zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
Submission title mentions NDA but the article also mentions a non disparagement agreement. "You can't give away our trade secrets" is one thing but it sounds like they're being told they can't say anything critical of the company at all.

>>MBlume+d5
They can't even mention the NDA exists!

>>reduce+C6
This is common, and there is nothing wrong with it.

>>daniel+3R
There is absolutely something wrong with it. Just because a thing is common doesn't make it good.

>>Chinju+zy1
Two people entering an agreement to not talk about something is fine. You and I should (and can, with very few restrictions) be able to agree that I'll do x, and you'll do y and we are going to keep the matter private. Anyone who wants to take away this ability for two people to do such a thing needs to take a long hard look at themselves, and maybe move to north korea.

>>daniel+b42
There are things that are legal between parties of (presumed) equal footing, that aren't legal between employers and employees.

That's why you can pay $1 to buy a gadget made in some third world country, but you can't pay your employees less than say $8/hour due to minimum wage laws.

>>hnfong+3E3
Yes, as noted there are a few exceptions.

Being paid a whole lot of money to not talk about something isn't remotely similar to paying someone a few dollars an hour. It's not morally similar, it's not legally similar and it's not treated similarly by anyone who deals with these matters and has a clue what they are doing.