zlacker

"It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it."

I find it hard to understand that in a country that tends to take freedom of expression so seriously (and I say this unironically, American democracy may have flaws but that is definitely a strength) it can be legal to silence someone for the rest of their life.

>>Al-Khw+(OP)
This is not much worse than "forced arbitration". In US you can literally lose your rights by clicking on "Agree" button.

>>Al-Khw+(OP)
It’s all about freedom from government tyranny and censorship. Freedom from corporate tyranny is another matter entirely, and generally relies on individuals being careful about what they agree to.

>>borski+O3
America values money just as much as it values freedom. If there is any chance the money collection activities will be disturbed, then heads will roll, violently.

See the assassination attempts on president Jackson.

>>Al-Khw+(OP)
As others have mentioned, its likely many parts of this NDA are non-enforceable

Its quite common for companies to put tons of extremely restrictive terms in an NDA they can't actually legally enforce to scare off potential future ex-employees from creating a problem.

>>Al-Khw+(OP)
In America you're free to sign or not sign terrible contracts in exchange for life altering amounts of money.

>>DaSHac+zf
I wouldn't say that is "quite common". If you throw a bunch of unenforceable clauses into an NDA/non-compete/whatever, that increases the likelihood of the whole thing being thrown out, which is not a can of worms most corporations want to open. So it is actually toeing a delicate balance most of the time, not a "let's throw everything we can into this legal agreement and see what sticks".

>>Al-Khw+(OP)
How is it serious if money is the motor of freedom of speech? The suing culture in the US ensures freedom of speech up until you bother someone with money.

>>borski+O3
And yet there was such a to-do about Twitter "censorship" that Elon made it is his mission to bring freedumb to Twitter.

Though I suppose this is another corporate (really, plutocratic) tyranny.

>>sundal+eF
Change that to "bother someone with more money than you."

Essentially your point.

In the US, the wealthiest have most of the freedom. The rest of us, who can be sued/fired/blackballed, are, by degrees, merely serfs.

>>fastba+7D
> If you throw a bunch of unenforceable clauses into an NDA/non-compete/whatever, that increases the likelihood of the whole thing being thrown out

I’m not sure that this is true. Any employment contract will have a partial invalidity/severability clause which will preserve the contract if individual clauses are unenforceable.

>>sleigh+pK
In the US, anyone can sue. You can learn how. It's not rocket science.

>>borski+O3
Problematic when fascism forms as recently has been evident by social media working with government to censor citizens; fascism being authoritarian politicians working with industrial complexes to benefit each other.

>>daniel+q21
Yes, you can learn how to sue. You can learn how to be a doctor too. You can also learn rocket science. The third one is the easiest to me, personally.

>>p1esk+4d1
If you can learn rocket science in x years, you can learn how to sue in x days. So, do both.

>>bamboo+o6
Nah, it values money more

>>a_vict+VG1
Freedom is good for business.

>>a_vict+VG1
"Freedom" has historically always been mostly about the freedom to make (and lose) money.

>>tcbawo+BS
The severability clause is itself on the table for being stricken, and it's much more likely to happen if too many of the wrong parts of the contract would otherwise invoke it.