zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. ecjhdn+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-18 02:30:58
This isn't about pettiness or thin skin. And it's not about mean words. It's about potential valid, corroborated criticism of misconduct.

They can totally deal with appearing petty and thin-skinned.

replies(1): >>parpfi+p51
2. parpfi+p51[view] [source] 2024-05-18 16:45:06
>>ecjhdn+(OP)
Wouldnt various whistleblower protections apply if you were reporting illegal activities?
replies(1): >>ecjhdn+aw1
◧◩
3. ecjhdn+aw1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-18 20:40:48
>>parpfi+p51
Honestly I don't know if whistleblower protections are really worth a damn -- I could be wrong.

But would they not only protect the individual formally blowing the whistle (meeting the standard in the relevant law)?

These non-disparagement clauses would have the effect of laying the groundwork for a whistleblowing effort to fall flat, because nobody else will want to corroborate, when the role of journalism in whistleblowing cases is absolutely crucial.

No sensible mature company needs a lifetime non-disparagement clause -- especially not one that claims to have an ethical focus. It's clearly Omerta.

Whoever downvoted this: seriously. I really don't care but you need to explain to people why lifetime non-disparagement clauses are not about maintaining silence. What's the ethical application for them?

[go to top]