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.
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.
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
The more secrets a society has the worse life is for all. Secrets are not supposed to be how you do business; we need more whistleblower protection, not less.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.