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?"
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.
I don't know if they can retroactively dock your pay or anything
How could they possibly do that? It said in the message that he hadn't worked at that place for over a year. Any paychecks from them have long since been cashed and most likely spent. Awfully hard for them to get them back now.
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.
Well, they had better tread carefully there, because interfering with someone else's employment over something like this is not something that you should do lightly. If they aren't careful, they could find themselves being sued... And given that a jury might very well be sympathetic to the former employee in this case, they would have no guarantee they'd win.
They'd be far better off to just brush this kind of thing off...
I don't know if it's legal, but it certainly doesn't sound right to me.
IANAL, but I'd have to say that this is probably in a grey area. However, companies should keep in mind that even if they know they will win a case, it will cost them money to defend themselves and it can cost them in bad publicity, so it is better for them to avoid getting into this kind of situation to begin with.
And just who do you think makes that mountain dew ?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Well, the information you impart should be at least a bit credible, don't you think?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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
And I'd like to remind you that, thanks to the concentration of economic power and obfuscation or outright destruction of responsibility and liability brought about by the existence of large corporations (entities, I remind you, that are creations of government, not of markets)
- not everyone has the freedom of choice in employment that many highly skilled technical professionals enjoy right now - many towns are still reliant on a single large employer,
- there are markets where people have little or no choice, where single suppliers reign, and
- thanks to interlocking corporate ownership one may not be aware of who one is ultimately buying from - if you're pissed at Phillip Morris over cigarettes, unless you're in the habit of tracking down byzantine corporate structures to see that they own Miller, who owns Plank Road, how do you know that buying Red Dog beer puts money in the pockets of the Marlboro men?
Thank you, no. I'd rather not make such sacrifices, let the corporations fall, and create a new society where people, not legal fictions, are of primary interest. Fsck corporations - they distort markets and destroy freedoms. Major reform is needed.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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 believe that if they (former company) contacts his current employer, it will be THEY who is in legal deep shit.
There are laws that severly limit what your employer can say about you to future/prospective employers. For instance, I've been told that legally, all your former employers can say is:
1. You worked there from X date to Y date
2. If you are or are not rehirable.
Since I'd assume that the person who submitted this story probably used the former company as a reference for his current employment, this would certainly apply.
I'd get a lawyer to at least send the bozos a threatening letter stating that if they do anything to threaten your current employment, you will pursue them for all civil and criminal liability. As it would be harassment (at least), the company and officers would be personally liable for CRIMINAL charges.
Also, keep in mind that the truth is an ABSOLUTE defense in any case of libel or slander. If you told the truth, there is nothing to worry about (unless, as other posters have said, the ex-company is the MPAA and the judge assigned is named Kaplan).
Also, even IF you signed a NDA, if your former company was doing anything illegal, that you were talking about (such as violating labor laws, for example) this makes any such contract null and void.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
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!