EDIT: If anyone from Glassdoor is reading this, please advise on a way to either unlink my profile from my identity - or remove my profile and contact information altogether. I believe GDPR may provide some assistance here.
I was hired via a consultancy firm (Ness Technologies) that would have me work in PayPal chennai office back in 2012. A new CEO came and basically reduced work force drastically, the worst mass layoffs I have ever seen. The environment then changed to worse rapidly etc. etc.
I decided to quit the toxic environment. Contractually I was supposed to get 2 months of basic pay, but Ness and Paypal conspired together and concocted a story where I have falsely accused someone of sexual harassasment and since it is false, I can be fired without that 2 months of money. Then they asked my to nicely sign a letter where I forfeit that salary willingly or they will report "this gross misconduct" to future employers.
PayPal wouldn’t open themselves up to that risk. 100% the type of shit I see consultancies pull, especially smaller ones or regional ones. Any with HQ in US wouldn’t risk it.
Unless the 2 contacts from each company had a personal vendetta against you. Then I can see it.
I think you're violating a couple HN guidelines here: assume good faith and "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Reminder that libel vs truth is dependent on where you are. In the US you don’t risk libel when speaking the truth but there are places where this isn’t the case.
To add some specifics, I think the common case outside of the US is one where the published elements must both (a) be true, and; (b) have been published for some "legitimate purpose". The phrase "legitimate purpose" is generally understood to mean "whose primary purpose is not to cause harm or nuisance". An example of legitimate purpose would be governmental transparency. An example in which something true could still be considered libelous might be notifying your ex-spouse's employer of his/her public intoxication charge for the purposes of stunting his/her career.
(I'm basing this general comment on my understanding of French law. I believe it works similarly in many, if not most, European countries. I hope some actual legal experts can weigh in!)
Look at the recent reporting around Shinzo Abe's death in Japan for a really good example of different libel laws. In Japan the burden of proof lies with the entity publishing the information.
A lot of the initial headlines were things like "Abe collapses at rally, shots heard" even though the article itself had a video of him getting shot and then falling down. Others just had a headline that equated to "Abe collapses during rally, currently in critical condition" without even mentioning a shooter.
It would surprise me if it is called libel in those countries. The more likely translation would be defamation.
In Sweden for example there is publisher responsibility which can limit truthful but harmful statement. Anti-doxxing laws has a similar purpose. There are also countries where people have a right to be forgotten, especially once a person has served their time in prison.
> This employer has taken legal action against reviewers and/or Glassdoor for the reviews that have appeared on this profile. Please exercise your best judgment when evaluating this employer. Learn more about Glassdoor Alerts.
i.e. "FFS stop writing reviews, but assume the worst is true and stay the hell away from these clowns"
Yeah. Definitely Streisand effected themselves. Wonder if they can sue their own legal counsel for causing themselves so much monetary loss (given that's the grounds they're using to de-anonymize the reviewers)?
The... remaining reviews may not look that bad. I imagine a scenario may exist where a fired employee has to sign an NDA and take down their review to receive severance or suchlike.
A canary is something which is present when everything is fine and removed when the situation changes. It’s a stealthy technique for when you can’t be explicit. Adding a giant red warning at the top of a page is the opposite of a canary.
Not a good look on the current employees either that their firm sues for bad feedback. Probably good idea to start looking to move on to firms with better practices.
> It appears a few other companies are doing this too, including Kraken (https://www.kraken.com/)
Kraken is still silly for going after them, IMO, but the Kraken case isn't as cut and dry. The person who had left the review on Kraken had accepted a large severance package that was conditional on signing a NDA.
I think the bad PR Kraken got for going after them wasn't worth it (especially as the review wasn't really even that bad) but the ex-employee was also not really in the right there either, having violated their NDA.
It can protect whatever the contract says. Usually, severance packages include a nondisparagement clause. I highly recommend requesting that they amend it to say "mutual nondisparagement" and re-word the terms to apply to both the employer and employee. That way you get paid to shut up, but they are also forced to abstain from making potentially disparaging statements about you. It's a good ask.
It’s a contractual agreement to not air dirty laundry in exchange for money. If you want to bitch about the company publicly, don’t accept a payment not to.
Unfortunately, this is not true. An NDA is not a free pass to being able to censor whatever you want, even if the person signing the NDA took a fee, or received payment.
"NDAs do not prohibit people from reporting suspected corrupt conduct to an appropriate authority. The Crime and Corruption Act 2001 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 provide safeguards that allow people who have signed an NDA to report suspected wrongdoing, including corrupt conduct, maladministration and the misuse of public resources.
Under no circumstances do they oblige people who have signed them to maintain secrecy about suspected wrongdoing. You can still report suspected wrongdoing despite signing an NDA."
Idk... a lot of companies "secret sauce" seems to be squeezing the life and passion out of employees to make as much money as they can. Sounds like a trade secret they'd need to protect.
Opened the Glassdoor page and content was obscured (including part of the warning banner) with a large unskippable overlay to “Sign up for free to continue using Glassdoor”. In light of these news, perhaps they should reconsider that policy.
> At this time, we do not allow members who have created their accounts with Facebook or Google+ to edit their Account Settings. We apologize for any inconvenience as we work to change this.
It appears a few other companies are doing this too, including Kraken (https://www.kraken.com/) as you can see here: https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Overview/Working-at-Kraken-Digi...
EDIT: If anyone from Glassdoor is reading this, please advise on a way to either unlink my profile from my identity - or remove my profile and contact information altogether. I believe GDPR may provide some assistance here.