Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> what do you feel you gained by not signing the NDA/non-disparagement that was worth so much to you?

I wouldn’t sign that. Less, if I’m honest, out of any sense of duty, and more to maintain leverage. If that story is worth $40k to the firm it could be worth more to me, down the road, should my past employer and I find ourselves disagreeing.

View on HN

It was worth $40k to the OP, but for Twitter it cost that multiplied by the number of engineers (minus OP).

That silence was worth a lot to Twitter.

> That silence was worth a lot to Twitter

Totally agree. These agreements make sense. Just saying that if I were shown the door, I wouldn’t sign. (Different question if I’m asked while happily employed. Would be more inclined in that case, provided it only applied through the date of signing and if it were mutual.)

I was just about to say: stall them out, wait until everyone else signs, then bring up how if they're willing to spend $40k * number_of_employees to keep the silence you're making them a counter offer of $40k * number_of_employees.

I do not know about Twitter but two months salary (ballpark for $40k for manager) is my company standard offer in layoffs (I think it's actually 2 months + 2 weeks for every year of service). You have to sign release+NDA to get it though. Twitter did not try to buy silence - they just offer money to everyone to keep good feelings (generous severance) and avoid petty litigation.

Example of buying silence is $7M settlement with security guy and even that apparently did not work.

Twitter absolutely was trying to buy silence. Per a suggestion from my lawyer, I offered to sign a version with everything except the non-disparagement clause. They said no.

And Twitter very clearly did not give a shit about "good feelings". Otherwise they wouldn't have done it for us as surprise meetings and security guards walking us out after, with salary ending that day. If you want good feelings, the way you do it is giving people paid time to find a new job. It would also have been nice to be able to finish up my work and tidy up loose ends. E.g., I had an employee whose annual review I was in the middle of doing. She was stellar and she deserved to be properly celebrated, rather than some rando manager come in and try to guess after the fact.

It isn't just silence. There are usually a set of things in a severance deal - like agreeing not to sue for wrongful termination or reconfirming existing NDA or exclusivity or other employment terms. When I've been on the managerial side of things removing the potential downside of any future lawsuits was the overriding concern.

Sounds like blackmail. You’re not whistleblowing or suing for damages, so how else are you getting leverage from a story in disagreement?

Blackmail's legality depends on whether monetary compensation is being demanded.

> how else are you getting leverage from a story in disagreement?

It’s leverage held in reserve, not planned for immediate exploit. If we part ways and all is hunky dory, it sits stale. But if e.g. the firm gets bought by an asshole and he frivolously pursues ex employees for dumb reasons, e.g. deciding a non-compete covers everything from finance to gardening, I have something to fight back with. (One can similarly ask why the company needs non-disparagement protection.)

Employers and former employees get in stupid tiffs all the time.

It’s not blackmail to want the opportunity to be able to tell the truth in the future. Jennette McCurdy recently wrote a memoir and mentions that Nickelodeon offered her $300k to sign an NDA about her time as a child actor there. She declined their offer. She didn’t blackmail Nickelodeon but it was absolutely the right decision for her since she’s more than made up the $300k on the sales of her book. And for the public, who got to read her excellent book.

I get not signing NDAs in general because you want to be able to tell the truth. This whole thread is an example!

It's the "if we end up disagreeing part" that seems like blackmail. And, hey, maybe that's what they're going for! Could say "yep, I want to be able to blackmail them if I need to." But the comment I replied to wasn't that explicit.

Leverage comes from having something that someone else cares about. You have the ability to talk about and disparage the company. The company wants you to not have that ability. They want this so much that they're willing to pay you even if you don't have immediate plans to do anything. That's leverage.

How is it blackmail if the company is the one offering the money?

It's not blackmail. You're taking $40k in exchange for an unbounded number of problems. Maybe someday some exec will come up with "Oh, we used C++ at Twitter, so answering that question on StackOverflow is a violation of your NDA, please return the $40k immediately." Now you're on the hook for either $40k of court costs, or writing them a $40k check. (I don't think you get the $15k you paid in taxes, either.)

For a few million dollars for a bounded period of time, sure, disconnect yourself from the Internet for that bounded period of time. For $40k, you're just taking on unnecessary problems that you don't actually have the resources to solve.

(I was offered $0 to sign an NDA after leaving my last job. I did not sign it.)

Why would you use your real name on stackoverflow? Using your realname creates these imagined problems

What if you're already using your real name on stackoverflow? Then part of that money is to compensate changing names on various sites and perhaps losing history and it in general restricts things you can do for life.

I think that violating a contract using a fake name is pretty risky. If you're going to do it on I2P-only services or something like that, maybe you'll get away with it, but the best way to avoid getting caught for a crime or contract violation is to not commit it in the first place.

I read sagas about people getting doxxed every day, even children. You may trust your opsec, but it only takes one slip-up to be out a large quantity of money. I wouldn't risk it.

Offering to pay someone for their silence sounds like bribery. Not accepting it, or otherwise ensuring that you're compensated properly for what that silence is going to cost you, doesn't turn that into blackmail. Twitter approached op, so to speak, not the other way around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com