Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 Dec 2007 22:38:37 -0500
Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nate Edel <archmage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jasper Janssen <jasper@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
archmage@xxxxxxxxxx (Nate Edel) wrote:
Even where there's no formal prohibition to discuss such things,
there seems to be a remarkably strong taboo about discussing them
(at least in my industry.)
Not that they can legally enforce such a prohibition, AFAIK.
Why not?
They might not be able to catch you at it, if you're discreet. But it
prevents you from directly using that information at salary review time.
I suspect that (atleast in the jurisdiction I'm in) they can legally
enforce such a prohibition long enough for it to go to court, by
which time you've been out of work for a couple months and it winds
up before a judge who's unwilling to go out on a limb and oppose
freedom of speech with at-will employment.
Freedom of speech means that you can't be jailed for speaking.
It doesn't mean that, say, the Republican party can't require its
employees not to publicly support the Democrats, or that a Jewish
employer can't fire someone for praising Hitler.
If a potential employee thinks an employer's speech restrictions are
too onerous, he doesn't have to work there. If enough potential
employees feel the same, the employer will go out of business.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
.
- References:
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: Keith F. Lynch
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: Jasper Janssen
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: Charlton Wilbur
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- Prev by Date: Re: Who wrote this?
- Next by Date: Re: sf not worth stealing?
- Previous by thread: Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- Next by thread: Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|