Slashdot Mirror
Are Nondisparagement Agreements Silencing Employee Complaints? (cnbc.com)
cdreimer writes, "According to a report in the New York Times, 'nondisparagement agreements are increasingly included in employment contracts and legal settlements' to hide abuses that would otherwise be made public." The Times reports:
Employment lawyers say nondisparagement agreements have helped enable a culture of secrecy. In particular, the tech start-up world has been roiled by accounts of workplace sexual harassment, and nondisparagement clauses have played a significant role in keeping those accusations secret... Nondisparagement clauses are not limited to legal settlements. They are increasingly found in standard employment contracts in many industries, sometimes in a simple offer letter that helps to create a blanket of silence around a company. Their use has become particularly widespread in tech employment contracts, from venture investment firms and start-ups to the biggest companies in Silicon Valley, including Google... Employees increasingly "have to give up their constitutional right to speak freely about their experiences if they want to be part of the work force," said Nancy E. Smith, a partner at the law firm Smith Mullin.
Three different tech industry employees told the Times "they are not allowed to acknowledge that the agreements even exist." And Google "declined to comment" for the article.
Three different tech industry employees told the Times "they are not allowed to acknowledge that the agreements even exist." And Google "declined to comment" for the article.
Is all I am allowed to say.
I can't talk about it.
DO tell us, what was your first clue that an agreement which would suppress discussion was acting to suppress discussion ?
Was it when you got that memo from the Department of Redundancy Department ?
If these threats come in, it is time to double down.
Call the police to report the sexual harassment AND file a lawsuit.
Both of these (reporting a crime to the police and filing a lawsuit) are immune to any silly non-disparagement clause.
An anonymous tip to local and national media reporters about the court docket where the case was filed?
That's just the icing on the cake.
Speaking of that, I wonder what happened to Hugh Pickens? At least he used to be much cooler...
https://slashdot.org/~Hugh+Pic...
Why are you doing this cremier?
you sound bitter, honey bunny
Well,
If there are too many disgruntled employees or candidates, people will think twice before applying with a dishonest employer
These types of agreements are always about the threat rather than the act.
That is, they exist not to actually stop people from reporting, but instead to discourage them. No reasonable judge would let you sue someone for reporting a crime.
But most of the time it is not entirely clear their is enough evidence of a crime going on, not until after the trial has begun.
So when your boss fires you after verbally demanding sex, you will think twice about suing, because you know that if you can't prove it, they might go after you. Honestly, chances are very low they would sue you for speaking out and even less that they would succeed.
But the threat of the law suit is enough to stop you from trying, at least unless you have a smoking gun email. (and now adays it is almost always an email.).
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
we had the happy fun slander corner.
The reason I quit was that there were too many cooks. My boss asked me to stay.
I'm going to predict a lot of people here saying "I would never work such a place" or "I would never sign such an agreement" ...
Let me just say bull shit, when you need a job you will work such a place and sign such an agreement.
But I wouldn't really care because like a lot of things, for all practical purposes, these types of agreements are unenforceable.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
No reasonable judge would let you sue someone for reporting a crime.
What guarantee do you have that you'll get a reasonable judge? Besides, who said anything about a crime? It is entirely possible for companies to engage in highly unethical, but completely legal, activity e.g. hiring child labourers in third world sweat shops to make their products which now does not happen because it was brought to the publics attention. Zero hour contracts are another example.
Large companies are beginning to have as much power over our lives as governments and this means that they need to start having the same limits on that power as a government.
will finally be able to not see each other's genitals... together .
Congratulations, you two guys!
Do you mean the dick pics are fake? Really? What a bummer!
-Samanta Browson
Nope. Not going to happen here. You wont hear one peep out of me. PAY ATTENTION TO ME EVERYONE PAALEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AFAIK, if a contractual clause is not in accordance with your countries' constitution, then it isn't worth the paper it is written on. It is simply a BS clause.
I don't believe you can actually do that. I mean - you can certainly write your name on the paper, and you can voluntarily choose to act as if you're required to follow that agreement... but, before a judge, even if you said "yup I willingly signed away my constitutional rights" - that judge would at best laugh, and at worst hit you with his gavel for wasting his time with something which is not legal.
#DeleteChrome
Only Indians get time off.
Are Nondisparagement Agreements Silencing Employee Complaints?
If they're working as intended, yes. Of course they are. That's their purpose.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Non-disparagement agreements don't exactly exist for any reason other than to shut down complaints. They're abusing contract law to say "that 911 call made us look bad, so we had perfectly good reason to fire him/her and sue for damages!"
Asking anyone to sign one of these should be reason enough to have your head removed, but when's the last time the criminals wrote up any law or sentencing that would punish their own people's actions?
For a country with free speech, you have way too many way to get it suppressed by private entity. That is why I prefer some European countries "freedom of opinion" they have in their constitution.... Because usually it is not limited to government, and such close would be found anti constitutional and squashed in a contract as void. In the US you are protected a little bit from your government , only to drop the pant and bend over for the private firms.
Employees increasingly "have to give up their constitutional right to speak freely about their experiences if they want to be part of the work force,"
It would seem that the U.S. has a pretty poor constitution if it can be superceded by contract law.
Isn't the whole point of a country's constitution that it stands above all "lesser" principles and laws.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Because he's a faggot.
Oh and a millennial.
I thought sexual harassment was illegal, and I presume a non-disparagement clause can't prevent an employee from disclosing illegal activity. If it can, then it seems the law needs re-writing.
Just my thought, I don't know anything about the actual legality.
He collided with Bennett Haselton and collapsed into a singularity of self-important hot air.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
...except it was a severance agreement. I'd been fired, and there was a reasonably decent (6 weeks of pay) severance agreement. However, it included both the clause that I would never ever make an disparaging statement about the company, nor that I would admit the existence of this severance agreement or disclose any terms in it. This was for a small (few hundred employee) tech company in San Francisco.
I pushed back. I thought it was completely unreasonable to give up a part of my freedom of speech for this. At the time, I thought I might stay in the same general field (I haven't), and it would have been very constraining to never be able to criticize this company again. But, also, on principle, I did not like signing away my freedom of speech like that. What makes me sad is that almost everybody I talked to told me not to be ridiculous, to sign it. I was potentially giving up four weeks of severance pay (beyond the "two week notice" requiredby law), at a time when I'd just been fired and had no other job lined up. I was told by friends that it was irresponsible not to think about my wife and my own economic need for a stupid stand on principle. This makes me so sad, because at least nominally it was exactly these kinds of principles -- freedom of expression -- on which this country was supposedly founded. But, now, people find it childish and unrealistic to stand on principle.
I didn't have any serious complaints about the company at the time. Over the previous ~year it had undergone some reorganization that I thought was destructive, and I thought the circumstances leading up to my firing were particularly stupid, but I didn't have any sexual harassment complaints or anything like that. But, still, just because you don't have a big issue right now does not mean you should sign away a fraction of your freedom of speech for all time.
The other sad thing was that at one point, somebody from HR told me on the phone, "we're not trying to limit your freedom of expression, we just want you to manage your communication". People in the corporate world really believe things like this, which is rather alarming.
In the end, I managed to convince them to change it to "no disparaging statements for a year, no untrue disparaging statements ever". I decided I could live with that. Technically, I'm breaking the agreement right now by talking about it, which is why I post anonymously and don't name the company. I think that's stupid too, but I also know more than to risk putting myself up against the lawyers of even a small company.
This is another California 'innovation', the rest of the country isn't nearly as afflicted. I wish people there (I was one, once) would accept they live in a bubble, nothing in their lives is representative of most people's reality, and that that bubble encircles a culture of sickness, all around. The east coast and liberalized-via-Californian-migration are close seconds and thirds. The obliviousness is shocking to me, and it's in Oregon and Washington more and more, too. This is why you will pry my electoral college out of my cold, dead, fingers. California is a disease.
I had to sign one of these things when I left a company. They withheld wages until I signed. Totally illegal of course, but I needed the money.
Place I'm at right now has had 6 admins in the past 6 years. 2 Built businesses while on the clock. The remaining 4 destroyed tons of IT documentation, email archives, employee files and so forth. The current one has built a fiefdom and isn't backing up the divisions data offsite so you can see where that one is going.
If you are asked to sign one of these, and you have oppertunities elsewhere, the simple question "Explain to me how your company isn't a poverty trap because the only time something like this is needed is in a poverty trap" will suffice to draw out the reason. Otherwise, plan to get out as fast as possible and go elsewhere so you don't get caught up in it. It really is that simple, and any other poverty-trap behaivours your company engages in, look at those as a sign it's time to leave.
There are SO MANY MBA's who's only skill is building poverty traps for themselves and their staff. They get used to being terribly F'd up and when the meat finally meets the metal and the fun and games are over because the company is in serious long-term financial distress, they try to trap people in the job because they've built a sinking ship and are stuck on it. Loyalty is something you give when the company is doing well and has taken good care of you, falls on hard times that are outside of its control, and you stick around for the rebound. It isn't something you give a blood-sucking MBA.
Blah blah blah... You will not disclose ANY aspects of our business to anyone. Any press inquiries shall be directed to Mr. -snip- at corporate headquarters. Violation of these terms will result in dismissal and legal action... Blah blah blah. This was to hide their deceptive management activity towards their own customers and employees. Another clause said "Management reserves the right to override or change any (Teamsters) union terms". I'm pretty sure this well known company is run by Mafia type A-holes.
The constitution protects it's citizens from their government. Another way of looking at it is protects groups of people from infringing the rights of others via the government. It's far from perfect, but still works better than most other systems.
A contract is entered into willingly from all parties (if not, it isn't a valid contract) You are agreeing to give up certain rights in exchange for something, usually money.
If there is no exchange of value, then it's also not a valid contract
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Apparently we need a US Supreme Court ruling (again?) that you cannot sign away your constitutional rights, and all of these contracts are abusive. It would also be nice to have a federal law that says that any contract found to be abusive of constitutional laws in court is not only void, but also automatically awards the victim $100k per abusive clause, with no limit on damages. As soon as the cost outweighs the benefit, businesses will stop this bullshit. It's the same thing as non-competes.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Seriously, corporations (as people) are psychopathic by nature because they have no innate morality or empathy. Even if individuals within a corporation are not, they are duty bound to act in the best interests of the organization and it's shareholders.
Have gnu, will travel.
Large companies are beginning to have as much power over our lives as governments and this means that they need to start having the same limits on that power as a government.
That's the libertarian dream. Freedom ... for the big and powerful (corporate) interests. Domination for the rest of us.
Libertarians. The real libtards.
Write all ya want under a pen name. Problem solved.
If you've got dirt on a company and you start disparaging them, the only thing them suing you to silence you is going to do is to get all the dirt out and convince everyone involved it's true. The problem is that if you disparage a former employer, you risk making yourself unemployable. If you make a big enough splash to affect them, chances are everyone in the industry will hear about it, and you'll be known as trouble. If you don't make a big enough splash to affect them, why bother?
Censorship is a governmental act FYI.
They are.
Ok, so non disparagement.
When you combine this with a previous article regarding noncompetes it's a disturbing trend.
So there's no such thing as self censorship then?
Also, last I checked both dmca and fbi are government, law and agency respectively.
232.5. No employer may do any of the following:
(a) Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing information about the employerâ(TM)s working conditions.
(b) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose information about the employerâ(TM)s working conditions.
(c) Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who discloses information about the employerâ(TM)s working conditions.
Trade secrets are excluded, so you can't criticize your employer's closed source database for using bubble sort. But else, disparage all you want and sue the fuck out of them if they retaliate.
Have you stopped raping your neighbor's goats yet?
They can also be a quick and simple way for employers and employees to settle potential disagreements without the need for a lawsuit.
"Are nondisparagement agreements for silencing employee complaints?". Of course they are. Do they work? Maybe.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Give the contract back, with the non-disparagement clause stroked out.
Tell them you won't sign away your rights.
Find a better job.
If they still want you, and delete the clause, great! If not... see ya, suckas. I don't want to work for you anyway.
Companies can also force arbitration upon customers. A very lopsided deal that favors the companies. They can even slip it into terms that automatically enforce if you do not write to disagree within a period of time.
Companies can also force non-liability for injury upon customers, even in the event of death. They can further force you to give up those rights on behalf of your surviving descendants.
I have nothing to say.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
If you feel a need to have such a clause your company must be pretty shitty - honestly the executives should think about that first!