee sign a nondisclosure agreement which precludes discussing such things?
2) Did the information he made public qualify as insider information? Was he trying to artificially manipulate the stock price? (doesn't sound like it, but the possibility is there)
3) Did the employee's initial contract preclude discussing the company for a given period after termination? (this is entirely legal and legally binding, folks!)
4) Was the material libelous?
5) Even if none of the above are true, freedom of speech goes both ways. If he's within his rights to post such things publicly, then the company is within their rights to pass the information on to whoever they want, including the new employer.
None of this should be taken as a justification for the former employer, but there's no sense in getting wound up in moral outrage over it.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Unless you have a lawyer in the family or another source of free legal work, your best bet is to keep your mouth shut. Yes, you might (and probably should) win if they took you to court, but is it worth doing that? You have to deal with the distraction, publicity, up front legal fees, etc. What do you accomplish by bashing the company in a Yahoo! forum?
If you do insist on bashing them, do it verbally. Don't put it in a long-lasting public electronic document. Call your buddies that are still at the company or take them to lunch and vent. Get it out of your system in a way that's less likely to be read back to you in court while you're sitting next to a $250/hour lawyer.
Your lawyer should contact your former employer with a cease and desist letter, and possibly advise the HR department or other at your current employer that the former employer is a hostile company out to ruin your name. Your career is your life - take charge of it!
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Is some follow-up on this a couple months down the line. I mean, we're all worked up, figuratively speaking, about this now, but I would like to know what the resolution, if any, turns out to be....
Or maybe I'm just rambling again...
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
The fact that the company is even considering "going after" this guy is just funny (see: sick and wrong). Seems to me that they need a reality check - or they're afraid simply afraid of what was posted and are panicking. Either way, the company can do nothing.
And if the former company were to contact the guy's current employer, well, that's just juvenile. Its one thing for a company to check your references, but it is absurd to think that a company would "tattle" on an ex-employee to that person's current employer.
Simply put, what this is, is sad.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
I would argue, with some regret, that it is not. If one signs an agreement with a company giving them carte blanche over your free speech for the rest of your life, then you have noone but yourself to blame should you find yourself being asked to shut your mouth at some later date.
It is a matter of the fundamental Rights of Man in a free country that companies, organisations and individuals be able to ask their employees or dependants to sign contracts of this nature.
Also, consider industrial espionage. This is an area where it is clearly in the interest of us all that the freedom of speech of employees be curtailed. You can't have your top researcher spend all your money finding things out and designing magnificient devices for you and then have them bugger off to the company down the road and give them all the info. There has to be safeguards against this sort of thing.
In the end, the world is not perfect people, and though many of you seem to have a sweet undergraduate notion of freedom of speech being absolute, in the real world it is often not practical. And there is no world more real than the world of industry.
In the end, freedom of speech is just another commodity. We shouldn't inflate its importance too much, less we lose our sense of perspective.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
I think of little else but you.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney in your jurisdiction.
It is *not* a requirement in a slander or libel case to show the falsity if the defamatory statement. Truth is a *defense*--and a very good one, which will wine in almost all cases.
Being a defense rather than part of the tort makes a difference in the burden of proof--it changes who has to prove the issue.
It's for the best that you take definite steps to preserve your anonymity if you are going to criticise a large company.
Post anonymously and do it through an anonymizing proxy. Anonymizer.com and evilemail.com are your friends.
Blacklists still happen. There are a lot of steps that an employer can take to make it difficult for you to work again.
A lot of these measures are illegal, but it's up to you to verify that any shady dealings are occuring. That's not easy.
Trust me on this - as a member of the homosexual community, I'm far more familiar with workplace discrimination than I would like to be.
This is why we need government regulation to protect privacy and the right to unionize.
--Shoeboy
...for anything they want. Of course, they'll lose in this case, but that's not the point. See aclu.org for more info on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). This is where you are sued for defamation or something else for exercising your freedom of speech. SLAPP suits are not brought to be won, they are by definition almost always groundless. They are brought to intimidate, harass, and drive you to bankruptcy. Fortunately, many courts are throwing them out, many states are looking at legislation to bring an end to this abuse of the courts.
So they may not legally be able to stop you, but that may not stop them from threatening you and generally trying to make you miserable. In America, Land of the Lawsuit, you can sue anyone for anything. Whether or not you can win, or even have any rational basis for a case is beside the point.
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
Tell them to buzz off. They can't control your actions if you didn't sign anything.
And if they call your current employer, call a lawyer and sue their piddly little company into the ground.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
say less than they know. I might think Katherine Harris dresses like a scarecrow, but if I worked in law or politics I wouldn't go around saying so. What goes around, comes around.
Things would be different if, hypothetically, I saw Katherine Harris take a envelope full of money from W's camapaign manager -- then I'd have a moral imperative to speak out. But even situations where there was some moral reason I had to speak out, I'd do so very carefully. When you mess with a reputation, you're playing with fire.
"My question is this - because I left the company of my own free will, and had never signed an agreement that said 'I will only say nice happy things about this company after I leave'... what recourse, if any, do they have to my statements?
Well, did you make them sign something that said they wouldn't keep track of what you said after you left? What they're threatening to do is to tell your current employer what you are saying in a public forum. What you're afraid of is that your current employer will infer you're a loose talker who maybe can't be trusted. Since they are doing so on the basis of your public statements, you're screwed.
Look at it this way. If your former girlfriend started talking about all your shortcomings in a public forum, you wouldn't like it. If you're smart you'll just let it roll past, but if you're dumb you'll start trying to get her back by contacting her friends and spreading her embarassing secrets.
What your former employer is doing simply shows they're a bunch of jerks. But it is not illegal or immoral to be a jerk, just unattractive.
There's another reason to think twice before you share your former employers' dirty laundry. Social psychology studies have shown that when you describe your former associates, people attribute the same characteristics to you. It kind of make sense -- bird of a feather.
Like the bible says, it is not what goes into a person's mouth that defiles him, it's what comes out.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In this case, the guy did nothing wrong. Some people, such as myself, have signed NDA's with fancy wordings so I can't reveal the internal workings of the company, so I'd have to be careful how i worded any backings to my opinions. But if, as he says, he has no contractual obligation, this is just a company trying to make sure their stock price is nice and high and stays that way. This is similar to the little catch in California, where it is legal to perscribe marijuana for medicinal uses, but any doctor that does will loose their license to practice soon thereafter. I believe the basic wording would be "Yeah, you can do it, but we'll sue your ass as soon as ya do!"
I am !amused.
IANAL -- It's fairly common practise for companies who offer a generous severance package to wrap a non-disclosure around it. This often includes agreeing not to cast the company in a negative light after your departure. This doesn't bother me too much -- in return for a good package you agree to let bygones be bygones.
Another common practise that I completely disagree with is insisting on a similar agreement at the time of hire. If an employee is forbidden to complain about real corporate issues, how will they ever be resolved? Very uncool...
Then you have this situation. I don't think they have a legal or ethical leg to stand on. If you didn't sign a non-disclosure (did you?) I don't see how they have any right to restrict your ability to talk about your tenure there. Don't discuss genuinely confidential information like intellectual property or specifics of compensation and you should be fine.
---
Of people going too far. Even at companies that asked you to sign over intellectual property (as though they can enforce that). or sign a NON-COMPETE clause. Bottom line is they can't stop you fom being you. If the comments from 1 former employee(sounds better than EX) would cause a stock price to drop that serious, the company has bigger issues than anyone can see.
br? BTW non compete in MOST States is worthless because they cannot stop you from supporting yourself.
Razzious Domini
Razzious Domini
I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
I had the same thing happen to me. I worked at General Magic for a year and left as soon as I could get out from under the "repayment of signing bonus/moving expenses" clause. This was August of 1997.
I stumbled on a stock trading board and posted my *opinions* about the future the company to counter some of the high flying "this could be another Microsoft" posters who really didn't understand what exactly was General Magic's product/service. They thought that General Magic had invented speech recognition, universal messaging, text-to-speech, etc. for crying out loud. I had to set them straight and bring a realistic analysis to the table. Of course some of this realistic analysis basically stated that some of the key people involved (and the company as a whole) had no experience developing any telephony applications and had no experience in dealing with cellular and wireline carriers (ie their target market). I thought that they were more interested in building a flashy network operations center to show off to investors and carriers than actually developing a usable service that carriers and users would pay for.
I also detailed some of the reactions by certain employees to my resignation. The VP of Engineering (Kevin Surace of perfect.com and ZDTV's Silicon Spin) listened to my concerns about the direction of the company and why I was leaving and basically told me that I would never work in Silicon Valley again and that I would never get rich (another reason I left... people were more interested in getting rich than actually developing a service/product that would sell). My "boss" Gary Lang told me I was "stupid" for walking away from all that money. I thought the reason for the reactions I got was that my leaving General Magic really brought out some insecurities about what they were doing.
I think this rubbed some people the wrong way. A few days later, I got a letter from General Magic's lawyers telling me that I violated my NDA. Or at least that was how the letter started out. They then proceeded to pull apart my post refuting everything I said. If what I said was false, how could it be a violation of my NDA?
They also stated that I could be liable for any "damages" sustained by the company due to my posting. I'd like to see them prove that one in court. The company still has not made a profit in the three and a half years since I left and their direction seems to change about every 9 months (selling to executives, selling to carriers, free service based on advertising, turn key solution for enterprise, GM OnStar).
I find it amusing that all of the people who were so gung ho about the product and how it was going to change everything and make everybody rich have since left the company.
I hope it wasn't something I said.
I saw a documentary about this. Long. Came in about 17 episodes. Turns out this guy worked for an organization with some VERY proprietary information. The guy one day decides to resign. He seemed upset with the organization, but did not give a reason for his resignation. Next day, he finds that the organization has spirited him off to some remote village where they keep asking him why he left. Here's a poigniant selection of dialogue:
PRISONER: Where am I?
NUMBER 2: In The Village.
PRISONER: What do you want?
NUMBER 2: Information.
PRISONER: Whose side are you on?
NUMBER 2: That would be telling.
We want information... information...information...
PRISONER: You won't get it.
NUMBER 2: By hook or by crook we will.
PRISONER: Who are you?
NUMBER 2: You are Number Six.
PRISONER: I AM NOT A NUMBER, I AM A FREE MAN!
No mention of the Yahoo message boards in the documentary, but I'd assume the organization was very concerned about what this fellow might post to the discussion boards about their activities.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!