Slashdot Mirror
Dealing w/ Draconian Severance Contracts?
outOfWork asks: "I've just been recently announced that I was getting laid off from yet another dot-bomb company. I have received my papers and they are simply dragonian! I understand the need not to disclose any information on the company I was with (that's only natural; I have also signed a similar paper when I started working there anyways), however the papers they are requesting me to sign do include such terms as not being to sue (should I require to). I thought suing someone or a company was a fundamental freedom that we enjoyed here in Canada. If I do not sign these papers, they do mention that I will not be entitled to my severence's package. I'm fairly certain that several companies do these sorts of things, however do they have the right to do this? This company has had a bad reputation when it comes to how HR deals with certain issues and I'm wondering if they might be trying to pull a fast one on us. With the market being what it is, I could sure use that severence's package. Your input would be very welcome."
Poof. Problem solved.
This is pretty standard fare. Not fair, maybe.
Take those papers straight to the labour relations board. They stand up for your rights for free (free council and such) and will make sure you get everything you deserve. That's how it works in BC, anyways.
Just the threat of a lawsuit and publicity is enough to make many companies 'change' their mind about specific issues. They add these clauses and figure most people don't even bother to read them much less be willing to fight it.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
..If only there where a group of people skilled in the way of law you could ask this question to...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Was there something you had in mind that'd make a good case?
... but in Mexico, there are rights you just cant (even if u want to) give up...
This includes the right to life, several rights that apply to leasing houses.... I would think the right to sue would be innalienable in any democratic country... u could sue them for proposing this to you.
NO SIG
Here's the best I can offer: Go See A Lawyer.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Quit.
Err... wait, too late for that. Nevermind.
There are plenty of Canadiasian Pro Bonos out there that can help. Even a small investment on your part (1 hour in fees) can save you MUCH grief later. COVER YOUR ASS _BEFORE_ you sign anything!
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
Be pragmatic.
I don't support crap like this, but ask yourself a few questions first. Do you believe you have a need or cause to sue the company? Laying you off isn't generally a cause.
Is the severance package more than is required by law? check your provincial, or federal labour code (certain companies, Banks for instance, have to meet only federal labour code.)
If the severence package is more than you would normally be entitled to when layed off, and does NOT include any further requirements as to confidentiality, non-compete etc more than your initial contract then you may as well sign it.
On the other hand, if the non-compete/confidential information clauses are more significant than what you signed when you got your employement you probably should NOT sign such an agreement.
This is getting to be standard operating procedure. In an effort to avoid future legal action they force you to sign. While IANAL, this has been talked about in many places in the US. Most of it is legal, except where asking you to do something illegal.
Your choice is to take the money or plan to win it in court. If you do not have a court case now, take the money and run. If it really is a dot bomb, what will you get in court, your cubicle?
Cut your losses and read your original contract you had with them: does it say that you are entitled to any benefits or some kind of extra-long notice before being fired?
That's the important thing--if they are firing you before your original contract says they can (and making you leave before then) then you get whatever the contract says you get. usually it's in the form of pay that you would've made if you had worked there for the length of the notice.
Otherwise, it's just a simple matter of whatever the labour laws in the province you work say is the minimum notice they have to give you.
Don't sign the goddamn papers, and go find another job and quit whining here. Two weeks, dude. That's all anyone is required by law to give you in BC, for example.
"Draconian." Give me a break. It's not draconian if you don't sign it, right?
And if you want the severance--too bad. They're dangling a carrot in front of your nose. Bite it and you get to find out it's laced with something you knew was there to begin with. Boo hoo.
Why are you asking Slashdot questions that are best answered by a lawyer? We're technology professionals, not legal professionals. You got a problem with how Linux works? Fine, we can help. You got a legal problem? You're playing with fire by submitting to Ask Slashdot.
Software piracy is victimless theft.
You don't have to worry about unions/labour boards or whatever , but the first thing I would do is arrange a meeting with all of my co-workers/affected employees.
Stick together and tell them to shove it. In my experience most of these tactics are bluff and usually not worth the paper they are written on - if you enter into an agreement under duress the agreement can be nullified. This is basically a threat - it may be common practise and give some business types a hard-on , but you don't have to cop it.
What are complaining about?
/.!
You can claim Employement Insurance an get 60% of your wage for sitting on your ass and reading
Hey, if you can't get another job, you can at least go back to school to brush up on your spelling and grammar...(Which definitely needs work...)
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
I'd sue!
Don't you (and you, too, /. editor!) mean Draconian? I'm pretty sure that's it.
If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
however,
It seems to me that if you are *not* already entitled to such a severance package, that they are, in essence,
making you a settlement offer
which you may or may not choose to accept.
However,
if you were already entitled to the package, and they suddently would not give it to you without this additional condition,
then you could possibly, at a future date, argue during the suit that you were forced to agree to the additional condition while under some sort of duress,
in which case the document may be held to be invalid. But this is risky.
Maybe instead of the collective *cough* wisdom of Slashdot, might I suggest that
you see a real lawyer instead?
When you accept the money you fraudulently signed for.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That's what you get for living in Canada?
Why live in America Jr. when you could live in America, anyway:)
--
http://www.dennistighe.com
If you want your severance pay, sign it, smile, walk away and STFU. If you think you're better off without it because it takes away your gay ass freedom, then don't sign it!
How hard could this possibly be? What kind of advice are you looking for (especially here)? Be glad you're even offered severance. There are plently of people that got laid off who didn't get shit AND probably had to sign some fucking agreement far worse than yours that they didn't like.
Now stop fucking whining. Take the fucking money already, didn't you say you could use it?
What an asshole.
Luckily you're in Canada, where the layoff isn't such a bad thing if you're prepared. Some advice as a survivor (or lottery winner if you look at it that way).
1) Weigh the severance. How long could you coast on what they're giving you before you have to apply for UI?
2) Apply for UI right away (In Canada). You'll be entitled to at least 51% of your previous salary, and there are other benefits like education bonuses and stuff.
3) If you really are going to file a lawsuit, review why. If it's just because you're mad think again. It may end up costing you more than you ever win.
4) Those disclosure agreements are nearly impossible to enforce because they usually do step well beyond the laws they are built around.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
I havent criticized slashdot that much but there is a trend that I have seen now of people asking legal questions and wondering what to do about it.
Of course as others have pointed out above that THEY NEED TO SEE A LAWYER, but I'm afraid that the person posting the question for slashdot might recieve an answer that they go with and not seek a lawyer since slashdot, despite itself, does get some extremely good and cogent posts.
I suggest that in the future slashdot start hosting a legal section in which they post the results of legal work done on the questions that get asking in slashdot
Thanks for reasing,
G
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Here in the U.S. such an agreement probably wouldn't be legally enforcable. I've known of several companies which included the covenant not to sue in their severance agreements, but the courts threw it out. I think it's mostly there as a red herring - getting the court to rule on it is just an extra step you're forced to go through. And it probably has some intimidation value - people who think they've waived their right to sue are less likely to try. But as always, check with a lawyer.
sue them for the right to your severence package without having to sign away your right to sue. hehe.
...but you should talk to someone who is, if you want to try and fight this.
If the "severance package" is more than is required by law, you may not have much luck (if it is the minimum required by law, of course just don't sign). Basically, although you feel you are being coerced, from a contract law POV, the company is asking you to agree not to sue and to keep quiet in exchange for extra money. Simple contract, and essentially voluntary on your part. BUT, from an employment law POV, there may be special statutes in your favor, so check.
Go see your labor board or whatever there is in canada. then see a lawyer. hell i wasnt going to get a severance package and then i threatened to sue. kablam severance package. so i guess it worked ok for me. i could ask you to sign a paper that says.
1) you cant sue me
2) i have the right to kill you for no appearant reason.
3) your ugly and your mother dresses you funney
eaven if you signed it it is not leagally binding.
hospitals basically make you sign a similar agreement before admitting you.
Were you promised the severance package at hiring time?
You can't sign away your right to sue. Sign it, then sue till your heart is content....
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Is your severance package generous? That is, is it more than two weeks' pay? In any jurisdiction in Canada, you're entitled to two weeks' pay or two weeks' notice when being terminated without cause or laid off. They can't deny you that, end of story. Even if they go bankrupt, the principals of the company are personally responsible for two weeks' pay (if you don't get notice instead).
Now, IANAL.
If you sign away your right to sue, it's gone. You have entered into a binding contract; contract law in Canada is pretty straightforward. The questions become: is the severance package attractive enough? Will I regret signing away my ability to sue?
The third question is "do I want to burn my bridge?" If you refuse to sign, the odds increase that you won't get a good reference for future work, and tech work is harder and harder to find in Canada since the dot-bomb.
Were it me in your shoes and they were offering me (say) a month's pay, I'd sign, ask for a written reference, and start looking for work. Of course, I'd also bitch and moan about their ridiculous terms to anyone who'd listen, but that doesn't cost me anything.
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
These provisions are in no way unusual, they are boiler plate. And yes, they have the right. You do not have to sign, it's optional. Your severance pay is a courtesy, and they aren't required to pay you any. So if you want your severance pay, sign your papers. You're not going to get it if you don't. Your only reason to not sign these papers is if you believe you have a legitimate cause for legal action against this company.
C//
You didn't only get laid off, you're off and with time to get laid.
You never know what you can contract that way...
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
It's very simple. You're not entitled to severance. Unless you signed something in your starting contract that explicitly entitled to severance (this usually doesn't happen for anybody except for executives), the company doesn't have to pay you a dime in severance pay. Consider yourself VERY fucking lucky to get anything on your way out, and sign the damn papers. Most people are simply asked to leave, and that's it. No severance of any kind.
I wish my company offered me dragons as part of the severance package...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
When you take your next job, learn from this. The time for negotiating a severance package is on the way in! A severance package is part of your total compensation, just like vacation, profit sharing, etc.
Get it in writing.
Your rights in the work place vary greatly depending upon where you live. If this matter is important to you, then I strongly advise you to contact a lawyer.
I used to work for a large broadcasting company that had a lot of properties all around the US. My office was at one of the major market properties.
The company was purchased by a larger outfit and since they already had corporate management, I was instructed that I was to be laid off effective on a certain date. A rather tactful way of handling it I thought.
When the day came, the agreement was absolutely unbeliveable. In order to get 3 months of severance, I had to agree that I would not work for any other broadcasting company for a period of 24 months, that I was required to turn over any and all software used for my job (I paid for it) and I could not discuss the terms nor my separation from the company with anyone at any time. I also had to agree that I would not sue their company for any reason at any time.
Fortunately, I was prepared and had my attorney show up the morning of my final day. My state is a right to work state, so even if I agreed to the no-compete clause, it was invalid unless they paid me my salary for the time they wished me not to work in the broadcasting field.
They were also reminded that any right I gave up to them was to be fairly compensated. Again, I was not giving them anything for 3 months of severance.
As I expected, they refused and my attorney sternly informed them that the next time they would hear from me would be from one of the properties of their competitor unless they agreed to my terms. After they heard that their nearest competitor had interviewed me, they quickly and generously purchased my right to work in the broadcasting field for a period of 24 months. Let me tell you, there's nothing like a 2 year paid vacation! Ok, one year and 3 months by the time the attorney fees were paid.
The long and short of this is that if you hold a lot of secrets they do not want told, and you don't mind pushing the limits, I would make them buy your cooperation. But again, that depends on what your attorney tells you.
Most places actually have employment boards that will answer questions like this for you. I had to sign a contract to work for a company once that said I could not sue them but instead we could go to mediation (which just costs a lot less). I had talked to a lawyer after that said you can always sue even if you sign something saying you would not sue... it would then be up to the judge to figure out in your case if it is legal for you to sue or not depending on what the situation is. If you are leaving and see no reason to sue them why pass up your severence package?
--MD--
2. Yes, they can withhold your severance if you refuse to sign, unless there is an agreement in place (i.e. a collective bargaining agreement) that entitles you to severance.
You say that they want you to sign something saying you won't sue them before they'll give you your severance pay. Well, turn it around: make it clear to them that, since you'll have nothing better to do with your time, you'll go sue-crazy if they don't give you your severence. You'll file separate suits for each percieved wrong they've ever done you, and you'll represent yourself. Their $500/hour lawyers will be wasting their time against your own out-of-work self. If necessary, you'll make a real stink about it, complete with media interviews, picketing, letters to their remaining clients, whatever.
If they're so freaked out by the possibility of you suing them, it's a perfect weapon to use against them.
Of course, you shouldn't necessarily expect a glowing recommendation from them, but they'll probably be to scared to actually write anything other than, ``He worked here.''
Remember, all they've got against you at this point is that severance package. You are under no obligation to sign anything new, and they're still obliged to give you that severance package (assuming it's in your contract or otherwise has already been promised to you). I really doubt they want to go to court over it, and you've got every reason to do so. The ball's in your...court.
Good luck,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
...I'd move to America, and then sue them. You're much more likely to win here...Mental stress induced by overly complicated severance paperwork. Should be a quick and painless way to at least quadruple your firing-bonus.
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
A year and a half ago, my dot.bomb went under, and they gave us a pretty egregious agreement to sign. I signed it and turned it in, because I had not only severance (really, paying out of my vacation) but also several thousand dollars in expenses (training classes I'd put on my credit card).
However, upon further research and advice from others who had done this before, it turned out that I could have instead filed with the California Labor Board, and gotten not only the severance and expenses, but penalties if they were not paid in a timely fashion.
So, if I'd done some research, and been willing to go without the checks for a few extra weeks (or maybe a few months), I might have actually made more money not signing the agreement
In the end, though, the one-sided terms made the agreement a null contract; I was getting nothing (that I was not already entitled to by law), the company was getting something, and a valid contract requires that both parties actually get something from the other. I don't feel bound by the agreement (in areas like confidentiality, not talking trash, etc. -- though I don't have any reason to violate them either), and don't have any reason to test the more expensive clauses (not suing).
The real point here is, if you don't want to sign for some reason, look into your local labor laws. In California, the process for filing is (apparently) fairly simple, and the process of finding against the company is straightforward.
There are usually local organizations, usually not-for-profits, which can advise you of your rights and the law. Look for them via Google, if you can't find someone to give you a direct reference.
Good luck!
Take the damn severence package. I don't know what your family situation is like but put pride WAY after keeping food in your kids' mouths. Hell, especially if you don't have beef with them besides the fact that they went under, what do you care if you lose your right to sue them?
I for one put bills/food/housing before my sense of feeling hunky-dory.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
as the title of the comment says you can't do anything, the waiver they are having you sign is something that all companies do to cover their butts.
i used to work for an online college that's in ontario and the lovely new proprietors claimed our jobs were not going to be lost and we got laid off two weeks later and i had to sign the same piece of paper.
i asked someone who went through the same thing with a large financial institution and they said sign the paper, you'll just lose money and waste money talking to a lawyer about it. they took the lawyer route and had to pay money and didn't get the severance package.
unless you have a reason to sue, just sign the paper and take the severance package and be on your merry way.
I was laid of by an American company (I was part of a sales team in Canada).
The offer they are making you (if it is in excess of the minimum by law) is what the agreement is about. For example, if they offer you additional severance pay above the legal limit, you agreeing to receive that goes hand in hand with removing your right to sue.
Stay away from court if at all possible. In Canada, your maximum awarded damages are equal to your suffering due to layoff - for example, if you find work in two weeks of similar compensation, your total damages would be two weeks pay (plus any transition costs).
Focus on getting a new job - the tech industry is tough right now but there are jobs out there.
In my case, I lobbed the offer back at them and asked them to increase it based on three items they weren't aware of:
1. The laid me off one week before final closing documents on my first house purchase (and the management had known about this purchase for four months).
2. They recruited me to the position from another job.
3. In the interim time between the recruitment and my layoff, I would have vested options at my old job that would have been worth a substancial amount.
All those things being said - when I spoke to counsel they still recommended me to take the offer as it was fair and equitable considering my age (under 30), no kids, and my employability.
They ended up increasing my offer substancially (tripled it, in fact) but I would have taken it either way, as within a week of the layoff I had four job prospects.
Go, get another job. Lawsuits are not worth your time and energy (and money!). Leave the past behind, and move onto the future.
Good luck!
When a co-worker was layed off from our rather small company, he refused the deal, much to the consternation of the HR director. The sticking point for him was the non-compete clause. He decided it was foolish to rule out employment from a competitor for a couple weeks worth of pay. Here in my state, the employer isn't required to pay you for saved-up-vacation when you leave, nor any kind of severance, so the difference between what they have to do (pay you for the time you worked) and what they are offering could be quite substantial.
A second cow-worker told me his former boss had threatened to withold the last paycheck unless he signed the papers, which would have been illegal. So he called the guys bluff saying "Keep it, I've already signed everything I'm going to sign back when I was hired." The boss caved and handed him his money.
If you are thinking of not taking the deal, you could try editing the severance agreement yourself and deleting the objectionable parts before signing it as a counter-offer.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I know that a lot of people won't believe this, but not everyone works as an 'at will' employee with zero recourse. Negotiation is part of the deal. It took me quite a while to figure that out, and I'm always learning more.
When you leave a decent position where you have seniority, you're potentially giving up a lot. You need to negotiate vacation, severance, option-buy-back on pre-IPO companies, extended option maturation (do they expire 30 days after you're laid off?) and anything else that is important to you.
This is most important with start-ups because 90% of them fail. Even fewer actually IPO. What is your exit strategy? As an early investor, how do you attain 'liquidity'? Don't be afraid to ask that question up-front - your manager is. If it doesn't IPO for 10 years, how do you cash in on your shares? Because when you leave, they may not pay you anything for your shares.
You need a contract!
Once the product is designed and built, they may decide that they no longer need as many engineers and instead should concentrate on sales and marketing. Uh, okay - but they'd better buy your shares back for what they've been telling people they are now worth. They also need to pay you that severance you negotiated up front.
If they tell you 'sign or else', consider that the deal might not be as good as one where the terms are actually negotiated. Terminate at any time without reason?
In general, you need good career management skills (and a great career - slackers need not apply) to pull this off. Do any schools teach that? Any recommendations for good books?
A constitutional ammendment to the effect that "Any agreement that requires you to surrender the rights enumerated in this document shall be considered valid, in whole or in part, in a court of law."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Copied text from Manitoba labour (note: this is NOT copies of the regulations per say, but rather their booklet. In and of itself it has no legal standing.. blah blah blah...) [it is supposed to represent the labour code though...]
Employers who intend to terminate the employment of
50 or more employees within a period of 4 weeks must
provide written notice to the Minister of Labour, any
applicable union, and to the affected employees as follows:
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WEEKS OF NOTICE REQUIRED
50 - 100 10
101 - 299 14
300+ 18
If the required notice is not provided, the employer must
pay wages equivalent to the weeks of notice listed above.
If it is less than 50 employees then it is 1 pay period.
Regardless of what you sign or do not sign, you are entitled to a severance package that amounts to approximately one week's pay for each full year of working for that company. This is only an approximation, but you can check your province's labour standards act for specifics. If the company witholds the severance package that you are legally entitled to then they are accountable directly to the provincial government for that act.
Further, and again, regadless of whether or not you sign the paper, you will not give up any of your rights with regards to the regional labour standards or human rights acts. Violation of those rights is covered under the regional Criminal Code, and in Canada you cannot waive those rights. Go ahead and sign it -- any legal rights you already had cannot be waived by your signature.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Slashdot is hardly a place where Canadian Labour Attorneys hang out - it was said many times above - go talk to your provincial LRB
You seem to be getting a lot of bad advice because Canadian Law != US Law
Ie/ depending on the province, you are *entitled* to a severance package, despite what the posters above say
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
When I was laid off from Excite@Home (anyone remember THEM!?) they didn't give people any severence (understandable given that they HAD NO MONEY!). My manager told me that they were initially planning on having people sign the usual agreements, etc, but the obvious problem was - why would anyone actaully sign anything giving up their rights if they are being laid off with no severence!?
IMO the worst part about these contracts is the "non-compete agreements" - watch out for that one... though it sounds like California has finally made some progress on that, hopefully others will follow...
Sign the papers but (this is the most important part) cross your fingers while you are doing it.
FR
IANAL.
If you have worries then go see one.
I am not a lawyer but I've studied New Zealand contract law. Both New Zealand and Canada have common law systems - most of contract law is based on UK cases which both judiciaries look on as "highly persuasive". Canadian law (statute or case) may override what I say here.
Check your employment contract and anything they have said to you in order to induce you to sign that employment contract. Secondly check the local labour law that applies to your area. If you are entitled to anything under any of the above then you are due that whether or not you agree not to sue them.
Both you and your employer have agreed to this and that's your starting point. Neither party can retroactively change the provisions of a contract except in certain circumstances.
Now if they want you to give up your right to sue then they need to offer you some form of consideration for that. This means they must give you more money (or something else good) in exchange. That's perfectly valid but even then the courts may look on your employer's actions with suspicion. In general the courts don't like people making contracts which exclude their jurisdiction. PayPal got hit by that recently.
Contracts for settlement are generally used in more specific circumstances. i.e. you are, in fact, sueing or about to sue them in some specific cause of action. A general purpose one probably wouldn't hold up in New Zealand but, I suspect, would in the US. I can't speak for Canada.
I suggest that you examine any reasons you might have for sueing them. If you think you might have anything you might get home on then go see a lawyer and talk it over.
Also examine what the working environment was like in general. Is it likely that you will get sick in the future from something that happened to you while employed by them. Important point: was it reasonably forseeable for them to predict that? i.e. if some new disease/syndrome comes up but your employer could not have known what they were doing would cause it then you won't be able to sue them in negligence because negligence requires the harm to reasonably forseeable (Donahue v Stevenson I believe).
In conclusion: if you're worried consult a lawyer. If they've done something that you could possible sue for consult a lawyer. If they haven't then take the money.
to move out of little America and into big America. Why is there a post about Canada? Last I heard it wasn't even a real country.
...tell Cliff. This is the second "I need legal advice" Ask Slashdot this week!
I have received my papers and they are simply dragonian!
Thou require'th a knight to slay these beasts of oppression.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Sadly there are times in life when you simply MUST get a lawyer. This is one of them.
Canada's labour laws are considerably more favorable than the United States. You may not be required to sign anything to get your severance. In fact, you should consult with a lawyer just to be certain they are offering a reasonable amount of severance. Do a ROI analysis and see if it is worthwhile fighting. A short letter on the letterhead of a law firm can change people's attitudes remarkably fast.
What's the IP worth to them and you? If it's worth alot to you (working for the competition), don't sign. If it's worth alot to them, don't sign -- at least until they up the ante to your liking. If it's worthless to the both of you, sign it and move on.
Normally if you take their money, then you sign over your rights.
If your dot com is in Cali, the most of this stuff doesn't matter because the courts in California are on the side of employees in order to keep the job market as liquid as possible.
When you get laid off, if we sign a form saying we won't sue.
Ok, so you're not with the company any more. Do you have something to sue for? Do they still have something of yours, or owe you something?
If you feel that you may someday want to sue them, don't sign it.
You can always play rougher with them.. Tell them that you won't sign it as-is, and you do want your severance pay. If they won't change the wording to your liking, and won't pay, tell them that you *WILL* sue them if they don't pay your severance.
Seems like a pretty easy decision.. They change the wording and you don't sue, or you drag the company into court and make life a little more difficult for them..
Of course, you said they're the traditional dot-com failure, so they probably have $0.35 in the bank, and the corporation is probably well seperated from the owners. It's your call. If you decide to sue, you may get the court telling you that you're entitled to all of their assets, which may at that point be your old desk chair and an old coffee maker.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
You're lucky. When Ticketbastard laid me off, the agreement I signed said that I couldn't even acknowledge the existence of the agreement to anyone outside Ticketbastard (plus the usual non-disparagement crap). Bastards!
Its not here to assist this person in his plight. Its here to send traffic to Slashdot and ferment discussion on the boards. This guy knows he'll need a lawyer, regardless of what advice he gets from Slashdot.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Last December, I burned out, went on long time disability with my corporate insurance package, and three weeks later, kaboom! Get called in a meeting, where they tell me I'm no longer part of the company's plan.
They tried to have me sign a bunch of papers, which of course, I did not want to sign. Said I had to think it over. They even tried to pressure me into signing. I took them to a lawyer specialized in labor issues. He said I should just tell them to shove it. Legally, when on sick leave, you cannot be fired. So I decided to run with it, lodged a complaint with the labor board in Quebec. Real easy process to start.
Within days, I was contacted by one of their lawyers, saying I had done the right thing. Within a month, I had gone to mediation with my ex employer, got a very fat check out of it, a letter of reference, and a contact person at the company that will by law confirm whatever was written in the letter.
Lesson here: TALK TO A LAWYER.
Lesson 2: Get in touch with the labor board in your province. They are there to protect the WORKERS. They will side with you if you have a cause, or tell you up front you're wasting their time and yours.
'nuff said. Hope things will work out good for you.
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
Most of what you are describing is illegal in the US, which tends to offer less legal protection than most countries.
The fact is that you need to see a lawyer. Your employer is trying to bully you, and there is no way you should let them take advantage of you.
I'm getting more use out of my business law class, wish I saved the book. US Contract law, which generally arises from the British common law, so I would assume it is similar in Canada, but you should check with legal council before proceding, allows you to sign away almost any rights granted to you through a contract. (Wow I even have massive runnon sentances like a lawyer, perhaps I missed a calling.) So they can offer an agreement for you to exchange your legal rights for severance. However, there are a few exceptions, the main one being if the terms are onerous, they can be thrown out by a judge. Although that could be only a part of the Uniform Commercial Code UCC.
Also, is there a provision for abritration? That is usually customary if they wish to remove your right to sue. If there is you do have some hope if they try to screw you, but some arbitration boards, are set to rubber stamp managment decisions. Arbitration is usually used to prevent the huge punative damages that can be awarded by juries, also they tend to be quicker than lawsuits, and are highly preferable to a trial. If there was not a provision for abritration, I would think pretty hard about life without severance, if I had any potential greviences.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
You have to decide whether the deal is worth it to you. If you don't plan on sueing and if the rest of the conditions don't prohibit you from doing something you might reasonably want to do, why not agree?
From http://labour.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/psait_spila/lmnec_es lc/eslc/stand11-e1.html
The statutory provisions of notice of termination of employment take their origins in the breach of contract rules in common law or in very similar rules of Quebec civil law. A person who is employed for an indefinite term, and whose employment is terminated for reasons other than disciplinary, is entitled under common law to a period of reasonable notice prior to termination, or to an amount of pay that he or she would have received if he or she had worked for that period. The courts have determined the period of notice that would have reasonably been required on the facts of each case. In doing so, they have considered the nature of the work, the length of service of the employee, age, experience and training and on an assessment of how long a person in the plaintiff's line of work and with the same attributes would need in order to find another suitable job. Employees doing work requiring little skill or responsibility have been considered to be entitled to shorter notices, while professional and managerial employees usually command longer periods.
There is a big difference between being laid off and terminated. If you were terminated without just cause, then you are likely to be entitled to severance. Be careful what you sign, and if you are concerned go see a lawyer!!!!
You can simply strike out the clause about not sueing and initial by the strikeout. Then sign and turn in. Especially if they don't check it carefully, i.e. if you turn it in to someone who is not a lawyer, it may not be noticed. What you are doing is in effect making a counteroffer. If they give you the money, it amounts to acceptance and the deal is done. If they catch it - you're just back to where you are now.
Having been caught before by contracts which seemed benign when signed, I cannot recommend enough that you get paid legal help. If this bothers you (and I guess it does), pay whatever it costs to get it reviewed by a competent Canadian lawyer. In the chance that later you have reason to sue, you won't regret it.
Google gave me this for Ontarion, for example ...
http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/es/chap4e.htm#notice
get your self a big marker, cross out the parts you dont agree with, make revisions you will agree to. Give this back to them and have their layer or pr people check it out. If they care at all they will go through and make their revisions. This should allow you to come to a fair grounds you both can agree with. If they dont agree with it then contact a lawer ( you should have your lawer go through your revisions anyways.)
Take the money now - the company might not exist in a few weeks.
Simplistic but imagine the two scenarios:
1. You sign on the line and take the money, but you feel you've agreed to something that is wrong.
2. You refuse to sign and get nothing.
Which one will let you sleep better? Do that.
Seriously, just go with your gut instinct. Me, I'd refuse to sign, because it's the principle of it. But I don't have a family to support. Five years from now, it's quite possible that I'd sign and take the cash.
Reading the comments posted so far, I notice that the usual "lawyers are evil" cries have been dropped in favour of advising you to sue. Funny eh? I guess lawyers are only bad when they're taking your mp3s away...
If you are in Ontario, take a look at http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/es/ese.htm
I'm sure the other provinces have some similar.
If they are really going out of business they will have no money to enfource the aggreement they are trying to make you sign..
So you shoul dsign it as Dirty Harry! Make sure you put after the signature..Punk do you feel lucky
Sounds like they want your signature so that they can srew you..I don;lt think you are getting a severance even if you do sign the paperwork..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
IANAL...Same happened to me (I'm in the U.S. not Canada) I signed and accepted my bitter pill. I was later invited to become part of a group of litigants and when I said I couldn't because I had signed I was told I couldn't sign away future rights. That is I could sue about stuff that happened after I signed but not before. I chose not to sue because I had no real reason to but this is something I would check out as well. (i.e. do you have a reson to sue now?)
I don't know what city you are in but you need to hire a competant atourney to deal with this bullshit.
Never but never sign these agreements. The company probably never had a trade secret or even an idea that was worth anything and when you sign you just leave yourself wide open to accusations.
Several years ago I had an employer ask me to sign such a form and stated it was a "condition of employment". I replied that it was a "condition of employment" that I DO NOT sign agreements like this. I won. I guess they figured that since I was the only one they had on staff who knew how to develop the software they needed that they better back down.
The best advice I ever heard was from the fellow (now retired) who developed one the the best contouring packages in the world. It was the one that Amoco used. Yup - it was good. His point is that he doesn't want to be privy to other people's confidential information.
As he said: In the first place it probably isn't all that great and I'll probably come up with a better solution anyways. But, if I'm privy to what they claim they disclosed to me, then the door is open for them to claim I stole their ideas. In the second place, if what they have is really so great, then I can't use it anyway.
I think his reasoning is very clear. If you think it is confidential then I don't wnat to know about it. Sorry - just keep it to yourself!
-----------
Think about those confidentiality agreements employees are so willing to sign. It can limit their employment opportunities down the track. I am an employer. No way I'm going to get involved with an IP exposure if I can avoid it. So generally I hire consultant who are not encumbered.
Those agreements do not benefit the employee in any way and are pretty useless from the companys' standpoint as well. If someone IS interested in stealing trade secrets you can be sure that a little agreement is not even going to slow them down. You see, your ex employer has to PROVE that YOU DID IT. That can be nigh on impossible. But the litigation is real and it can cost you 1000's to defend yourself.
Just say NO!
Was it Verity Canada?
Here are Ontario's provisions:
Jason Pollock...the MOLECULAR MAN!
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Why the heck are you asking Slashdot? Are you going to get your information here, and go back to the HR board and say, "X0_Dude_01" on Slashdot says that you guys suck and I don't have to sign this?
Use some common sense and see a Lawyer regarding this issue.
If you don't want to pay for a lawyer, a better source of information is Nolo Press (at least in the US), the offer decent self-help law books that unlike Slashdot actually provide accurate advice.
Yeah. Why hasn't bombed the U.S. bombed Canada yet? Why does the government bomb all those places we can't even find on a map?
A non-disclosure/non-compete agreement can not be construed as making it impossible for you to work "in your chosen profession." Example: a doctor leaves a pratice and signs a non-compete agreement: he/she shouldn't open a clinic across the street from his/her previous employer but he/she is only trained to pratice a particular type of medicine. The agreement cannot keep him/her from working in his/her specialty or force him/her to relocate.
This brings up the next step: You would need to disclose the existence of the agreement to anyone hiring you since they would potentially also be liable however; the further their business is from that of your about to be previous employer would make any attempt to sue unlikely to win. Note: law suits are about who has the best lawyer so a big company might not be a bad idea if you can go that route.
Final point: this is a civil matter; not criminal. Your previous employer has to bring suit against you and/or your next employer to make it stick. If you go to work for their direct competitor doing essentially the same work and almost invariably using your knowledge of their product against them, they can undoubtedly make it stick. Go to work for somebody who does something different (albeit, using software) and chances are they can't make it stick.
Actually, that wasn't final... you can also see what happens if you make a counter proposal that just says you won't work for a competitor. It might work and, if not, it makes your case stronger if you go to somebody and get sued.
BTW, IANAL and IANAC (I am not a Cannuck)
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
A lot of companies attempt this sort of thing. One reader suggested that if your dot bomb company is going down the tubes, take the money and run. He's got a pretty good point. There probably won't be anything left to sue them for, unless they were up to some Enron-style activities.
In the United States, there must be an equitable exchange in such a contract for it to be valid. Suppose they get you to agree not to sue them. Then, a while after your departure, they renege on paying you severance as they agreed. Presumably, because you signed that paper you can't sue them. But the truth is, if they don't stand by their part of the agreement, then the contract is null and void. You can sue the crap out of them and collect triple damages.
One of my favorites is the "non-compete" clause, where you agree not to compete against your former company. This never stands in court, because they can't force you not to earn a living. When another company hires you for your skills, technically that means you could be competing against your old company.
Again, in the US, if the compensation you receive is not considered equitable to the conditions that you are being asked to accept, any such contract is null and void. If the severance is good -- take it! But if you have any doubts, maybe you should seek counsel. I live in Massachusetts, and the Attorney General's office is very aggressive in pursuing companies that pull these sort of things. The office offers legal advice and free counsel for people who want to find out if they have a complaint. Maybe your province in Canada offers something similar?
I wish you the best of luck.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
It's already that way. You can't contract yourself into slavery, or sign a document authorizing someone to shoot you. No amendment required.
Ha. That sounds like something Telus would try to pull, take it straight to the union (if there is one) such as the TWU, or take it to the BCFed if its in BC.
Anyways. Good luck on it, I don't think thats legal.. yet, at least. See what the BC liberals will do next.
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
That happened to my wife also. Sign away all your rights or no severence package. She opted to keep her rights. Laid off after 27 years at the air express company who shall remain nameless but rhymes with airborne excess...
... workers should ORGANIZE! :)
I don't mean that people should become communists though...
And meanwhile, what do you think about my old role-playing idea:
http://www.geocities.com/cyberpunk1980/
This is what you need to do:
1. Sign it.
2. Collect whatever you can get them to pay you. If they pay by check, run to the freaking bank and cash that check ASAP.
3. Run like hell and get on with your life.
I was a hair short from being in your position. The day I was going to be told I was in the layoffs list I went to interview elsewhere. I went back to my office not knowing if I still had a job. The CEO told me she almost canned me but decided to leave me stay at the last second as long as I would take over the work of two expensive consultants. I said suuuure. 48 hours later I had my offer elsewhere, gave them 1-week notice (first time ever I give less than 2) and ran like hell.
I did not even sign a consultant agreement. Instead I told them that since I was a "nice guy" I was going to stay as a part-time employee. Instead of a $85/hour consultant I volunteered to be a $30/hr part time employee (they laid off 20% of all employees, and those of us that survived got cut our salaries by 20%). Why? Because the company is going down and they are going to screw all consultants, but they do not mess with payroll. I would rather get paid $30 now than have the $84/hr negotiated down to $20, and that is after 2-3 months of threatening to sue for non-payment.
Just take the money and run. Get on with your life. All that talk about the though job market is B.S. The same day I interviewed for my present job one of my friends got laid off at noon. At 2 PM he went to interview elsewhere. His offer arrived two days later, 4 hours ahead of mine.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
You have the right to refuse it.
It's like a preemptive out of court settlement for anything you might want to sue over.
However if you have grounds for a suit, talk to a lawyer before signing.
If you don't have any grounds for a lawsuit, take the free money...you'll need it in this job market.
When they cut our development team in July, they had a team of cops there.
Since after you sign it, you lost the right to sue. So, just don't sign, and come back sue the hell out of them. But not signing, you should be automatically entitled for servance package by law. If they don't pay up, sue the hell out of them.
I moved away from Vancouver to Tokyo recently and it was the best choice I ever made. I got laid off 2x in one year in dot bomb companies so I understand your predicament. Both companies had draconian clauses like: any code I write, even in my off time, even my with own PC in my own home, belongs to the company throught my employment term.
Once I mved to Tokyo I got a job almost right away and I make almost 2x the net pay. They don't tax you to death out here. Even if I spend like crazy I still end up with tons of money saved (a new sensation for me). If you don't speak Japanese go to the US or some other country where the economy is better and don't judge their economy based on what they say. Japan is supposedly in a recession now but it looks like a spending boom compared to Canada.
Just get the hell out, you'll be better off.
Under the traditional contract law, an individual who believes that a waiver or other legal agreement is invalid must return the payment received for the waiver before challenging it in court. This return of such payment is known as "tender back." An individual who fails to tender back the payment received is said to have approved of, or "ratified," the waiver. Under contract law, ratification prevents an individual from challenging a defective waiver in court.
In Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422 (1998), the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether an older worker is required to tender back to the employer severance or other benefit payments received in exchange for an ADEA waiver before filing a lawsuit to challenge the waiver. In that case, the waiver signed by the employee violated the OWBPA's requirements in several regards because it: (1) did not give the employee sufficient time to consider the waiver; (2) did not afford her a seven day revocation period; and (3) did not identify the waiver of ADEA rights in the release. Relying on contract principles of tender back and ratification, the employer argued that the employee could not challenge the waiver's validity because she failed to tender back the employer's payments for the waiver when she discovered that it was defective, and thus, ratified the waiver.
The Supreme Court rejected the employer's arguments, ruling that the employee was not required to tender back the consideration that she received for the waiver in order to challenge it as defective. The Court reasoned that the validity of an ADEA waiver should be determined solely with reference to the OWBPA because "the OWBPA sets up its own regime for assessing the effect of ADEA waivers, separate and apart from contract law." The Court explained that:
Congress imposed specific duties on employers who seek releases of certain claims created by statute. Congress delineated these duties with precision and without qualification: An employee 'may not waive' an ADEA claim unless the employer complies with the statute. Courts cannot with ease presume ratification of that which Congress forbids.
The Court reasoned that, because many discharged employees lack the resources to return the funds that they received for the release, "[t]hese realities might tempt employers to risk noncompliance with OWBPA's waiver provisions . . . . We ought not to open the door to an evasion of the statute by this device."
the word is "draconian", which means "severe" or "unusually harsh".
sheesh, i don't mean to nitpick but there are few simpler ways to come off as less-than-brilliant than to misuse "big words".
look them up before you use them. thanks. (checks own spelling)
If it's a dot-bomb, you better get what you can while you can.
The law is different in every area and you need legal help right now. It is also political beyond your imagination as to how courts interpret current law. Your signature might be the death knell of any bennefits or rights of recovery. On the other hand there is sometimes a view that the contract ends when the pay ends. Most employees are just sort of coerced into signing these things to get their pay checks. Next time you vote try to make sure you don't vote for one of the supposed conservatives who always favor business over workers.
In Canada they're called "cheques".
The point of an Ask Slashdot is to ask the general readership about their experiences in an area. In this case, it's quite likely that somebody will step forward and help out: "When I was in your situation, I talked to an attorney, and she told me to do this and this and that and that, but on this line of the contract, I was screwed".
Will I retire or break 10K?
How would he know if he had a need or cause to sue the company in 5 years? Can't predict the future. I detest the law/lawyer systems of today as much as the next person. BUT, I learned a long time ago that to sue someone or some entity is nothing more than asking that system to make a legal binding decision on something that two or more parties cannot agree upon themselves. They're asking him to give up that right in the future. They're saying "You agree with everything we say in the future (pertaining to you), whether you really do or not!"
BUNK!! I say don't sign and take it to a legal person now.
Let's just keep it simple:
GSAL (Go See A Lawyer)
That will cut down on the endless "/. is not the best place to ask that type of question.. yada yada"
You people amaze me. The best severance package I can hope for from my job is to never have to return to it. The day my contract expires, I go home jobless -- and that makes me happy. If I disclose any specific information about what I do (I'm in the Navy), I could go to prison. Lawsuits are simply not an option -- ever try suing the Navy? Muahahaha! Don't go complaining about a lousy severance package (aaw, they said I couldn't sue, and wouldn't let me talk about my job, or they'd take away my $50,000 bonus! How ridiculous is that?!) until you look around and realize that you could really have it a lot worse.
If your severance package is above and beyond what the labour laws in your province require then they can ask you to do a strip tease to give it to you, HOWEVER you don't have to do or sign anything, and tghey are still forced to pay you the minimum severage package (depends how long you worked for them etc) I"m assuming not very long so usually 2 weeks worth of regular pay.+of course any holiday pay you have saved up.
I remember sitting through a class given by an hr person telling us how california (at the time I lived there), would ignore statements like that. You still have a right to sue. Amazingly however I still got the similar contract when they had there second round of layoffs. I signed it and took my severance to the bank. I dont have any reason to sue.
This of course was another of the many failed dotcoms and they didnt end up making payroll a few weeks later so I was happy to get my check and that it had cleared when it truely fell apart.
My advice is, if a company is truely a failing dotcom and doesnt look like they are gonna pull out of the downward spiral is sign it. Take the money, and hope it clears the bank before they truely run out of money. It happens more often then you think.
On the other hand if you have cause to sue them and think you will get something more and can stand to lose the severance more power to you. Just remember that if there totaly broke 6 weeks from now and your case still isnt done in court you can probably kiss any settlement or decision by the courts goodbye.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
I'm not sure about Canadian law, but in the states, there are two classes of employment law. Some states allow for employment at will and others construe all employment as being contract based. In the former case, the employer can let you the employee go at any time without rason with no further obligation. In the latter case employee termination must be with cause (as I understand it - and IANAL). In either case, the employee may sue the employer on various grounds usually relating to wrongful termination. Only in the latter case would such suits have even a remote chance of having a successful outcome. Severence packages are typically offered in exchange for an agreement not to sue the employer or the company officers. This is simple contract law. Consideration is being provided in exchange for agreed behaviors/actions/inactions. In some cases, however, these agreements are not enforcable because, for example in the case of Enron or Worldcom the companies enguaged in (potentially) criminal fraud directly affecting the matters (your salary and continued employment) the severence contract would impact.
Again, IANAL.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Sounds like prostitution to me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
First, he worked in legal; 'nuff said.
Second, he prepared a list of media contacts.
Third, on the day he was laid off, he walked into HR and said, "This deal is not adequate." "Where do your work?" "Legal -- and here are my contacts." "Ahhh, lemme make a phone call ... OK, we can offer something better."
If your company's public, and you have embarrassing information shareholders should know, use it as leverage. Settling with one employee is cheaper than settling one lawsuit.
Severance packages are negotiable, especially if they're not up to your province's standards.
post an article about the company's horrible treatment of employees on slashdot, and then go to your former employer and threaten to name names if they dont double your package.
And having a few million people melt their web servers would be a nice added touch...
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
Went through that myself with a large company, last year, although in the US. Ask yourself, do you really have any reason to sue? I got my notice immediately on returning from disability. Kind of bad taste on the employers part. I took the paper to a lawyer specializing in labor and he negotiated a sweeter severance package. One other thing, although you may sign that you will not file suit, the company cannot force you to surrender rights given to you by nation, province and locality (again, based on US laws). A contract to violate law is not valid. But.... if the severance is OK and there's really nothing to sue for... let it go, take the money and move on. I worked for my company for a number of years, with lots of blood, sweat and tears invested; in the end, I took the sweetened package and walked away with my pride, self-esteem, sanity and family-life intact. To me, that was the real decision. Hope this was helpful.
How many people out there didn't get squat.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
Dot Bombs are built and then dismembered by VC firms which is a fancy way of saying lawyers. That's what lawyers do - they make harsh sounding documents to protect their interests forever and ever under all circumstances against any all things in the universe.
But companies that are bankrupt or soon to be don't have the time or the interest in suing ex employees unless said ex employees have stolen actual money or cheated or defrauded them.
I wouldn't worry.
The typical dot-bomb is not to be more than 5 years old, usually less. (Otherwise it's some other category of failed computer company :-) So if Ontario's rule is that you had to be there five years, you probably weren't. So take the money and run.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You can sign that agreement and get the package, and STILL SUE later, as often those agreements are bogus if you later find out that illegal things were happening. There's also the option of signing a modified agreement. Strike out the clauses you don't agree with and have the company's rep initial your changes. If you really feel like it, check with a lawyer - maybe you could sue if they don't give you the severance package. A waiver on legal liability in return for a package might not be legal...
--- http://foo.ca
Maybe you should move to a real country because Canada sucks
I hate the look of that geeky guy with thick-framed glasses and a black rectangle over his mouth. Ughh!!!! Could you slashdot operators please get a different icon?
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.
I am Canadian and 5 1/2 years ago I went through what you are going through . The most important piece of advice that I can give you is SEE A LAWYER. If you don't know one, get a reference to a good lawyer from friends or family. It won't cost you that much for an initial consultation (maybe $80-$150). It is worth it's weight in gold for the piece of mind of knowing where you stand. Once you know exactly what your rights and the employers obligations are, you can make an informed decision about signing.
The situation that you describe is common these days - the company is looking to limit all liabilities with respect to you employment in order to avoid being blindsided with a costly lawsuit in the future. I worked for a company where that (lawsuit) happened and it cost them big time both financially and in terms of distraction of key management. In exchange for that they offer you a severance package over and above the legal minimum, (which, IIRC, here in Ontario is a paltry one week's pay for each year of service plus vacation pay outstanding). You are legally entitled to your provincially mandated minimum and under no obligation to sign ANYTHING for that minimum.
I don't know what you have been offered but it should be at least one month's pay for each year of service plus vacation pay outstanding. Still, do not sign based on what I just said - get a lawyer to review the terms and advise you. Your lawyer will have a big fat reference book which lists settlements in Canada by industry/job classification/experience. He can tell you whether the financial terms are 'fair' and whether the legal terms are reasonable. The employer is required to give you some time for you to get their 'offer' reviewed by a lawyer. You should not have to sign 'on the spot'.
Also, note that you have a golden one-time (per layoff) opportunity to direct a fairly large chunk of you severance package into your retirement savings (over and a above your allowable annual amount) without income tax deductions under these circumstances. Get the info from your employer or Revenue Canada. You will never see that money - it goes from directly from your employer into the retirement plan that you designate BUT IT IS TAX FREE and once of the few 'gifts' that you'll get.
Best of luck finding a job. Layoffs suck and are a jolt to the system but always keep in mind that you will get another job and probably be better off for it.
Finally, and in case I didn't mention it, this post does not constitute legal advice - please GET A LAWYER TO REVIEW THE PACKAGE AND ANYTHING THAT YOU WILL SIGN !
Sigs are bad for your health.
I am a Canadian lawyer. I don't practise in the field of wrongful dismissal, but that's the area that applies. I do know that most of the advice you got is inaccurate. The best advice is see a lawyer. The most important question for you is "How do I find the right lawyer?" The answer is ask a lawyer. Several lawyers. "Which lawyers do you know of that are good at wrongful dismissal claims?" If several lawyers name the same name(s), you've got your expert.
IANAL, however I've had conversations about employers forcing such things upon employees with
my friend who is one in California.
He says that the can tell you to sign things
all day long. He says that you write on the
paper that you don't agree to the terms
and then sign it.
If they don't go for that then you sign it
and write on the paper that you're signing
against your will and are being put
under duress.
If the don't go for that then you sign it.
If the company really tries to sue you (unlikely
with a dot bomb, they need the money for other
things), then you explain what you did and
that you were forced by your employer to sign.
Be sure you check with you're lawyer before you
go down any of these roads, though.
Companies are rarely in a position that they are required to pay severance. Most of them do pay severance though as a legal butt covering maneuver. So, they hand you that piece of paper and ask you to sign it because they want to reduce their future risk of legal problems. Most people will just sign it because usually if you've lost your job you need the money they offer right away.
The first time I was laid-off, they offered severance and I ended up signing the piece of paper becuase I had nothing I could sue them for. They didn't owe me any money or anything so I didn't lose anything by signing the paper.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The thing to remember is this...
Regardless of what that little contract you may sign says, you can't sign a piece of paper that takes away a legal right. Company has power, but guess what, the government trumps it. If they say you can sue, which they do, then you can sue. You can't sign away legal rights like that, even if you want to (of course there are certain exceptions to this)
In this case, I say sign the paper, get your money, and if you feel the need to sue in the future do so, because they can't legally take that right away from you
Shit, maybe they're firing his ass because he's illiterate.
I can't believe the posters on slashdot. Who in the hell would trust you to write good code if you can't even put together a sentence correctly?
iF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW how to spell "severances", prererring instead to say "of the severance" (which is what "severance's" means), then you are a dopey, half-educated, admass fart who desrves what he (s)he has coming. Employers would be more likely to keep in their employ people who know how to reason, how to think, & how to spell. CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SIMPLE POINT, ASSHOLE??? If I were your boss I'd fire U toot sweet, & no mistake about it.
ZCur
"Dragonian"? "Severence's"? What high school did you not graduate from? Have you read any books lately? Linux HOWTO's and comic books do not count.
The "don't sue us" clause may just be a standard 'cover my ass' thing, or it may be that they believe that you could get alot more from them if you did sue. You may want to talk to a lawyer, but I'd say that there's not much reason to not sign if/when you have absolutely no intention to sue them.
Remember: The severence package is an offer. It's a negotiating tactic. You can accept it as is, or you can negotiate something a bit better or you can even hire a lawyer and go the legal route.
I don't know what the other terms of the contract are, but if they're asking you to go above and beyond the call of duty as an EX employee (notice the emphasis on EX-), then you're completely within your rights to ask them to pay you for the favour -- or refuse it outright. Payment for the favour should be in addition to what they owe you, generally, in severance.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Yes they are pulling a fast one.... Regardless, take the money and run.... if you decide later that you want to sue, there must be a compelling reason to, your then lawyer should be able to trash the document, especially if there is a bundle to be made. good luck
The standard plan when exiting a professional job under less than ideal circumstances is this: You write your regretful resignation and your glowing reference. They sign both. You get a new job.
You can try other plans, but the thing is, the best professional jobs aren't found in the newspaper. You know someone who knows someone and they put your resume in front of the boss and vouch for you. Who's gonna put their rep on the line and vouch for someone who sued his previous company?
The old boys network isn't an old "boys" network any more, but it still works much the same: loyalty, talent and work ethic = connections. Connections = new and better jobs. No loyalty, no connections, no back door in. You get to beat the street with the rest of the losers no one will vouch for. Know what? You weren't the first security guard with a bachelor's degree, and you won't be the last.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
This exact thing happened to me. Only it was with my final pay check. The company was going out of business and I didn't want to deal with the hassle of it all (had another job interview that afternoon). So I signed the paper: "Idonot Agree" handed it to them, they handed me my check, I left.
:)
Who knows if this was "legal" or not, but I got my check, I'm working at one of their competitors, there out of business, all is well.
If you don't have any real advice to give -- and you didn't -- then why not just refrain from posting? Ask Slashdot does not seek to get the opinion of every reader -- only those that have something of use to say. Legal questions are of important to us all, and useful for people to understand before they are confronted with a problem -- with some legal knowlege you can act with more confidence and have some legal predictability in your life.
But instead there's always tons of people like yourself who give blanket non-advice, and attack the forum -- if you don't want to see legal advice on /., then just close your damn eyes and scroll past.
Not that your comment is better or worse than any of the common, equivalent comments... but it got tiring a long time ago.
You say you have "issues" but dont't tell us what they are.Either you have a suit or you dont't. Sign the papers and take your severence, sue them or shut up. I can't believe this got on slashdot!!!! How can you have an intelligent discussion when you don't have any info?
Had no idea Canadian companies were so kinky. Do you have to wear a feather boa when you turn in your pink slip? Or do you wear the pink slip?
I suspect that you do have some somewhat draconian things in there as well. Those probably cropped up when panicing lawyers and accountants got involved. Everyone who agrees not to sue reduces possible liability and increases the selling value or decreases the owners' personal devastation or might even be enough coverage to encourage more funding or more time from creditors.
By accepting a severance package, you are taking some money so that you are appeased and maybe don't totally hate the company. The company might lose a lot of that goodwill if they are jerks by adding many terms to the package, but it is likely their right to try to do so.
Finally, I would mention that despite signing away your rights, in many cases (at least here in litigatous [sp] America) one can often still sue. Many contracts conceed enough rights that the courts deem them illegal and irrelevant. But hey, there's your decision. Do you bow out gracefully, thank them for the check and harbor as little ill will as possible? Or do you refuse to be bought off and either storm off or come back with a legal team? Or, finally, do you want to take the money but feel so insulted by stupid conditions that you feel the need to ask a bunch of nerds about legal matters we don't understand?
Whatever, sorry you lost your job, good luck in your efforts to find a new one.
Now
First there's statute law in each province that specifies the length of notice that the employer has to give. You'll find these in each province's employment standards listings.
Given that you were laid off from "yet another dot bomb" you probably only worked there a couple of years at the most. This would translate to two weeks notice in most provinces. Notice equates to regular pay. The employer is allowed to tell you your fired and kick you out (then they must give pay in lieu of notice) or tell you your going to be fired in two weeks and make you work out the rest of those two weeks.
There is also common law that applies in Canada. This is determined by precedent. Under common law, your usually entitled to a months pay for every year worked.
You could try to sue for wrongful dissmissal. This will cost you lots of lawyer money and you might have to pay the employer's costs if you lose. Its usually not worth it unless you have a strong case and are at the VP/Director level of a company with lots of money at stake.
You have the right to seek legal counsel about your severance package and any papers they want you to sign. They have to give you time to do this. Go do that right away. In most places in Canada you get seek this type of legal advice for free. Lawyer hotlines etc.
Your best strategy is to treat this like a negotiation. You can negotiate the terms of your breakup just by asking them. Some things you might want from them:
- if they aren't paying at least a month's pay you may have a case to argue with them
- make sure you get your unpaid holiday time, employment standards boards will take them to task on this
- a nice letter of recomendation
- more severance
- severance paid over two tax years
- extend your benefits for extra time
- monies to pay for job seeking etc.
- ask the HR person if they'd help you with your resume. most will probably say yes.
Some other things you should do. Get your record of employment from the company. Apply for employment insurance. Use your time off to get certifications and volunteer for non-profit groups doing technical work. Contribute to open source projects.
Good Luck!
Yes, moderators, this is slightly off-topic.
At least in the USA, you can only enforcably sign away your right to sue if there already exists a claim or controversy. This is known as a release or settlement; Usually done after a lawsuit has already been filed, but can be done once the facts or issues are known to all parties. The dispute must be genuine and real, not a mere possibility. Until this happens, your right to sue is protected. Regardless of whether you agree not to sue by signing this document or not, this provision would be unenforcable.
When the technology company I used to work for was in the process of significant staff reduction, (several offices were closed) we were presented with severance contracts. They had the basic "you won't sue us and we will pay you your severance agreement." Other then losing my job, I didn't have any other beef with the company and had no reason to sue; that and wanting the cash lead me to sign the contract. Story neutral so far. The contract also had an interesting statement that said that the severance agreement superceded any and all other prior agreements, written or otherwise. This, of course, means that any any and all prior agreements were null and void, including any intellectual property agreements. Darn.
I am an employment lawyer practicing in Canada (Ontario specifically), so I know this subject very well.
:).
Why do people who know something about computers assume that this makes them qualified to give legal opinions? Do NOT go to the Labour Relations Board with those severance documents - they're not interested in seeing them and, contrary to popular opinion, they're not in the business of reviewing documents like that or giving employees advice about their termination. The labour relations board is, by and large, in the business of adjudicating disputes under the labour relations act of the province in question. The labour relations act deals primarily with disputes between employers and unions, and has virtually nothing to do with individual, non-union employee terminations.
What you want to do is to take those documents to a lawyer experienced in employment law, and get some advice as to whether the offer that is being proposed to you is reasonable or not.
In all the common law provinces of Canada (i.e. every province except Quebec) a non-government employee is entitled to reasonable notice of termination or compensation in lieu of reasonable notice, unless he or she has signed a valid employment contract substituting some other period of notice (and most employees have not done this). This is a common law entitlement enforced through the courts, not the Labour Relations Board, which has nothing to do with this. Of course you're not entitled to this if you're terminated for just cause, but economic downsizing is not just cause. The amount of notice that is "reasonable" depends primarily but not exclusively on your age, length of service and position with the Company and it's not a mathematical formula. It's also subject to a reduction for other earnings in subsequent employment during the reasonable notice period, or for earnings that you could have made during that period with reasonable diligence. For example, if you're terminated without notice, and your reasonable notice period is determined to be six months, your entitlement is six months pay (including things like benefit coverage) less your earnings in other employment in the six month period following your date of termination, either actual earnings or earnings you could have made if you had been diligently searching for other employment instead of spending your days watching TV and reading Slashdot
You're probably in a provincially regulated company (most tech companies would be provincial) so I'm not going to bother talking about unjust dismissal complaints under the Canada Labour Code - your lawyer can tell you about them if it turns out your employer is federally regulated.
There is also a statutory minimum entitlement upon termination which varies from province to province. This amount is often much, much less than the common law entitlement and an employer cannot demand a release in return for paying you this statutory minimum. This entitlement is enforced by making a complaint to an employment standards officer at the Ministry of Labour (or whatever they call it in your province) again, this is NOT the Labour Relations Board. In Ontario for about the past 3 or 4 years the labour relations board has had the jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of employment standards officers, but the labour relations board does not make initial decisions about employment standards entitlements and, as I said above, it has nothing to do with common law entitlement, which is the real issue you need to know about.
In Ontario commencing an employment standards complaint precludes you from suing for wrongful dismissal, so watch out. Your province may be different.
It is very, very common for a downsizing employer in Canada to offer an amount in excess of the statutory minimum in return for a release. It's a perfectly acceptable thing to do, but you need to determine whether the amount that is being offered is a realistic approximation of your common law entitlement.
The lawyer experienced in employment law can tell you almost immediately whether the Company's offer is reasonable.
Try using spell check next time before you post an article.
I am a lawyer practicing in Toronto, Ontario, and my practice is restricted to employment law. I know the law relating to this person's situation very well. He needs to see a lawyer (not me as I represent employers, not employees). Contrary to popular opinion among lay people, the labour relations boards in the English speaking provinces have virtually nothing to do with the termination of an individual employee. I scanned the postings on this article and the vast majority of them are simply completely wrong on virtually every single point. Find a lawyer experienced in employment law and he will very quickly tell you what you're entitled to and what your options are.
don't sign unless they give you lots of money. like at least a month's wages, and agree not to sue you either.
they'd rather pay you and have the legal end covered.
The parent post seems to be correct, informative and authoritative. Or else a really clever troll.
My understanding(and that of Employemnt Canada at the time I was fired without cause) is that under Canadain Law you do not have to sign anything for severance pay. Just because the company's lawyer wants you to sign something doesn't mean you have to.
However if you choose not to sign, the company does not have to give you anything but what they are required to by law, which varies by province.
Under Canadian Law the only conditions that apply are those that you signed when you joined the company or that you signed while an "active" employee as a term of continuing employment.
I have two suggestions:
1)Simply crossout those parts of the severance agreement that you do not like, then sign the document. The paperwork they tender is just an "offer" not a "contract". You are entitled to change it as you see fit. If the company's rep takes the signed "offer" back then you have "acceptance" on the company's part. This forms the "contract" and the company must pay you as they offered to.
2)Get a lawyer. Since you obviously feel the company is trying to pull something, get a lawyer right away.
"Sounds like better advice then yours."
Than, not then.
Don't sign. If you feel the need to sue them (Or tell anyone what company it was) later, you'll be glad you didn't sign the contract, money or not. This kind of contract reminds me of the one the Scientology church would make you sign. It doesn't belong anywhere.
its a dot-bomb, they'll probably be out of business anyways, so even if you wanted to sue you'd be outta luck. and given that they are out of business, they are not going to be able to hold you to a non-compete. plus - its just a legality, you're probably never going to want to sue, and they are probably never going to come after you even if you do work for a competitor, unless it was for someone big like Microsoft and you were there for 20 years and new exactly why Windoze always crashes, went over to a competitor and somehow mimicked the entire OS and made it not crash (hmmm). Which ofcourse is all very unlikely, so just sign it, take the money, and go on with life. Thats what I did!!
Like this? :)
I don't know what the union density rate is in Canada, but I know that in Australia, IT professionals are among the least unionised of all workers. While I respect people's right to choose whether or not they will collectively bargain, posts such as this one indicate the problems that can emerge when workers aren't adequately unionised.
Can you imagine dock workers or coal miners signing a form saying they won't be able to sue?
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
Boy I'm not so sure about this - just consider it from the POV of prospective employers when they get his CV and the name seems familiar.
"Yeh, thats the guy who went ape-shit public on his last employer. Don't know who was right or wrong, but do we want a nut like that working for us?"
Guess what the answer will be? He'll have to leave town or the country, depending upon the size of the stink he manages to raise to get a job.
Also consider the ramifications if he loses all these lawsuits, and the company then asks for or lititgates for compensatory damages.
He could end up with a enormous judgement against him!
Just isn't worth it. Take the money, learn and move on.
A message from our sponsor
Be very, very certain that the package they offer is not a penis severance package. If it is, RETURN IT IMMEDIATELY!
If she got 4 weeks, UI will start after the 4 weeks and the 4 weeks is subtracted from your UI claim as if the government paid you the four weeks. I think it really sucks but that is definitely what's been happening in Ont.
Now it could be argued that if you have a severance package it serves the purpose of UI so you don't need UI. However I would argue in that case, if I have a job that pays me 14 weeks severance I should be able to get an exemption from paying into UI. It pisses me off that until my current job I have always had to pay UI but I have none of these jobs would qualify me to collect UI. If I'm not going to be qualified to collect UI I don't think I should have to pay it.
Verbing wierds language --Calvin
Simple as that. You don't have to sign an agreement to get your severance package, and if they tell you that you do, they're full of it.
Then... if they withhold your severance, sue the buggers.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
The only time I signed one of these, it was actually a condition of the contract that I take legal advice before signing it, which the company paid for. I doubt it would have been legally binding otherwise. But that was in the UK, not Canada.
So, if you are an incompetent manager who actively slows progress and absorbs money, then try SAIC. All you have to lose is... nothing! You will be hansomely rewarded for your incompetence and most likely be able to get a multi month period of double pay if you get snatched up by yet another quality-hating, bureacracy-loving company. That is a very sweet deal and one that anyone would be a fool to pass up (ethical arguments are foolish my young padawan). Just think, your days could be filled with meaningless meetings, while you are not held accountable to actually coordinate a team, facilitate a proper development environment or much less utilize a consistent approach to, well anything. Remember, you get paid through contracts funded by tax dollars, and we all know that said pool of money is 'endless' as congress has taught us all.
I am 27, and it sucks even more when some 20 year olds come in that have no skills, degrees, etc. yet get 15000 more than me. Then when you find out that in order for them to do their job they require about 19000 in training. Damn, thats like winning the lottery!
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
there's no point in sueing them anyway. I had to sign similar papers when I was laid off.
What we're trying to do here is make sure the questioner gets the advice he needs. If you need legal advice, you must seek out a lawyer. Any advice beyond that that you receive here is exactly worth what you paid for it.
I can see the next Ask Slashdot question:
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
off.
I'm not very familiar with Canadian law, but I am familiar with Australian law and they are pretty close.
s /cth/high%5fct/2001/70.html?query=title+%28+%22mag gbury%22+%29
They are allowed to restrict your right to sue if the action is in common law, as in breach of contract, or tortious liability, but in many cases, where your action comes from breach of a statutory duty (legislation), there may be provisions in the legislation which do not allow for such a clause to take effect.
Furthermore, depending on how restrictive the contract is, it may be a breach of the long-standing common law doctrine of unfair restraint of trade, which is a recognised heading uner public policy considerations which may make the contract illegal and thus not valid. Again, I'm sure about Canadian law, but a recent Australia High Court case is Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70. You can find a copy of this case at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/case
Furthermore, not giving you severance pay if you don't sign comes under the heading of economic duress and any contract made under economic duress is deemed to be invalid "ab initio" which means that any successful claim will give you compensation to attempt to place you in a position similar to what you were in before you signed the contract.
It's 'draconian', not 'dragonian'. Learn how to spell, moron.
As far as not being able to sue without losing your severance package, deal with it. That's life. Be happy you're even getting a severance package. Lots of other people aren't/weren't so lucky. You hear what I'm sayin', homes?!
I cant believe the number of self professed geeks here that have a collective IQ of a stump when it comes to business...
The made you and offer... Cross out what you dont like (I'd leave in the you can sue us... nyah nyah! clause as that is what they really are interested in.. and initial where you cross the items out. make a copy of it after you signed it and send it back to them. with a letter you already printed up for the person to sign WHEN they recieve your signed severance form that they did indeed recieve your form.
if they accept it by paying you they accepted your changes. otherwise you start the next phase... "Sure I'll add that clause back in for another $1000.00 dollars." it's business.... this is HOW you do business peiople... it's not "oh than you benebolent employer... I so dont deserve anything... please dont look at me!" you are doing them a service and a favor... it is NEVER the otherway around.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Do you want to? Do you need to? The suing part is about your being fired; you can't sue them for that or anything that they did/you knew about during your employment.
Anyway, IANAL, but when I had a similar severance thing tossed at me, I went to someone who is, and they said it's basically a CYA thing.
The terms of mine:
1) Cannot apply for a position with the company or other owned businesses for a period of 1 year.
2) Cannot work for a competitor in the same capacity for 5 years (fortunately, my next job was 2 steps up and had a different title...)
3) Cannot publicly disparage said company (I made sure that one went both ways, just in case)
4) Cannot disclose details of the severance agreement, such as cash, stock, bonus payments etc.
Personally, I'd say "If you have no intention or need to sue em, sign the thing, get your money and move on."
There are federal and/or provincial minimum guidelines. I believe they provide for something like 1 week per year of service. Upon severance, I believe companies are required to 'make the employee whole'. In some cases, this means compensating them more depending upon their age (older people are less likely to be able to find suitable work), qualifications (more qualified people might have a harder time finding equivalent positions), etc. There is considerable subjectivity here, but also case histories you can use as supporting evidence.
What is provided for in your severance package can NOT be less than what is provided by law. So you need to look at your package and determine how much MORE they are providing you, in compensation for you giving up whatever rights you give up when you sign the severance agreement. For instance, you might have stock options which expire 30 days after you cease becoming an employee, but your company might offer you an additional 3 months IF you sign the agreement. What price do you put on your ability to sue, and what price do you put on the additional exercise/vesting period ? The answer is, as so often it is with legal-type questions here, 'it depends'.
You need to weigh the tradeoffs between what they're offering you and what you're giving up. But be advised, the legal minimums in Canada are pretty minimal. They're almost certainly giving you more than you are entitled to. Whether they are giving you more than you think you deserve is a different question.
In this day and age, having you sign away your rights to sue is pretty much standard.
Back in the late 80's, the company I was working for, with a large percentage of people over the age of 50 (probably 50% of the building) had a fairly large layoff (80-100 people out of like 1000)... As it turns out, over 80% of the people in the layoff were over the age of 50.
The company got slapped with an age discrimination suit, which of course dragged on for 5-7 years before being settled. Since then, they have been very careful to lay off a mix of people... the last list I saw (about 40 people this spring), they actually had averaged the ages of everybody they laid off and came up with 48.
The downside to this, of course, is that to drive the average down they lay off some secretaries (uhh... "administrators") in the younger age range , say under 40, to lower the average... but they wind up being people that actually are good workers.. just a less-essential function than an engineer, and young enough to drive the average down.
Sad but true. And, yes, they do *now* make people sign a wavier not to sue... however, legally, I'm *not* certain that that actually holds for a class-action suit such as age discrimination. It certainly would hold for individual's suing though.
What if you signed a contract saying you can't sue the company, then they fail to give you your severance pay? Can you sue them for breach of contract if you sign a contract relinquishing your right to sue?
Or another possibility: what if you sign the contract, they give you your severance, then on your way out of the building you slip on a freshly mopped floor and go flying down a flight of stairs. You wake up in the hospital, paralyzed from the waist down, only to remember that you can't sue your former employer.
Giving up your right to pursue compensation in court is pretty extreme. Personally, I would refuse to sign the contract, then I'd hire a lawyer and sue them for your severance plus legal fees. Even the threat of a legal suit would probably get you your severance, and you would likely be out less than $500 to file the paperwork. Of course, if it goes to court and you lose, you lose your severance PLUS you now have a big bill for legal services. It's a gamble. Like pretty much everything in life.
Either this guy is Canadian or his English is really terrible. Could the editors of slashdot (and shouldn't they) do a little bit of editorializing and fix up the grammer and spelling in the original post? After all, it's on the front page.
That would be Draconian, after Draco, a 7th century BC ruler of Athens.
Happened to me as a Systems Engineer last year when the stock slumped.
Real dehumanizing experience.
Hey, all jokes aside, lawyers are here for a reason. The reason is, us humans don't get along with each other very well - we have disputes, and the resolution of those disputes has been codified. And lawyers specialize in understanding those codes.
Having said that, not everything we do requires a legal opinion. You know something? Not once, when I've gotten an employment contract, did I rush out to get a lawyer to read it for me. This may stun some of you, but IANAL, and I had the shocking balls to read and decipher my own contract. Imagine, the impudence! Me, a layman...reading a legal contract. Jesus, listening to this crew makes me think I should engage a lawyer every time I get hired.
I'll bet some of you characters get a lawyer every time you buy or sell a car. Hell, I'll bet you get a legal opinion when you take a leak.
Same goes for this situation. Ever heard of common sense? Getting a lawyer involved right at the start is not necessarily the way to go - the guy is being laid off, for Chrissakes. You think he has money to burn? And by the time he's done with the legal eagle, he's already forked out more in fees than his anticipated severance package.
It's actually possible to get some information on your own, without hiring Perry Mason, you know. The province I work in posts legislation on the Web - I can read the bills that pertain to my rights as an employee. Again, and this may stun some people here, although IANAL I have actually been arrogant enough to think that I can understand what the relevant legislation says.
It actually doesn't take a trained mouthpiece to do some independent research, and find out whether such a signed agreement is binding at all let alone whether or not certain conditions can be imposed in one. I am not saying follow all the way through by yourself - what I am saying is, it's possible to develop a feel for the situation on your own, or with the advice of non-lawyers whose opinions you trust. If you then believe you have a case, by all means take it to a lawyer.
You're absolutely frigging correct. This is not the place for legal advice. But the guy asked for advice. You Americans have this magical way of thinking that there is no advice except legal advice. Must be why there are more lawyers per capita in the USA than anywhere else in the United Federation of Planets.
You can put anything onto paper for someone to sign ('The signer hereby agrees to wipe from back to front') but enforcing it is another thing. Courts will often find that the contract is not legally binding or that it is unconstitutional... and quite often, opens up the grounds for a counter suit.
I got into an argument with AT&T ever so recently because they wanted me to pay an fee for ending my cell service early because my cell phone was stolen. Since I did not purchase the cell phone through them (I had merely purchased the contract), I told them that that was illegal and that it would be like charged me for cable TV after my TV was stolen or charging me for insurance after my car was stolen.
They claimed it was in the contract I signed and that I would still have to pay. I told them the courts would decide that.
Needless to say, after many threats by them, they realized that they could not enforce the contract and they called up to say that 'as a courtesy' they would be waiving the fees.
So, if you know something is illegal and they can't enforce the contract, go ahead and sign. It's no sweat off your back.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Many of the US based severences have this as a clause; essentially, find out how much unemployment you'd get and if it is less than the Net Present Value of the serverence you are getting a bumb deal... unless you have anouther job lined up.
what money do you make if you sue vs. the severance package? TO sign or not to sign?
I say if you stand to sue the lungs off of the co,
go for it.
Why is it in this day and age everyone's first thought is to fucking sue.
THIS IS WHAT IS RUINING THIS SOCIETY (BOTH US AND CANADA)!!!! STOP THINKING ABOUT WHO YOU CAN SUE AS YOUR FIRST GUT REACTION!!!!!!!!!!!
Just take the money, you fucker, and find another job. Stop whining about it. You worked for a DOT COM WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? A CEREMONY BEMOANING THE FACT THAT YOU WERE LAID OFF AND 1 YEAR'S SEVERANCE??? Please.
What if the company you sue goes bankrupt before you get any money back from a lawsuit? Then you are stuck footing the lawyer's bill AND you don't get any money.
People here where I work in California got 1 week severance when they got laid off, period. I am Canadian as well, so I know how Canadians have a Welfare State mindset, and they expect the government to pay for everything, including his BMW Zed 3 payments, but this is the risk you take when you join a dot com. Deal with it. Don't go around suing people for every little thing, and don't think that you are ENTITLED to anything.
And for the love of God PLEASE STOP SUING. IT IS GOING TO BE THE DOWNFALL OF NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY.
...and when they breach the contract, what can you do? Sue? Nope. Maybe you could put a contract out on the heads of the high level executives, but that'd hardly be legal either.
So refuse to sign. Demand severance pay. When they don't give it to you, sue them. Encourage everyone else who got laid off to do the same. If they're hemmoraging money as it is and laying off people to try to stay afloat financially, they're not going to want to spend a lot of money on lawyers.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Maybe if you keep getting laid off, you are the problem.
I've been responsible for hiring and firing many people. Neither I nor any reasonable businessman would provide severance payments beyond the legal minimum without a commitment by the employee not to sue. If you believe that you have cause for legal action, feel free to negotiate or hire a lawyer, but don't expect the company to pay you any more than the legal minimum without a written commitment not to sue or a court order.
Businesses offer severance for four reasons:
1. Because the managers feel bad about laying you off.
2. Because they wish to protect their reputation and preserve good will.
3. Because they wish to avoid being sued.
4. Because they forgot to secure confidentiality or non-compete agreements and are prepared to pay for this at the time of the layoff.
If they can't cover these bases, they aren't going to pay you money.
N.B. If you have a legitimate cause of action and bankruptcy is not imminent, DO negotiate. You will almost certainly get substantially more than is offered. Lawsuits, even frivilous ones, are a major pain in the butt for companies. Whether or not you should hire a lawyer for this depends on the circumstances.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
What, fire-breathing and everything? That's far worse than anything I've ever seen from an employer!
If only employees were able to counter with some sort of crypt fiend web ability...
sic transit gloria mundi
I used to work for a certain private weather company (starts with an A). Their employment contract were draconian to say the least: Blanket IP clause that continues to 2 years after the end of your employment; waiver of all rights to sue the company or it's owners for anything, ever; etc. The real kicker was that the contract itself is considered confidential information. In other words, you could be sued by the company for having a lawyer look at your contract to make sure it's legal. The worst part of it was the fact that they employed a full time paralegal to sue current and past employees.
They will put a gazillion conditions, give themselves the rights to sue you, your dog and all of your decendants till year 3000, and so on.
This I am affraid, you will have a hard time to change it, but what you can add before going into confrontation is clauses that protect you as well. I.e. they can't blackmail you, they can't accuse you of stuff that you didn't do, they can't stop you from working at a competitor's because they FIRED you (you didn't leave to go elsewhere) and here in Canada you can't stop someone from living his life, if you are a talented enginneer in rocket sciences, chances are you won't go to pump out gas or sell shoes. So if they can't afford you, it's not your problem, if a better company can afford you and it happens to be a competitor, well too bad, and this would hold off in court. The only thing that could go against you is if you are giving them the blueprints of what you were working on at the last company, or discuss their strategies.. this would be bad and breach your contract and besides... it's non-ethical.
The other way out if they do not want to protect you and make it only 1-way is to either go to the small claim court if what they owe you is under 3000$ (but be sure you have written evidance that they didn't want to include any of your self-protecting options in the contract, especially if they are general and legitimate, it will make them look terribly bad), another way out is simply sign it and if they ever sue you if it's that bad, here in canada it won't hold up in court, the judge will simply invalidate the contract because it's probably going to go against human right charts and work charts.
One last thing to consider: if they lay you off, they are out of cash, chances are they wouldn't be able to sue you in the first place, and chances are within the next year they will be out of buisness... but I can understand that you wouldn't want to sign such documents. I've managed to get my side protection saying that they really enjoyed my work and I was a very good employee and blablabla as a recomandation letter, so if they would blackmail me afterwards, they'd have to explain this to the judge, and they were so disorganized that I would have crushed them in no time, it's common and the last thing you need is to pay for a lawyer to comfort you and goign to court to get your money back, (small claim is okay but more than 3000$ is standard court with lawyer and long procedures, you don't want that, especially if what they owe you is under 5K.
Hope this helps... and good luck.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
I had the same thing happen to me ... sign this (which says I won't sue, etc) if you want your severence ... Told em to "stick your severence up your ass". Then they asked me for my badge. When I asked when I would get my personal belongings back, they said I could make an appointment "next week" with HR to get it ... ... can you believe they wanted the badge back bad enough to send me to my cube with an escort to get my stuff? ;)
Told em they could "make an appointment to get their fucking badge back next week"
Like my good ole daddy says,
Fuck 'em.
That depends on the severence package. Is it severence as required by law, or is it an incentive they are offering you, that you otherwise have no legal right to expect?
Check with your local labor code. Find out what your rights are. If this is something above and beyond what you already had a legal right to accept, then they are simply making you an offer. You are free to leave it.
Because in Canada, in every province I believe, (Quebec may be different...), you are entitled to either proper notice of termination, or proper serverence pay. The amount of pay and what constitutes proper notice depends on many things.
But your statement that there is no such thing as severance is bullshit. There most certainly is.
...and it's people like you that make my daily bread. "Common sense" is the argument used by self-represented parties who lose, and only secondarily by legal counsel who have already read the legislation, the case law and are familiar with the habits of the Queen's Bench Justice they are appearing before. Please don't let me convince you to get a lawyer: my clients like a fast, cheap win, and I love obtaining solicitor and his client (ie. my entire bill) costs against people who will waste the court's time with their opinions about "common sense". Giving out legal advice concerns solving problems with a minimum of fuss, not harping about what you think is the answer the first time you as an interested party are confronted with an issue. Besides, legislation always trumps "common sense", because politics, history and money influence legislation, both in its creation and selective enforcement. Oh, and do you take out your own teeth, too?
...and I am sick to death of Slashdot.org posts seeking legal advice. Most jurisdictions have, as part of their regulating bodies, a list of lawyers willing to give a free half-hour's legal advice. Call the regulating body, get a few names, set up appointments and make sure you make copies of the relevant papers with a written summary of the facts, your paragraph by paragraph response to each document, your list of goals and your list of questions. No-one on Slashdot is paying malpractice insurance in case they screw up on legal advice. The lawyers I am referring to do. You do not have to hire the lawyers, and you should hire a lawyer that can explain things to you in a clear and practical way. But Slashdot should stop posting requests for legal advice unless they are also openning a section diagnosing breast lumps, extracting teeth or determining whether your house is up to spec. Stop wasting bandwidth and risking people taking uninsured advice about the law.
You can't have your cake and eat it to. It's either you don't sign and sue (not that you'll get much), or sign and get a severance package. That's life. But its not the end of the world though, there are plenty of jobs. If you were in a previous dot-com job and signed up for another dot-com, well you put yourself in the predicament your in right now.
Yes, much of my post was redundant, for the very simple reason that /. is not and will never be the right place to get legal advice. Maybe it could be a starting point, as you say in another message, but that's one man's opinion. What about all the bad advice, such as the posters who earnestly suggested the Labour Relations Board? The answer really is Get A Lawyer, isn't it?
The real 'advice' in my posting was simple, though perhaps phrased poorly: If you want somebody's help on a complex issue, you have to give them the facts. You have a document you feel may be unfair and ask my opinion, then you better let me see it!
IAAA (I am an American) and I have had the dubious pleasure of dealing with the law, and in every case (no pun intended) things worked out better if I talked to or was represented by a lawyer. Most times it cost me exactly nothing, because many lawyers let you have the first office visit free. At my current job, legal service is an employee benefit! I know that's rather uncommon, but the potential cost of legal advice should never keep you from getting competant help, when you really need it.
I cannot "close my eyes and scroll by", not when the answer IS so simple. Perhaps the real question should be "Why does /. keep posting these stories?" Or better yet, "Has anyone benefitted from legal advice gleaned from /.?" That's an article I'd like to see!
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
This is the last post...