5 ms·

As someone who has regrettably had to use one of these, I can say I'm happy they exist. They are certainly abused so we had a policy of only using them as part

• sillysaurus3 9y ago
  This story is probably true, but it feels like we're only hearing half of it. Why wasn't the employee terminated immediately when the behavior became apparent? That would certainly qualify as termination with cause. I know you sweep their behavior under the rug of "mental illness," which by definition means they weren't thinking clearly, but why would anyone possibly commit career suicide like that? Were they trying to extort you for money? Why would they do that for a paltry 30% of their salary when they could've just stayed with the company for 4 months instead? I think what I dislike about this comment is that it comes across as almost bragging about bankrupting someone with a mental condition: "Right before it bankrupted them...guess what stoped happening. We dropped it without taking a cent. Hasn't been a problem."
  • tptacek 9y ago
    I can't imagine anything less productive than debating the details of a story introduced anonymously like this.
    • sillysaurus3 9y ago
      Why is it poor taste to ask for more info? If we're going to use it as a justification that there are legitimate uses for non-disparagement clauses, it seemed best to clarify. If you're suggesting the conversation could lead to revealing their identities, then you're right. That's an aspect I hadn't considered.
      • tptacek 9y ago
        It's about as far from the principal of charity as you can get, to take the side of an unnamed counterparty in the dispute of a stranger whose name you don't even know, and to try to use it as evidence that that person has some sort of grudge against those suffering from mental illness. I didn't think this needed explaining, but there you go.
        • sillysaurus3 9y ago
          That's true. FWIW I wasn't saying he had a grudge against people with mental illness, just that it was a bit strange to include that detail about bankrupting someone with a condition.
          • addcn 9y ago
            See above ^. Thanks for the offer, but please do what you think is best. I'm not offended and maybe someone learns from our back and forth
        • addcn 9y ago
          Thanks for both of your comments. Can't reveal much, but I do want to clarify. We never took a cent more than the money we had paid for the agreement. As I said we dropped it as soon as it became clear to the party they wouldn't win. As for why...I ask myself that everyday. They wanted their options quadrupled and we wanted to fire them immediately, but their medical condition came out and that made it difficult to do anything for HR reasons. Honestly it was a perfect storm. Hardest weeks of my life. Recognize that. Too often the corporate guy is the big bad wolf until proven innocent. More often it's just a consequence of having to make decisions with people's lives. In this case it was between bad and worse. Not a day goes by that I dont think about that person. But if we hadn't been able to stop them in court they may have hurt 100s of our employees, customers and investors. I mean, a scale of human destruction orders of magnitude greater than the damage to themselves. I don't think any humans are more valuable than others. As a consequence of that I'll do morally difficult things to benefit 100s at the expense of 1.
    • goblin89 9y ago
      There are expert storytellers, of course. However, a thorough online discussion may reveal inconsistencies in one side’s story or make it more solid. (Non-linear, too solid a story may be a flag in itself, etc.) The nature of the subject appears to be such that disclosing any meaningful detail involves putting a lot on the line, which is quite frustrating.
    • jancsika 9y ago
      Anonymous anecdotal evidence is the buffer overflow of comment sections. How does HN not have a rule against it?
      • tptacek 9y ago
        Because an unpersuasive argument doesn't degrade civility the way an uncharitable one does.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  That's clearly an exceptional case, but in general I feel like you shouldn't need a special contract to protect against fraud and slander.
• JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but is there a line between truthful disparagement and untruthful disparagement? Similar to how we adjudicate slander and libel claims?
  • MacsHeadroom 9y ago
    That line depends on the jurisdiction and you'll have to pay to find out where it lay. If out happens to be in your favor, you may have to pay again at the next court up. The only winners in this game are the lawyers.
    • JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > The only winners in this game are the lawyers Because nobody benefits from the rule of law except the lawyers...
• dvtv75 9y ago
  Where I used to work, we had someone on staff who I can only assume was unstable. It got to the point where people couldn't doodle on a piece of paper, after she took offense at the picture that "someone drew of" her. It was a stick figure - I drew a smiley face on a scrap piece of paper, one of my colleagues thought it looked dumb without a stick figure body, so drew one on it. A few days later I came in to work and ended up in front of the CEO. Apparently, she's found this stick figure and realized that we were actually making fun of her tiny body and giant head. Came out in our favor, because our description of events lined up with with hers, once you filtered out her assumptions. (Only time that CEO actually did anything right, too.) She eventually resigned, because we were all racist against her and just wanted her gone from the business. I'm not sure what other events actually triggered it, but her most (loudly) cited complaint was that whenever she went into the lunch room, the "cool girls" from the other floors would stop gossiping and stare at her for a few moments, then go back to what they were doing but in more hushed tones. She believed that they were talking about her, because why else would they be talking in low tones? Thing is, these "cool girls" did this whenever anybody came into the room. A non-disparagement agreement would be ideal in this situation, because it stops her announcing that we're all horrifically racist scum. (The really annoying part was that she was paid a lot more than we were, and did little to deserve it. In that place, though, to get a good pay rate you simply had to have breasts and whine a lot.)
  • jaemison 9y ago
    I cannot imagine why someone who works with catty gossips and you, who reduces her achievements to female stereotypes, would act as if they are operating in a hostile work environment. Look, I wasn't there and I don't know this woman. People aren't stupid and know when someone actively dislikes them. You couldn't make it through a single post without implying that she was unqualified and using sex organs to get ahead of you. Do you really think you were somehow able to make it through a whole work day without broadcasting your intense disdain for her? Just a thought.
    • dvtv75 9y ago
      "I cannot imagine why someone who works with catty gossips and you, who reduces her achievements to female stereotypes, would act as if they are operating in a hostile work environment." It's most interesting that you think I've resorted to female stereotypes in an attempt to belittle someone from my former work, having assumed that I'm a male. Irrespective of my actual sex, you've simply reduced me to a stereotype, the very first sin you've accused me of. The only actual stereotype I used was my reference to the "cool girls," and that was simply because if I go into much more detail I risk my former employer recognizing who I am. He's a particularly vindictive individual with a significant amount of money and influence, and I want nothing further to do with him. This former employee constantly complained of people harassing her. Things like the drawing of stick figure and leaving it where she would find it (in the wastepaper basket)or people making quiet conversation (who were clearly talking about her, otherwise, why would they talk quietly), or even having the gall to nod at her with a smile, rather than greeting her verbally in a busy office, was also a sign that you didn't like her and wanted her gone. "Look, I wasn't there and I don't know this woman." That should have been the only line in your reply, everything else is presumption. Everyone would have been better off if you had not bothered to post. "People aren't stupid and know when someone actively dislikes them." I have absolutely no feelings towards this woman, and know little about her. She did not endear herself to me by complaining about the stick figure, but don't go making half-baked assumptions about my feelings toward her. "You couldn't make it through a single post without implying that she was unqualified and using sex organs to get ahead of you." I did nothing of the sort. You've inferred much that wasn't in the original posting. Stop it. One: you've imagined a situation in your own mind where you think I was positioned lower than her. I wasn't, I worked in another department, in a role in no way related to hers. Two: I never even suggested that she used her sex to get ahead of me. That's your own creation. Stop it. Three: I have a degree and she didn't, so if you want to argue it on the grounds of qualifications then you've got it wrong. Along the same lines, I had worked in the business for five years prior to her joining us as a fresh recruit, so if you're going to pull seniority or experience you still have it wrong. It's all redundant as she was in a different department doing a completely different job. You need to understand that most of this is a fiction you've woven to explain that I and some others must have harassed this woman into leaving. I don't know why you feel the need to create such a fiction, but please stop it. My entire position, in the original post, was that some people are prone to over-reaction and misunderstanding, and can leave a workplace with the mistaken impression that everyone's against them. Your assumption of persecution is an excellent demonstration of this. Clearly, this is why non-disparagement agreements can be a really good idea, as she could have left and told the world what a terrible workplace it was because we hate anyone without white skin. This is patently untrue, although I would happily agree that the workplace is a terrible one for other reasons, reasons the world deserves to know, and reasons that don't paint the staff in a bad light. I'll present just a few examples as to why I think the place is so bad, and use these to show why the agreements can also a bad idea. Pay disparity based upon gender: two people were brought on at the same time for the same job. The male with almost 35 years experience and significant qualifications in the field, and the younger female who had no experience or relevant qualifications yet was earning 33% more than the male from day 0, when she was being trained. This is commonplace there: a young attractive female is automatically paid at a significantly higher rate than her male colleagues (or older female ones) for the same job, regardless of skills or experience. The better looking she is, the higher her hourly rate is. The person they both replaced, an even more attractive woman, was paid 66% more than the newly hired woman, and she had 12 years experience in the role; the money was clearly available, their productivity was identical to hers, they just refused to pay the male at a rate appropriate to his experience. (It's certainly not related to breast size, because his were the biggest in the building.) There was another who would regularly throw tantrums about her role, receiving increases as a result. She had under two years experience, and in the end was paid a similar amount to middle managers in the parent business for what was a junior role. Meanwhile, her subordinate had worked in her role for eight years. He got back his old job, when she eventually left, but he was paid a lesser amount even though he did a better job without constantly insulting or threatening anybody as she had. Later, they added a second position and brought on a 50 year old woman with comparable experience to him, paid at the same rate as him, but they both had much expanded responsibility. Combining their pays together, they only got about 14% more than she did, and she did half the work in double the time. Just so you can't create another fantasy to feel indignant about, I only noted this as a way of indicating how easily replaced the tantrum-thrower was, and how she certainly wasn't being paid for her value to the business. Also, let me be absolutely plain here: I'm not suggesting that those women were using their sexuality. The CEO is a letch, a literal dirty old man. During my time there, he was known for constantly seeking the opinion of a particular staff member. She had fortnightly meetings with him, providing "detailed high-level management advice" even though she had no skills, experience, or training in this area. It was well known by his immediate support staff that he was not really interested in this woman's opinion as he never made notes or acted upon it: he liked the chance to look up her miniskirt whenever she sat down. "Do you really think you were somehow able to make it through a whole work day without broadcasting your intense disdain for her?" Since I would interact with her for just a few minutes a week during the busiest part of her day, I would be surprised if she had any opinion on me at all. "...broadcasting your intense disdain..." Yet another creation of yours. I barely knew the woman, and and did not have an actual opinion on her. Had she taken a few minutes to speak to me, she would have found out that I was extremely interested in the tattoos that detailed her family history, a "painted oral tradition," but in the end my main experience with her was that she decided that we were all against her. "Just a thought." I honestly can't see that much thought went into your rant, as it's mostly a reaction to a constructed injustice. The amusing part is the level of your righteous indignation to your own constructions. Here's your chance for some real personal growth: Understand that you've made assumptions that absolutely weren't true. You've put words into my mouth and created motivations for me that aren't real. I've no idea why you even bothered to write any of this and frankly don't care. I don't even know why I bothered to dignify your ridiculous conclusions with a response, but you can be sure that you don't have the whole story, and you won't get any more. I've no further interest in discussing this, nor in defending myself from the imaginings of an Internet voice. I've wasted more time and energy here than I needed to.