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?"
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!