alt Hacker News>Severance is like tipping in that it's not required at all.
Great comparison. Tipping is also a form of compensation for work already performed.
It's not required in the legal sense indeed. It is, effectively, required in every other sense. It's a basic expectation of a reasonable customer.
Positions where tipping is expected (e.g. waiters) typically have lower wages; furthermore, in the US, the minimum wage for waiters is lower because of that.
Tips are compensation, as in: payment for work. It is the part of the compensation that you can refuse to pay and not have the cops called on you.
Severance is like that indeed, except you're asking the server to hereafter refer to you as "daddy".
>So would be not competing with the company, if it were legal to enforce.
See, you understand that some things (like "not competing") aren't considered "services" that you can sign a contract to "perform" in exchange for severance.
"Not disparaging", in my opinion, belongs in the same category for the same reasons.
>Maybe look up what an economic "service" is.
Please provide a definition according to which not disparaging constitutes a service.
I wonder what definition you're using, because it makes blackmail a "service" (you're paying me for not to beat you up, see).
>Maybe you're confused because as you say, no one has ever offered you money to keep your mouth shut?
I've signed NDAs and signed severances with "non-disparagement" clauses in the past, so I understand the concept full well.
But come on. You're conflating legal and moral arguments, as well as legality and reality.
>The people getting paid have valuable information to offer, which someone else either does or does not want shared.
This is not what non-disparagement is. It's not restricting factual statements.
> Please provide a definition according to which not disparaging constitutes a service.
Happy to. A service is any activity that one party performs (or refrains from performing) in exchange for consideration from another. That's basic contract law. Every lawyer learns this in 1L.
> it makes blackmail a "service"
No, because blackmail involves a threat to do something you have no right to do, or a threat to reveal information as leverage. A company offering severance isn't threatening you with anything. They're offering you money you aren't otherwise entitled to. You're free to walk away with nothing and disparage to your heart's content.
> you're conflating legal and moral arguments
I'd say that's been your move this entire thread. You keep asserting that severance is compensation for past work as though it's a legal fact, when legally it isn't. It's a voluntary offer. Then when the legal framework doesn't support you, you pivot to "well it's a basic expectation," which is a moral argument. I'm fine having either conversation, but pick one.
> It's not restricting factual statements
Agreed that overbroad non-disparagement clauses are bad. But "this clause is sometimes too broad" and "this clause is inherently coercive" are very different claims, and you've been arguing the latter.