zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. reduce+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-17 19:42:22
They can't even mention the NDA exists!
replies(1): >>daniel+rK
2. daniel+rK[view] [source] 2024-05-18 04:18:50
>>reduce+(OP)
This is common, and there is nothing wrong with it.
replies(1): >>Chinju+Xr1
◧◩
3. Chinju+Xr1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-18 13:54:59
>>daniel+rK
There is absolutely something wrong with it. Just because a thing is common doesn't make it good.
replies(1): >>daniel+zX1
◧◩◪
4. daniel+zX1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-18 18:44:39
>>Chinju+Xr1
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.
replies(1): >>hnfong+rx3
◧◩◪◨
5. hnfong+rx3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-19 14:18:11
>>daniel+zX1
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.

replies(1): >>daniel+R14
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. daniel+R14[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-19 19:04:08
>>hnfong+rx3
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.

[go to top]