Hacker News Reader

Comment by nemesisj | Hacker News Reader

I love it whenever anyone insists something "isn't a big deal" or they don't care about it that much. I will simply say that it is a big deal to me, so if it's not a big deal to them, they might as well do it my way. This works in almost all cases, or the other party has to backtrack and then at least we're negotiating on more transparent terms.

View on HN

Exactly this. If it's "no big deal" then ex it out of the agreement. Oh? You won't? Then I guess it is a big deal after all.

The same thing happened when they tried to tack on fee when leasing my car. Also, if they offer to split the cost of an add-on with you, they can eat the whole cost most of the time.

As a corollary, I try to think through this any time I say something "isn't a big deal". Is it really not a big deal to me?

What people often mean when they say "it's not a big deal" is "it's a big deal to me, but it shouldn't be to you". Usually, they don't have any right to make that decision for you and it's really just a manipulation technique.

It's all dependent on the worker's rights in the state in which you work. NYS for example, almost always sides on the side of the employee. One thing to really think about is this - take the paperwork with you, and consult a local Labor office for your state. Kindly say, this is something I need to sleep on. I wouldn't dare sign anything under diress and I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt would say the same.

You have to be careful about this, too. I've seen one of these from a California employer that uses a Florida "choice of law" clause, too. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that radically changes the calculus.

So what happens when I sign and still rant about the company. Say on my blog. The company is already struggling financially it will cost them to fight back.

Yeah but you're not going to have a leg to stand on so any lawyer is going to tell you to settle immediately if they even threaten to go after you.

Maybe, maybe not. Legal action is costly for both sides.

Not if you're awarded legal fees.

Someone who signs because they need two weeks' pay isn't going to be able to afford both sides of a legal fight. You still have to pay your lawyer while you're waiting for the other side to stump up the money.

If "you're awarded legal fees", it only happens as a result of a trial/hearing. The cost to prepare + present at trial might be very substantial.

Exactly, nothing will happen. At some point you see the big picture; the company is struggling for money. They already know your financial situation (unemployed) so the will not waste resources going after your assets. Like someone else said too, the burden is on them to show something is disparaging. Why not take it to court and drain what little resources they have left. You can drag it out as long as you want, not like you have a job! What a silly clause, I don't ever see it affecting you just from a blog posting. Disclaimer; not a lawyer (thank god because lawyers come up with this bs)

> So what happens when I sign and still rant about the company.

Then you've broken your word.

.. and no shot of a healthy Safe Harbor gift a few months down. I got, on top of three months' severance a surprise $2K Safe Harbor gift, only having worked for the company for just over a year. And they were effective references, including the man who sacked me.

Leaving gracefully (and briskly without making a scene) can indeed be helpful, though perhaps not in the Times author's circumstances.

Well, they have to get a court to decide that, now don't they.

Courts decide legal issues. If you give your word that you'll refrain from doing something, and then you do it, then you've broken your word, regardless of legalities.

If I signed the contract, I said I would refrain of disparagement. If I was subsequently critical of the firm and the company thought it rose to disparagement, it becomes a legal issue.

But let's say you win the lottery, and a troll buys the cheap remains of the failed company. Now the troll can go after you.

I think the usual response is that the clause is not a big deal, but removing it is--they have to get their lawyers to review the changes, etc. I have seen at least one employer go ahead and make a change without consulting the attorney so I'm not suggesting this is a canned response, just one I've gotten a number of times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com