Post a bad review, and we'll sue you!



  • I just found out that my old job (which let me go for wanting "stupid" things like coding standards, requirements, testing, and the like) is going around telling people that they plan to subpoena Glassdoor.com to get the names of people that posted bad reviews (it seems they have a lot of negative reviews highlighting just how bad the place is) and then sue those people since supposedly the employment agreement claims you cannot post negative reviews about the company.

    I found this totally amusing because instead of, you know, addressing the possible issues (for example, very bad benefits compared to other companies, very low pay compared, etc) they just have their PR department post fake positive reviews (that come off as "Everything is great, this is the best company in the world", literally no drawbacks) to offset the bad ones, and resort to talking to their lawyer to try and silence negative opinion.

    It will be interesting to see if A) They can do this at all, and B) If Glassdoor will actually reveal the names of people.



  • Post a review saying that the place will sue you if you quit and then talk about how bad an employer they were. This sounds like something people need to know about.

    If you no longer work there, then I don't see how the employment agreement could be enforced anymore.



  • @mott555 said:

    If you no longer work there, then I don't see how the employment agreement could be enforced anymore.

    NDA's and noncompete agreements don't magically disappear when you stop working for a company (in the case of the latter that would make them meaningless)...



  • @mott555 said:

    Post a review saying that the place will sue you if you quit and then talk about how bad an employer they were. This sounds like something people need to know about.

    If you no longer work there, then I don't see how the employment agreement could be enforced anymore.

    It wasn't if you quit, it was if you post a negative review on Glassdoor. I think they said either the agreement or the NDA (which doesn't affect reviews AFAIK) states you can't post bad reviews. Like I said I think it's bullshit designed to scare people so they don't have bad reviews; they're one of those terrible orgs that try to look great for the news.



  •  can you tell us the companythat is doing this (make sure that you do not post a review here :)



  • @Helix said:

     can you tell us the companythat is doing this (make sure that you do not post a review here :)

    I would, but it's not really worth it. It's some no-name company local to my area that I'm pretty sure nobody would ever recognize and think they're a major player when they're really just small potatoes.



  • What if someone tells me that it is a bad place to work, and I post the review, they cant come after me.  The thing was for employees of the company could not post a bad review, and I am assuming there is nothing in it stopping you from telling a friend that it is a bad place to work.  Is my assumption correct?



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    It will be interesting to see if A) They can do this at all, and B) If Glassdoor will actually reveal the names of people.

    I think Glassdor will just go all anti-SLAPP on the company's ass.



  • @alegr said:

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    It will be interesting to see if A) They can do this at all, and B) If Glassdoor will actually reveal the names of people.

    I think Glassdor will just go all anti-SLAPP on the company's ass.

    That's what I'm thinking too. It basically comes off as "Waaah people are saying our company is bad because it is, and we don't want people to know that. Help us punish them for telling the truth"



  • Obvious solution: don't post reviews using your real name; create a login with a dummy name and post away. Then GlassDoor is free to give away your 'name' with no ramifications for you.

    And yes, your former employer is pathetic.



  • @snoofle said:

    Obvious solution: don't post reviews using your real name; create a login with a dummy name and post away. Then GlassDoor is free to give away your 'name' with no ramifications for you.

    And yes, your former employer is pathetic.

    It's anonymous anyways. The company assumed I had posted a review (because they just fired me a couple of weeks ago) and I was notified as a "warning" that IF I posted one, to remove it since they were talking to their lawyer about subpoenaing Glassdoor for the names of people who posted the reviews to sue them.



  • The alternative is a non-editorial statement:

    Hi. I am ObiWayneKenobi and I worked for Initrode. I am contractually not allowed to post bad reviews, so instead, without editorializing, I'll tell you some facts about my daily routine at Initrode. Draw your own conclusions.

    <Littany of WTF stupidity here>

     



  • @snoofle said:

    The alternative is a non-editorial statement:

    Hi. I am ObiWayneKenobi and I worked for Initrode. I am contractually not allowed to post bad reviews, so instead, without editorializing, I'll tell you some facts about my daily routine at Initrode. Draw your own conclusions.

    <Littany of WTF stupidity here>

    And by all means share those wtfs here if you [ObiWayneKenobi] have not already.



  • It was basically just common stupidity: We didn't have any coding standards AT ALL, so every developer wrote code their own way. We weren't allowed to refactor code since it was seen as a waste of time, and some code was years old and very poorly written without anyone caring. A "Senior" developer who would actively work against any suggestions to improve the code and would literally hack out code to get it done fast for the boss, then spend weeks fixing bugs that came up. We lost two developers in two weeks because they were never used properly and good ideas would be agreed upon then shot down literally right before we implemented them (usually by the "Senior" Developer). Said "Senior" also would often take half days just because he didn't want to talk about issues; we would arrange a meeting later in the day, he would agree and then "mysteriously" become sick after lunch and call out, and then later tell the boss that he didn't agree with our idea for whatever reason, resulting in it being shot down (ideas such as having naming conventions agreed upon, or using version control properly not making a copy of everything every single time). Basically good ideas were never listened to, and the entire company was run in a very fly by night process; entire departments were hired only to be fired a few weeks later when whatever half thought out idea didn't work. People were lied to their face and then fired a few hours later, often AFTER the rest of the office knew they were going to be gone. Development tasks were handed out at random and usually served no purpose other than to make the application look pretty at the cost of usability; in fact at one point we were flat out told NOT to talk to the end users at all about what would make the system better, but to redesign the most important page in the application completely without telling anyone, only to have it reverted almost immediately when it went live because of the backlash from our users.

    The code was atrocious; thousand lines code-behind files. Duplicate code everywhere. No or strange naming conventions. One module in particular, the most important one of course, was some 5000+ lines and included GOTO statements (in C# 3 mind you). The database contained a "log" that was literally more than half the size of the whole database because it was decided to track anything and everything in a hundred generic variable columns and the application ran dog slow because of it but of course nobody would ever address this because there was always something "more important" than actually making sure the product worked.

    I heard after I left that they hired a replacement developer who lasted all of one day before he quit, saying that he "expected better quality and standards". I was laughing my ass off at that one. When our development manager quit, a co-worker talked to some former managers he had worked with only to have them basically say "Oh HELL no" when they found it the company, saying they had heard terrible things about it, so the company already has a bad reputation; when I would talk to recruiters I would warn them not to place people here (and some even said they had already blacklisted them when they had three of us looking for work at once).

    The benefits were absolutely awful. You got FIVE days vacation time AFTER ONE YEAR of employment. No sick time. No PTO. The head of IT was a script kiddie who knew some networking stuff and had managed to hoodwink the owners for years; in fact he even said outright once that himself and the other executives only cared about the money and had no care for improving the company.



  • Slightly related, I guess. There's a Canadian-targeted site called RateMyCompany.ca that has a similar operation - reviews of current or former workplaces. It requires no sign-up, though it does have some standard, sensible guidelines. No names, initials or Titles, though enforcement seems spotty. I'll check my former shitty company occasionally to laugh at the HR shills.



  • @Nexzus said:

    Slightly related, I guess. There's a Canadian-targeted site called RateMyCompany.ca that has a similar operation - reviews of current or former workplaces. It requires no sign-up, though it does have some standard, sensible guidelines. No names, initials or Titles, though enforcement seems spotty. I'll check my former shitty company occasionally to laugh at the HR shills.

    Funny, mine recently had a marketing shill post (two, actually) and you can tell it's marketing crap because it basically has no drawbacks and all bonuses. One even says under advice "Doing great, doubling revenue every year!" so it's obvious somebody inside the company.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    The company assumed I had posted a review (because they just fired me a couple of weeks ago)

    Do they do this EVERY time they fire someone? Or did they have some reason to suspect you in particular? I wonder if you could sue THEM for discrimination or harassment or something?



  •  @Nexzus said:

    I'll check my former shitty company occasionally to laugh at the HR shills.

    Every few months I [url="http://www.ratemyemployer.ca/employer/employer.aspx?empID=3899&l=en"]do the same[/url].  The astroturf posts are skillfully hidden, but with much dedication a trained investigator may be able to ferret some of them out.



  • @ekolis said:

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:
    The company assumed I had posted a review (because they just fired me a couple of weeks ago)

    Do they do this EVERY time they fire someone? Or did they have some reason to suspect you in particular? I wonder if you could sue THEM for discrimination or harassment or something?

    Don't know. The reviews didn't start until recently (a few of the people who previously quit were friends of mine, and we kept in touch to have a laugh every so often about what this company would do - this was before I was let go obviously) so I think its a recent "oh crap people are posting bad reviews about us! What can we do to keep on looking good?" type of reaction.

    To be honest, I think their reaction is just strongarm tactics. An no-compete is about working for competitors. An NDA is about trade secrets. I don't know of any type of restriction that says you can't talk to people about the company in general without mentioning specifics.



  • @DCRoss said:

     @Nexzus said:

    I'll check my former shitty company occasionally to laugh at the HR shills.

    Every few months I do the same.  The astroturf posts are skillfully hidden, but with much dedication a trained investigator may be able to ferret some of them out.

    Really?  I spotted these from orbit...

    @PR Drone #3423 said:

    An Amazin' place to work. Go Ganz Go! Wish I could give it a higher rating than 5 stars. Lucky to be employed at this place. Let's hope we can find more great employees to work with me there.

    @PR Drone #4112 said:

    The owners have great vision, reward competence, and are community focused.

     



  • @DCRoss said:

     @Nexzus said:

    I'll check my former shitty company occasionally to laugh at the HR shills.

    Every few months I do the same.  The astroturf posts are skillfully hidden, but with much dedication a trained investigator may be able to ferret some of them out.

    Ha ha. This one is fairly obvious and has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer:

    An Amazin' place to work. Go Ganz Go! Wish I could give it a higher rating than 5 stars. Lucky to be employed at this place. Let's hope we can find more great employees to work with me there. 

    but this one I'm having a bit more trouble reading:

    The owners have great vision, reward competence, and are community focused.

    It doesn't have the the punch that the first one has, yet I still can't smell the taint of HR/PR.



  • Haha funny. I immediately knew the ones from mine were fake because it literally had NO drawbacks. It said things about upward mobility (yeah right, they don't promote anyone for shit), no recession (yet I only got a raise because I basically said I'd have to look elsewhere if I didn't, and the constant firing), and capped it off with advice being, and I quote: Doing an excellent job - doubling revenues every passing year!, this after the company lost a development manager and two developers (within 2 weeks) and an IT guy all within a month of each other. What a joke.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    It may be time for you to change your signature.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    It may be time for you to change your signature.

    Yeah. I think I found a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.



  • @ekolis said:

    @mott555 said:
    If you no longer work there, then I don't see how the employment agreement could be enforced anymore.

    NDA's and noncompete agreements don't magically disappear when you stop working for a company (in the case of the latter that would make them meaningless)...

     

    Non-compete clauses are meaningless; chances are a non-compete clause is completly un-enforceble, unless you are a principle in the company (executive/C-level or significant profit participation) or live in a state/country where such things are actually vallid. I know this is true in california, i also know that non-competes have been nearly un-enforceable nearly everywhere. Its just amounts to posturing, i.e. necessarily empty threats.

    What exactly are they going to sue you for anyway? I am not a lawyer, but unless they can prove you intentionally and malicously defamed them, which require you to have lied (since truth is always a defense against libel, slander and defamation,) you probably aren't in any great legal peril. Besides the review site has several legal options available to squash the subpoena.



  •  I don't really get these non-compete clauses. They tried implementing one at my current workplace, but I just decided not to sign the new employment contract. I mean, of course not. How can they even think of such a bad idea? The only way you can possibly have such a demand is if you're paying full salary in during the quarantine period. Otherwise, it's basically saying "if you quit, we'll ruin your life".

    There are so many people who just sign the employment contract without thinking or even reading the thing. I've had changes made in all my IT jobs. The worst thing is, some managers hate you for doing it, because "that's just how it is for everybody" and "we just say that, we don't really mean it". Thankfully I'm not from a country where people sue each other for burnt morning toast, but still, a contract is a contract and should be handled very seriously, because after all, that's the whole point of it.



  •  In my country, non compete clauses MUST be paid, no choice, it's the law. If there's a non compete clause of 1 year and you don't provide me with a 1 year salaris compensation, the clause is considered non existent by the court :)

     

    People could kill for non-compete clause here. Don't you see: 1 year free holidays!



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    It may be time for you to change your signature.

    Yeah. I think I found a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

    You must be cautious.



  • @ekolis said:

    @mott555 said:
    If you no longer work there, then I don't see how the employment agreement could be enforced anymore.

    NDA's and noncompete agreements don't magically disappear when you stop working for a company (in the case of the latter that would make them meaningless)...

    In the country where I live, they do. Non-compete-after-termination contracts are not legally enforceable.

    Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Talk to someone who Is A Lawyer before you test your contract in a courtroom.



  • @ekolis said:

    NDA's and noncompete agreements don't magically disappear when you stop working for a company (in the case of the latter that would make them meaningless)...
     

    All contracts magically disappear when you move to Bangkok.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @tchize said:

    In my country, non compete clauses MUST be paid, no choice, it's the law. If there's a non compete clause of 1 year and you don't provide me with a 1 year salaris compensation, the clause is considered non existent by the court :)
    .. no doubt funded by a commensurate decrease in the actual salary paid while you do work there. e.g. normal salary - without this behaviour - would be €60K, they expect people to last on average 5 years, so they offer salaries of €50K.



  •  Well, when you add that non-compete is limited in time to max 1 year, is limited geographicaly to "areas where you could influence negatively market of the company", in all cases limited to belgian area and finally limited to job/companies that really compete, you quickly understand companies nearly never put such clause (oh yes, and below a certain salary level, non compete clauses are illegal :p)



  • You can only be sued for libel or breach of contract. I assume you have no claim of unfair dismissal against them because you were not there long enough and I assume you cannot claim discrimination.

    When things like this have happened to me, I usually document it on their wikipedia page. They usually revert it but it remains in their history.

     

     



  • @Cbuttius said:

    You can only be sued for libel or breach of contract. I assume you have no claim of unfair dismissal against them because you were not there long enough and I assume you cannot claim discrimination.

    When things like this have happened to me, I usually document it on their wikipedia page. They usually revert it but it remains in their history.

     

     

    I think contract is what they're talking about, but it was an employment agreement (and it said nothing of the sort), since we were all FTEs so we technically don't have a "contract" in that sense. Like I said I'm 99% certain it's just bluffing to get people to take down the bad reviews (so they don't have to change anything but can look great).

    I was there a year and 7 months, but it wasn't unfair dismissal (and I'm in a "right to work" state so there's no such thing anyways) or discrimination, it was just downsizing and I was on the chopping block because I kept pushing for us to actually get some standards in place.



  • @arh said:

    They tried implementing one at my current workplace, but I just decided not to sign the new employment contract.

    But if you don't sign the contract, can't they just refuse to hire you? Or fire you at once, if you already work there?



  • @Anketam said:

    What if someone tells me that it is a bad place to work, and I post the review, they cant come after me.  The thing was for employees of the company could not post a bad review, and I am assuming there is nothing in it stopping you from telling a friend that it is a bad place to work.  Is my assumption correct?

     If it's a review of having worked there, and you didn't, then it'd be libel, and frankly, you'd deserve it.



  • @esoterik said:

    @ekolis said:

    @mott555 said:
    If you no longer work there, then I don't see how the employment agreement could be enforced anymore.

    NDA's and noncompete agreements don't magically disappear when you stop working for a company (in the case of the latter that would make them meaningless)...

     

    Non-compete clauses are meaningless; chances are a non-compete clause is completly un-enforceble, unless you are a principle in the company (executive/C-level or significant profit participation) or live in a state/country where such things are actually vallid. I know this is true in california, i also know that non-competes have been nearly un-enforceable nearly everywhere. Its just amounts to posturing, i.e. necessarily empty threats.

    What exactly are they going to sue you for anyway? I am not a lawyer, but unless they can prove you intentionally and malicously defamed them, which require you to have lied (since truth is always a defense against libel, slander and defamation,) you probably aren't in any great legal peril. Besides the review site has several legal options available to squash the subpoena.

     

    In the US, that probably depends on the state.  I live in a right-to-work state, I work for a consulting firm, and even though I have a non-compete clause, they can't stop me from becoming employed by my client.  If my company wants to sue, they can't touch me, but they can probably try to sue the client (they probably won't get very far).

    The only thing that could possibly get me in trouble is if I were to go work for a different consulting firm, and leverage my existing relationship with the client to generate business for the new employer.  But from my experience (there were a few people at my company who did this awhile back), your old employer would sue your new employer, rather than suing you directly.

     



  • @ShatteredArm said:

    @esoterik said:

    @ekolis said:

    @mott555 said:
    If you no longer work there, then I don't see how the employment agreement could be enforced anymore.
    NDA's and noncompete agreements don't magically disappear when you stop working for a company (in the case of the latter that would make them meaningless)...
     

    Non-compete clauses are meaningless; chances are a non-compete clause is completly un-enforceble, unless you are a principle in the company (executive/C-level or significant profit participation) or live in a state/country where such things are actually vallid. I know this is true in california, i also know that non-competes have been nearly un-enforceable nearly everywhere. Its just amounts to posturing, i.e. necessarily empty threats.

    What exactly are they going to sue you for anyway? I am not a lawyer, but unless they can prove you intentionally and malicously defamed them, which require you to have lied (since truth is always a defense against libel, slander and defamation,) you probably aren't in any great legal peril. Besides the review site has several legal options available to squash the subpoena.

     

    In the US, that probably depends on the state.  I live in a right-to-work state, I work for a consulting firm, and even though I have a non-compete clause, they can't stop me from becoming employed by my client.  If my company wants to sue, they can't touch me, but they can probably try to sue the client (they probably won't get very far).

    The only thing that could possibly get me in trouble is if I were to go work for a different consulting firm, and leverage my existing relationship with the client to generate business for the new employer.  But from my experience (there were a few people at my company who did this awhile back), your old employer would sue your new employer, rather than suing you directly.

    I too have seen this first-hand, except with IP instead of clients. The old employer claimed they created products for the new employer based on knowledge and ideas gained while working for the old employer.  Um, right, again *how* exactly do you propose to prove that?  And I mean more than just saying "it uses teh webz, too!".



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    @snoofle said:

    Obvious solution: don't post reviews using your real name; create a login with a dummy name and post away. Then GlassDoor is free to give away your 'name' with no ramifications for you.

    And yes, your former employer is pathetic.

    It's anonymous anyways. The company assumed I had posted a review (because they just fired me a couple of weeks ago) and I was notified as a "warning" that IF I posted one, to remove it since they were talking to their lawyer about subpoenaing Glassdoor for the names of people who posted the reviews to sue them.

    Wipe your ass with that letter, box it up, and return it to them.  This is the only proper way to deal with some people.

    Edit:  Make sure to send it certified mail.



  • @pauly said:

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:
    @snoofle said:

    Obvious solution: don't post reviews using your real name; create a login with a dummy name and post away. Then GlassDoor is free to give away your 'name' with no ramifications for you.

    And yes, your former employer is pathetic.

    It's anonymous anyways. The company assumed I had posted a review (because they just fired me a couple of weeks ago) and I was notified as a "warning" that IF I posted one, to remove it since they were talking to their lawyer about subpoenaing Glassdoor for the names of people who posted the reviews to sue them.

    Wipe your ass with that letter, box it up, and return it to them.  This is the only proper way to deal with some people.

    Edit:  Make sure to send it certified mail.

    It wasn't a letter; that's why I think it's BS. My old boss called me to basically say "I don't know if you posted a bad review or not, but if you did remove it because we're talking to our lawyer about subpoenaing Glassdoor and suing the people who posted that for violating the employment agreement

    . If they were really going to do it, they would have had the lawyer send a letter, not call people as a heads up; it was a scare tactic and nothing more, to make me go "oh shit I better not say anything bad they'll sue". Instead it made me go "lol what sad, pathetic people"



  • Choose your own adventure!

    To reply with "oh shit I better not say anything bad they'll sue", turn to page 2.
    To reply with "lol what sad, pathetic people", turn to page 167.
    To reply with "yessir! I will go update that review immediately! Do you mind if I quote your threat?", turn to page 9001.


  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    I too have seen this first-hand, except with IP instead of clients. The old employer claimed they created products for the new employer based on knowledge and ideas gained while working for the old employer.  Um, right, again how exactly do you propose to prove that?  And I mean more than just saying "it uses teh webz, too!".

     

    Yeah, I don't see that one flying in court.  I'd ask to see the patent application.

    It's a little less difficult to prove you're stealing clients... In our case, the company stealing the clients ended up settling.

     



  • @arh said:

     I don't really get these non-compete clauses. They tried implementing one at my current workplace, but I just decided not to sign the new employment contract. I mean, of course not. How can they even think of such a bad idea? The only way you can possibly have such a demand is if you're paying full salary in during the quarantine period. Otherwise, it's basically saying "if you quit, we'll ruin your life".

    There are so many people who just sign the employment contract without thinking or even reading the thing. I've had changes made in all my IT jobs. The worst thing is, some managers hate you for doing it, because "that's just how it is for everybody" and "we just say that, we don't really mean it". Thankfully I'm not from a country where people sue each other for burnt morning toast, but still, a contract is a contract and should be handled very seriously, because after all, that's the whole point of it.

    I've been contracting for a while every time they try to slide the "you can't work in the technology industry for six months after your last day at client X" clause.  Right, so I'm supposed to be out of work for 1/2 year because of your insecurities?  Not too fucking likely, hombre.

    Almost every time I've pointed it out, the recruiter feigns incompetence and just crosses out the clause.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    @pauly said:
    @ObiWayneKenobi said:
    @snoofle said:

    Obvious solution: don't post reviews using your real name; create a login with a dummy name and post away. Then GlassDoor is free to give away your 'name' with no ramifications for you.

    And yes, your former employer is pathetic.

    It's anonymous anyways. The company assumed I had posted a review (because they just fired me a couple of weeks ago) and I was notified as a "warning" that IF I posted one, to remove it since they were talking to their lawyer about subpoenaing Glassdoor for the names of people who posted the reviews to sue them.

    Wipe your ass with that letter, box it up, and return it to them.  This is the only proper way to deal with some people.

    Edit:  Make sure to send it certified mail.

    It wasn't a letter; that's why I think it's BS. My old boss called me to basically say "I don't know if you posted a bad review or not, but if you did remove it because we're talking to our lawyer about subpoenaing Glassdoor and suing the people who posted that for violating the employment agreement

    . If they were really going to do it, they would have had the lawyer send a letter, not call people as a heads up; it was a scare tactic and nothing more, to make me go "oh shit I better not say anything bad they'll sue". Instead it made me go "lol what sad, pathetic people"

    Oh, it's total BS then.  No one calls up and makes threats like that once they've involved a lawyer.  Unless they're total fools that want to risk fucking up their case.  His phone call is about as meaningful as if you transcribed the conversation, printed it, placed it on a wooden table, photographed it, printed the photograph, then mailed that back to him.  Via certified letter, of course.

    I hope you told him to go fuck himself when you had him on the phone. You really want to give him a reason to spend all of that money and court costs trying to get the information. Even if you did write the review, just deny it.  You can just as rightly claim that they spoofed or whatever any information that ties you to the review.  He clearly has malicious intent, since he's demonstrated a clear pattern of harassment by calling you on the phone and making threats.



  • @pauly said:

    His phone call is about as meaningful as if you transcribed the conversation, printed it, placed it on a wooden table, photographed it, printed the photograph, then mailed that back to him.  Via certified letter, of course.

    Oh dear... then he'd better NOT go posting anything about this job! Because the wooden-table method only makes the phone call MORE meaningful to lawyery types... it's documentation, after all!



  • @ekolis said:

    @arh said:
    They tried implementing one at my current workplace, but I just decided not to sign the new employment contract.

    But if you don't sign the contract, can't they just refuse to hire you? Or fire you at once, if you already work there?

     

    I already have a contract, so they can't fire me. We have a lot stricter employment laws in Europe, you can't fire someone just because you had a bad day. Besides, if I left it'd be their loss, and they know it. I can always get another job, but getting a replacement would cost them dearly. People (me included) always bitch because there are so many idiots in IT, but in reality it makes life soo much easier. In the land of the blind, etc.



  • @ShatteredArm said:

    @esoterik said:

    ... or live in a state/country where such things are actually valid.  I know this is true in california, ...

    In the US, that probably depends on the state.  I live in a right-to-work state, I work for a consulting firm, and even though I have a non-compete clause, they can't stop me from becoming employed by my client.  If my company wants to sue, they can't touch me, but they can probably try to sue the client (they probably won't get very far).

    The only thing that could possibly get me in trouble is if I were to go work for a different consulting firm, and leverage my existing relationship with the client to generate business for the new employer.  But from my experience (there were a few people at my company who did this awhile back), your old employer would sue your new employer, rather than suing you directly.

    Yeah i mentioned it depends on the law where you live. 

    Trade secret law, is a completly different thing. If, for example, you took the client list, a trade secret, to a new cunsulting firm, or tried to use said list to bootstrap your own consulting company, this would put you at odds with trade secret law, and you almost certianly would be in a world of shit at that point! But i am not a lawyer, the law is complex and specific cases have specific details that matter.

    Also striking clauses does work if the document is countersigned by the other party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_lb3D7Ay-M Drew Curtis struck a NDA out of a $0 settlement with a patent troll, and they signed it.

     



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    I found this totally amusing because instead of, you know, addressing the possible issues (for example, very bad benefits compared to other companies, very low pay compared, etc) they just have their PR department post fake positive reviews (that come off as "Everything is great, this is the best company in the world", literally no drawbacks) to offset the bad ones, and resort to talking to their lawyer to try and silence negative opinion.
     

    so one of the WTFs is supposed to be the PR department actually doing the work it was invented for?



  • @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    I found this totally amusing because instead of, you know, addressing the possible issues (for example, very bad benefits compared to other companies, very low pay compared, etc) they just have their PR department post fake positive reviews (that come off as "Everything is great, this is the best company in the world", literally no drawbacks) to offset the bad ones, and resort to talking to their lawyer to try and silence negative opinion.
     

    so one of the WTFs is supposed to be the PR department actually doing the work it was invented for?

    No, it's because they aren't being subtle about it. Any idiot could read the reviews and IMMEDIATELY know which ones are fake; they didn't even try to disguise it as being a legitimate review, which you know defeats the whole purpose of a site like Glassdoor where the reviews are supposed to be legit reviews of a company, not marketing/PR bullshit to make the place look amazing.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.