4 ms·
Do you really think it's incomprehensible that someone who is quitting so that they can talk freely would avoid signing documents that curtail their ability to
by cjbprime 3y ago
Do you really think it's incomprehensible that someone who is quitting so that they can talk freely would avoid signing documents that curtail their ability to talk freely?
- eternalban 3y agoI think that depends on how many millions we are talking about here, don't you? As to it being possible, sure, but such high profile positions usually entail agreements. But hey, he's on twitter, so why not ask him? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5365579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5365579 // grep for salary discussions
- cjbprime 3y ago> I think that depends on how many millions we are talking about here, don't you? Not as much as it depends on how many millions somebody already has, no. Again, if you're sensitive to income loss, the answer would be to not trade ethics for money in precisely the way he just did. The probability of refusing to sign speech-curtailing agreements as you are quitting your job to gain more ability to speak freely is really extremely high. Also, you might notice that this discussion you linked to about his compensation is from ten years ago. The benefits being discussed have already been accrued, for ten years.
- eternalban 3y agoI did say it is "possible". But again: it's a simple question to ask the man himself, Chris. "Geoffrey, have you entered into any standing agreements with Google that has a non-dispargement clause, or are you in anyway constrained about what you may say or disclose?" { I assume you have a twitter account. :} p.s. per your speculation, he should feel free as a bird to tweet back "heck no, that's why I quit". (Kindly report back here with the answer and let us know.)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]