2 ms·

I think you might be misconstruing a "constitutional right". In the US the 'free speech' right has been understood to be political speech, not anything you happ

I think you might be misconstruing a "constitutional right". In the US the 'free speech' right has been understood to be political speech, not anything you happen to want to say. Want to complain about government, fine, want to tell people how your previous company achieves the results they do? You can legally be constrained from doing so with an NDA. Failing to do so can result in hefty civil penalties (aka paying cash, not particularly jail time). It can get pretty nuanced and I'm not a lawyer so I really can't speak authoritatively on the topic, but it has been litigated many times and found to be both legal and constitutional. Most people sign two contracts with Google, the first when they join which says what they agree to not do while employed, and another when they leave which says what they agree to not do when they leave. If you are in a "protected class[1]" you are more likely to see the exit contract than if you're not. You can choose not to sign it of course, but unless you're really pissed off and planning some sort of legal action, signing is the polite thing to do and it keeps everyone friends. In a world where your friends can help you and your non-friends can hurt you, having more friends is never a bad strategy. [1] "protected class" - Legal term for a class of employee where discrimination is legally proscribed, like being gay, female, old, non-white, Etc.

biztos 8y ago
I wonder, are there things they aren’t allowed to ask of you in the second case, as there are in the first? For example noncompete clauses are not allowed in California. Would one be enforceable if signed voluntarily for money and not for employment?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > For example noncompete clauses are not allowed in California. Post-employment non-competes are generally invalid in CA.
  - biztos 8y ago
    Thanks for the clarification, I should have been more specific. But are they also invalid if signed outside the employment context?
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  There are things in both contracts that are likely not enforceable. If you litigate them you become "non friends" :-) So there is always a cost. My employment attorney felt that Google's employment contract over steps the protections provided by California in terms of outside work [1]. The way this works out in practice is you read the terms before you sign, if you find any that you can't live with you ask them to change, and if they won't change them then you don't sign and don't get what ever benefit they were offering in exchange for signing like employment, severance, etc. [1] I got to test this by participating as an expert witness (independent contractor) at a patent hearing and having the opposing counsel ask Google's counsel to make me available for deposition (my day job). That was an interesting conversation at work.
shereadsthenews 8y ago
Interesting but IMHO warped perspective. They put a paper in front of me when I left Google and I thanked them and put it in my briefcase, but didn't sign it. The person you've never seen before from HR who exits you isn't your friend and they aren't there to help you. Contracts under which you receive no consideration are fundamentally not contracts and you have no reason to sign them. Your actual friends would not propose such a thing.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  When I read what you wrote here, it sounds like you are implying that I would sign something that didn't give me something in return for signing. I can assure you that is not the case :-). I agree with you that signing things just for goodwill is unnecessary.

biztos 8y ago

I wonder, are there things they aren’t allowed to ask of you in the second case, as there are in the first? For example noncompete clauses are not allowed in California. Would one be enforceable if signed voluntarily for money and not for employment?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> For example noncompete clauses are not allowed in California. Post-employment non-competes are generally invalid in CA.
- biztos 8y ago
  Thanks for the clarification, I should have been more specific. But are they also invalid if signed outside the employment context?
ChuckMcM 8y ago
There are things in both contracts that are likely not enforceable. If you litigate them you become "non friends" :-) So there is always a cost. My employment attorney felt that Google's employment contract over steps the protections provided by California in terms of outside work [1]. The way this works out in practice is you read the terms before you sign, if you find any that you can't live with you ask them to change, and if they won't change them then you don't sign and don't get what ever benefit they were offering in exchange for signing like employment, severance, etc. [1] I got to test this by participating as an expert witness (independent contractor) at a patent hearing and having the opposing counsel ask Google's counsel to make me available for deposition (my day job). That was an interesting conversation at work.

shereadsthenews 8y ago

Interesting but IMHO warped perspective. They put a paper in front of me when I left Google and I thanked them and put it in my briefcase, but didn't sign it. The person you've never seen before from HR who exits you isn't your friend and they aren't there to help you. Contracts under which you receive no consideration are fundamentally not contracts and you have no reason to sign them. Your actual friends would not propose such a thing.

ChuckMcM 8y ago
When I read what you wrote here, it sounds like you are implying that I would sign something that didn't give me something in return for signing. I can assure you that is not the case :-). I agree with you that signing things just for goodwill is unnecessary.