Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mandatum | Hacker News Reader

Glassdoor has posted a notice on ZURU's page regarding this: https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews/ZURU-Reviews-E2286297.h...

It appears a few other companies are doing this too, including Kraken (https://www.kraken.com/) as you can see here: https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Overview/Working-at-Kraken-Digi...

EDIT: If anyone from Glassdoor is reading this, please advise on a way to either unlink my profile from my identity - or remove my profile and contact information altogether. I believe GDPR may provide some assistance here.

View on HN

That's actually a fantastic response.

- Reminds reviewers to avoid libel, since it may undergo legal review.

- Tells potential employees or customers that this is how the company responds to bad press/negativity (i.e. disproportionately).

- Doesn't subject Glassdoor to potential libel since the statement is objectively true (see court records).

Although I won't get too positive about Glassdoor as I've read negative reviews disappear[0].

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/8tfhxv/glassdoor_...

If they really wanted to make a statement they would boot them from their platform.

This is both more fair and more informative than censoring the company altogether.

I was hired via a consultancy firm (Ness Technologies) that would have me work in PayPal chennai office back in 2012. A new CEO came and basically reduced work force drastically, the worst mass layoffs I have ever seen. The environment then changed to worse rapidly etc. etc.

I decided to quit the toxic environment. Contractually I was supposed to get 2 months of basic pay, but Ness and Paypal conspired together and concocted a story where I have falsely accused someone of sexual harassasment and since it is false, I can be fired without that 2 months of money. Then they asked my to nicely sign a letter where I forfeit that salary willingly or they will report "this gross misconduct" to future employers.

My review in Glassdoor lasted a year.

PayPal wouldn’t open themselves up to that risk. 100% the type of shit I see consultancies pull, especially smaller ones or regional ones. Any with HQ in US wouldn’t risk it.

Unless the 2 contacts from each company had a personal vendetta against you. Then I can see it.

I think you're violating a couple HN guidelines here: assume good faith and "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

Maybe not in USA.

Reminder that libel vs truth is dependent on where you are. In the US you don’t risk libel when speaking the truth but there are places where this isn’t the case.

To add some specifics, I think the common case outside of the US is one where the published elements must both (a) be true, and; (b) have been published for some "legitimate purpose". The phrase "legitimate purpose" is generally understood to mean "whose primary purpose is not to cause harm or nuisance". An example of legitimate purpose would be governmental transparency. An example in which something true could still be considered libelous might be notifying your ex-spouse's employer of his/her public intoxication charge for the purposes of stunting his/her career.

(I'm basing this general comment on my understanding of French law. I believe it works similarly in many, if not most, European countries. I hope some actual legal experts can weigh in!)

My understanding is that a statement can only be found to be libellous if it is false. If it’s true, it’s not libel.

You are saying this isn’t the case in some places outside the US. Which places, and how so?

It would surprise me if it is called libel in those countries. The more likely translation would be defamation.

In Sweden for example there is publisher responsibility which can limit truthful but harmful statement. Anti-doxxing laws has a similar purpose. There are also countries where people have a right to be forgotten, especially once a person has served their time in prison.

Even in the US it depends on jurisdiction: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2009/04/feder...

And if it affects the state, truth wasn't/isn't always a defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel?wprov=sfla1

And in other legal systems, the value of truth depends on whether the case is a private or public one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation?wprov=sfla1

Look at the recent reporting around Shinzo Abe's death in Japan for a really good example of different libel laws. In Japan the burden of proof lies with the entity publishing the information.

A lot of the initial headlines were things like "Abe collapses at rally, shots heard" even though the article itself had a video of him getting shot and then falling down. Others just had a headline that equated to "Abe collapses during rally, currently in critical condition" without even mentioning a shooter.

Here's an interesting article about it: https://www.tofugu.com/japan/sued-in-japan/

Zuru's actions here speak volumes. Glassdoor's warning is more of a red flag than any review could ever be. They Streisand Effected themselves.

> Glassdoor Alert: Employer Legal Action

> This employer has taken legal action against reviewers and/or Glassdoor for the reviews that have appeared on this profile. Please exercise your best judgment when evaluating this employer. Learn more about Glassdoor Alerts.

i.e. "FFS stop writing reviews, but assume the worst is true and stay the hell away from these clowns"

Wow. That statement is the worst kind of review any potential employee could ever read.

Yeah. Definitely Streisand effected themselves. Wonder if they can sue their own legal counsel for causing themselves so much monetary loss (given that's the grounds they're using to de-anonymize the reviewers)?

Yah. The reviews didn't even look that bad.

Nothing like getting lots of press for suing critical employees to improve your rep.

The... remaining reviews may not look that bad. I imagine a scenario may exist where a fired employee has to sign an NDA and take down their review to receive severance or suchlike.

The review that started this legal case was reposted to Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/w2lvgp/zuru_gla...

They didn't sue the employees.

Not yet, but they need to know who the employees are, first.

In their filing against Glassdoor, they declared their intent to sue the employees.

The judge's order only permits them to use the information for the purpose of pursuing defamation actions in New Zealand:

> 5. Zuru may use the information disclosed by Glassdoor only for purposes of the anticipated defamation action in New Zealand.

https://casetext.com/case/zuru-inc-v-glassdoor-inc

Agreed. This banner is the new warrant canary [1]

The Legal Action Canary?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

A canary is something which is present when everything is fine and removed when the situation changes. It’s a stealthy technique for when you can’t be explicit. Adding a giant red warning at the top of a page is the opposite of a canary.

Ha, like poking more holes in a sinking ship!

That may not help former zuru’s employees but obviously is a clear message to prospective ones. A nice FU from Glassdoor.

More interestingly it’s a nice way to forestall future lawsuits as well.

They're going to have a heck of a time hiring. I hope this gets a lot of media attention globally.

Not a good look on the current employees either that their firm sues for bad feedback. Probably good idea to start looking to move on to firms with better practices.

> It appears a few other companies are doing this too, including Kraken (https://www.kraken.com/)

Kraken is still silly for going after them, IMO, but the Kraken case isn't as cut and dry. The person who had left the review on Kraken had accepted a large severance package that was conditional on signing a NDA.

I think the bad PR Kraken got for going after them wasn't worth it (especially as the review wasn't really even that bad) but the ex-employee was also not really in the right there either, having violated their NDA.

Who cares if they violated an NDA? NDAs are supposed to protect company secrets, not prevent criticism.

It’s a contractual agreement to not air dirty laundry in exchange for money. If you want to bitch about the company publicly, don’t accept a payment not to.

Unfortunately, this is not true. An NDA is not a free pass to being able to censor whatever you want, even if the person signing the NDA took a fee, or received payment.

"NDAs do not prohibit people from reporting suspected corrupt conduct to an appropriate authority. The Crime and Corruption Act 2001 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 provide safeguards that allow people who have signed an NDA to report suspected wrongdoing, including corrupt conduct, maladministration and the misuse of public resources.

Under no circumstances do they oblige people who have signed them to maintain secrecy about suspected wrongdoing. You can still report suspected wrongdoing despite signing an NDA."

[1] https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/Docs/Publicat...

I don't know that I'd consider Glassdoor "an appropriate authority" to be reporting corrupt or illegal conduct to.

It can protect whatever the contract says. Usually, severance packages include a nondisparagement clause. I highly recommend requesting that they amend it to say "mutual nondisparagement" and re-word the terms to apply to both the employer and employee. That way you get paid to shut up, but they are also forced to abstain from making potentially disparaging statements about you. It's a good ask.

Being a shitty employer isn't the sort of thing an NDA is made for. It's not a trade secret that they treat their employees poorly.

Idk... a lot of companies "secret sauce" seems to be squeezing the life and passion out of employees to make as much money as they can. Sounds like a trade secret they'd need to protect.

NDAs are sometimes not in the public interest and should be violated in those cases.

NDAs have got nothing to do with public interest whatsoever.

If you disagree with what the NDA covers, don't sign the NDA.

NDAs exist for a reason. If they don’t serve public interest, why allow them to exist?

Contracts between two parties exist to serve the interest of those parties.

Sometimes NDAs purport to cover things that NDAs cannot legally cover.

Opened the Glassdoor page and content was obscured (including part of the warning banner) with a large unskippable overlay to “Sign up for free to continue using Glassdoor”. In light of these news, perhaps they should reconsider that policy.

> At this time, we do not allow members who have created their accounts with Facebook or Google+ to edit their Account Settings. We apologize for any inconvenience as we work to change this.

That’s really gonna help the Zuru recruitment effort

This is excellent. I'll never work for a company with that warning message.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com