Hacker News Reader

Comment by chimeracoder | Hacker News Reader

> Assuming you have nothing disparaging to say, not agreeing is foolish.

That sounds an awful lot like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear", a statement which I know is very much false.

What you think is disparaging may be very different from what your employer thinks is disparaging. By signing away your rights using ill-defined and imprecise language, you are only opening yourself up to potential legal troubles later.

I could flip your final statement on its head: assuming you don't desperately need the severance payment, agreeing is foolish.

View on HN

'That sounds an awful lot like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"'

Then your pattern matcher is giving you a false hit.

Your statement is about a government imposing unreasonable searches and seizure of you and your personal effects for the illusion of societal security.

The subject under discussion is about exchanging value for value in a voluntary transaction with you and a non-monopolistic employer.

[edit: added "voluntary"]

I don't see a false hit.

What's wrong?

What's disparaging?

If you've done nothing wrong, you have no reason to fear being searched for something wrong.

If you've nothing disparaging to say, you have no reason not to agree to a non-disparagement clause.

I don't see how unreasonable search and seizure or whether the employer is monopolistic or not even enter into this.

Maybe you don't have anything disparaging to say now.

Maybe it comes out that your ex-employer was engaged in fraud. When you hear the news on social media you say "wow, Joe in accounting always did strike me as funny." You didn't mean it as disparaging. But the company does.

The whole issue of "if you have nothing to hide then you wouldn't mind the government looking into x" is a question of basic human rights. It's a question of whether or not the government has the right to invade your privacy even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing. In a society that believes in the "nothing to hide" principle, citizens have no choices. They have no rights to privacy. They are trapped.

The "if you have nothing disparaging to say, don't worry about it" is a question of making a choice. If you choose to be able to disparage your employer in the future, don't take the severance. It would be your choice. If you choose to be careful of what you say, then take the money.

Monopoly affects whether or not you have choices in a society. The government is a monopoly, a monopoly that has the right to physically force you into compliance. Because of that simple fact, everything the government does or is allowed to do requires much greater scrutiny.

Keep in the larger context in mind:

Your former employer (and anyone else you have done significant business with) can always find some flimsy basis for a lawsuit that will cost you several dozens of sleepless nights and $10k-$20k in lawyers fees, before it is thrown out by the judge.

What is stopping the other guy is they are not pissed off enough to throw $50k-$100k in the toilet for the lawyers fees and distraction to punish you unjustly.

Not signing does not actually protect you from baseless suits, if you run your mouth.

> Your former employer (and anyone else you have done significant business with) can always find some flimsy basis for a lawsuit that will cost you several dozens of sleepless nights and $10k-$20k in lawyers fees, before it is thrown out by the judge.

I think this actually cuts both ways, since companies usually have deep pockets and are responsible to investors. This is the only reason companies offer severance in the first place -- it's cheaper than dealing with the lawsuits.

I think you should take a look at what kind of things have been deemed to be "disparaging" in case law before you make that statement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com