All true but she still signed the document, and later acted against the agreement with the very same trillion dollar company.

▲

lokar 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Agreements like that should be considered unenforceable

▲

jsnell 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But then Facebook would have had no incentive to offer the agreement to her. And she must have been very happy with what she got in the deal, given she gave up the option of talking about all the apparently horrible misdeeds she witnessed while they were still fresh, rather than a decade later.

▲

Kranar 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then she would get no money either.

▲

lokar 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think that's true in most situations. I think most companies would still pay a severance out of a general effort to smooth things over, and some sense of social loyalties.

And some aspects of the agreement would be fine. No spilling actual business relevant secrets, nothing that would count as libel or slander, etc.

▲

smsm42 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nope, they'd have security show you the door and maybe threaten to sue you into the ground if you talk. They choose mkney because money is easier, but if you take this option away, you just get the stick and no carrot.

▲

Kranar 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You think a business pays money out of a sense of "social loyalty"?

Companies don't need to offer severance to prevent ex employees from spilling business secrets, doing so is a criminal offense.

▲

lokar 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Companies are people, many people have positive feelings towards co-workers and people like them

	▲	smsm42 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		True but not the ones who will be firing you. At least not in big corp, it would be some HR worker who doesn't know you from Adam and couldn't care less about you.

▲

Ekaros 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Part of smoothing things over is implicit of explicit understanding that employee also smooths things over that is shut up after receiving the bribe.

▲

hvb2 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A company can craft whatever document they want. That doesn't make them legal. The laws of the jurisdiction they're in always beat whatever you're signing.

Best example in software are non competes.

A company can make you sign something that doesn't allow you to do any software development when you're a developer. You can sign that today then do the opposite tomorrow because that's just against the law.

See:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/did-califor...

▲

BeFlatXIII 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Petulant arguments are why RFK needs to find the cure.