RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:58 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:36 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
I think they should be banned. They are designed to cover up for rich people, and should be unconstitutional.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:57 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3895
gounion wrote:
I think they should be banned. They are designed to cover up for rich people, and should be unconstitutional.
how bout Forced Arbitration?

I Wrote the Uber Memo. This Is How to End Sexual Harassment.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:59 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19071
I think they should be banned. They are designed to cover up for rich people, and should be unconstitutional.


I read today where Karen McDougal is out of the NDA.

So the coming days should get even more interesting-times than they already are.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:07 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

I'm completely against forced arbitration. It deprives people of their right to a day in court.

Now, a caveat - In labor-management, companies and unions use a mutual arbitration system, which is fair to both sides and works pretty well. But it only covers things in the collective bargaining agreement, does NOT supersede any laws, and does not limit the use of courts if either side sees a need.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:46 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
This might be worthy of a thread of its own, however veering onto forced arbitration...
I'm completely against forced arbitration. It deprives people of their right to a day in court.
Accurate. That's the problem with 'forced' arbitration. Voluntary arbitration is not always bad....when there is recourse. And that's a protection for both sides of an issue.
Now, a caveat - In labor-management, companies and unions use a mutual arbitration system, which is fair to both sides and works pretty well.
In actuality, it depends on the contract negotiated. Some contracts do require arbitration, often regarding specific issues only. In fact sometimes union contracts require that the union and management go to binding arbitration, regarding the contract itself, if they can't agree on a new contract.

I should point out, also, there is a difference between arbitration and mediation. I wonder whether forced mediation would be a good idea?

...But it only covers things in the collective bargaining agreement....
goes without saying. One can only arbitrate what they've agreed to arbitrate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:46 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
This might be worthy of a thread of its own, however veering onto forced arbitration...
I'm completely against forced arbitration. It deprives people of their right to a day in court.
Accurate. That's the problem with 'forced' arbitration. Voluntary arbitration is not always bad....when there is recourse. And that's a protection for both sides of an issue.
Now, a caveat - In labor-management, companies and unions use a mutual arbitration system, which is fair to both sides and works pretty well.
In actuality, it depends on the contract negotiated. Some contracts do require arbitration, often regarding specific issues only. In fact sometimes union contracts require that the union and management go to binding arbitration, regarding the contract itself, if they can't agree on a new contract.

I should point out, also, there is a difference between arbitration and mediation. I wonder whether forced mediation would be a good idea?

...But it only covers things in the collective bargaining agreement....
goes without saying. One can only arbitrate what they've agreed to arbitrate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:51 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
I think they should be banned. They are designed to cover up for rich people, and should be unconstitutional.
Its a tough one....Why shouldn't someone be able to pay you to not say something (I'm not talking about covering up crimes), or to not release the terms of your agreement? I see where its helpful to a rich person who has the resources to essentially bribe a person into not saying something, but then I'm not sure I want to take the right of someone (not so rich especially) to enter into an agreement which (with accurate information and advice) is in their interest as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11459
About non-disclosure agreements GoUnion says "I think they should be banned. They are designed to cover up for rich people, and should be unconstitutional."

With regard to hush non-disclosure agreements I kind of agree, they can be unsavory.

But what about all of the other forms of non-disclosure agreements? Should they be pitched out along with the bath water?

Without non-disclosure agreements third party hardware for your computer would not be possible. You would have to use a Microsoft mouse, use a Microsoft printer, ... , ... . Or an HP computer with an HP mouse, with an printer, and HP would have to write their own operating system code.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are parts, aircraft parts, car parts,chainsaw parts, ... . ... . How could an assembly manufacturer contract with parts manufactures to make a new product without non-disclosure agreements?


You want to do something about those sleazy hush agreements,I get that, but please be careful what you ask for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:53 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
About non-disclosure agreements GoUnion says "I think they should be banned. They are designed to cover up for rich people, and should be unconstitutional."

With regard to hush non-disclosure agreements I kind of agree, they can be unsavory.

But what about all of the other forms of non-disclosure agreements? Should they be pitched out along with the bath water?

Without non-disclosure agreements third party hardware for your computer would not be possible. You would have to use a Microsoft mouse, use a Microsoft printer, ... , ... . Or an HP computer with an HP mouse, with an printer, and HP would have to write their own operating system code.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are parts, aircraft parts, car parts,chainsaw parts, ... . ... . How could an assembly manufacturer contract with parts manufactures to make a new product without non-disclosure agreements?


You want to do something about those sleazy hush agreements,I get that, but please be careful what you ask for.

I sign NDA’s all the time. I see confidential information for a number of clients. Professionally it is a violation of ethics for me to disclose such information. Still a number of clients have been advised by their legal counsel to get NDA’s before releasing such information. You are going to see this more and more as we get away from paper and into the digital age.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:16 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17918
Location: The blue parts of the map
Given how bad the data security is, I have no problem agreeing that NDA's may become more common.

There will have to be some kind of legal precedent set as to what's a legal and binding NDA, and what is unconstitutional. Obviously, if you know trade secrets, that kind of NDA is different than hush money or catch-and-kill contracts intended to shut victims up for life.

_________________
"Our democratic institutions... seem to have been upended by frat-boy billionaires from California," remarked Canadian politician Charlie Angus. (BBC, 11/27/18)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:44 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 250
I doubt Congress has the authority for an outright ban on NDA's, especially with private individuals. Not exactly an enumerated power. Under the commerce clause I guess they could regulate where interstate business is involved.

I have signed a few NDA's and in each case there were very valid reasons for the agreement. They are quite common and quite useful for secure business reasons and personal reasons, outside the realm of rich people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
I doubt Congress has the authority for an outright ban on NDA's, especially with private individuals. Not exactly an enumerated power. Under the commerce clause I guess they could regulate where interstate business is involved.

I have signed a few NDA's and in each case there were very valid reasons for the agreement. They are quite common and quite useful for secure business reasons and personal reasons, outside the realm of rich people.

Wrong. Our laws are what the legal system enforces. Contracts are only binding because they have the force of law behind them - if they are broken, then the aggrieved party goes to court to get them enforced.

For instance, at one time indentured servitude was legal, and the courts would enforce such signed contracts. No more.

NDAs have allowed predators to continue to gain new victims. I see no reason to allow this to continue for sexual harassment and sexual assault. It means rich people can simply continue crime by paying victims off. This article is from the WSJ, behind a paywall, so you probably won't see much of it, [ur=https://www.wsj.com/articles/end-of-the-nondisclosure-agreement-not-so-fast-1522056601l]but here's an important part[/url]:

USA Gymnastics has said it won’t pursue legal action against Olympic gold-medalist McKayla Maroney for possibly violating the terms of a $1.25 million confidential settlement she signed in 2016 to resolve sexual-abuse claims. She filed a lawsuit last year that seeks, in part, to have the confidentiality provisions of that agreement invalidated.

When deciding whether to enforce a confidentiality agreement, a judge can consider whether the contract violates public policy and decide whether the company’s interest in keeping the settlement private is outweighed by reasons the information should become public.

Jenny Yang, the former chair of the EEOC, said she hopes public scrutiny will prompt fewer companies to demand confidentiality in settlement agreements, which has hurt the ability of victims to warn other employees about problematic workplaces.

“It can lead to complacency within an organization because they know complaints won’t ever see the light of day,” Ms. Yang said. Eliminating NDAs “could create more incentive for employers to stop it early.”


USA Gymnastic's NDAs helped ensure many more young girls as victims.

Go ahead guys, argue for the status quo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:58 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
I doubt Congress has the authority for an outright ban on NDA's, especially with private individuals. Not exactly an enumerated power. Under the commerce clause I guess they could regulate where interstate business is involved.

I have signed a few NDA's and in each case there were very valid reasons for the agreement. They are quite common and quite useful for secure business reasons and personal reasons, outside the realm of rich people.


I would agree to an extent. I don’t think anyone can prevent you from protecting yourself from the unauthorized use and or release of personal or sensitive business information. They may limit the areas to which that protection extends in some cases.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:07 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
I think they should be banned. They are designed to cover up for rich people, and should be unconstitutional.


Non-disclosure agreements should not now or ever be banned. I know a person who worked for Mick Jagger, even though Jagger is a wealthy celebrity he deserves a degree of privacy. The same is true of every person, regardless of their wealth or stature. The same is also true of private business and organizations such as trade unions.

Can you imagine how a Fox News could twist and change the meaning of what is said at a closed Union meeting. Or MSNBC from a closed board of directors meeting. People deserve their privacy with very few exceptions.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:14 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 250
Wrong. Our laws are what the legal system enforces. Contracts are only binding because they have the force of law behind them - if they are broken, then the aggrieved party goes to court to get them enforced.

For instance, at one time indentured servitude was legal, and the courts would enforce such signed contracts. No more.

NDAs have allowed predators to continue to gain new victims. I see no reason to allow this to continue for sexual harassment and sexual assault. It means rich people can simply continue crime by paying victims off. This article is from the WSJ, behind a paywall, so you probably won't see much of it, [ur=https://www.wsj.com/articles/end-of-the-nondisclosure-agreement-not-so-fast-1522056601l]but here's an important part[/url]:

USA Gymnastics has said it won’t pursue legal action against Olympic gold-medalist McKayla Maroney for possibly violating the terms of a $1.25 million confidential settlement she signed in 2016 to resolve sexual-abuse claims. She filed a lawsuit last year that seeks, in part, to have the confidentiality provisions of that agreement invalidated.

When deciding whether to enforce a confidentiality agreement, a judge can consider whether the contract violates public policy and decide whether the company’s interest in keeping the settlement private is outweighed by reasons the information should become public.

Jenny Yang, the former chair of the EEOC, said she hopes public scrutiny will prompt fewer companies to demand confidentiality in settlement agreements, which has hurt the ability of victims to warn other employees about problematic workplaces.

“It can lead to complacency within an organization because they know complaints won’t ever see the light of day,” Ms. Yang said. Eliminating NDAs “could create more incentive for employers to stop it early.”


USA Gymnastic's NDAs helped ensure many more young girls as victims.

Go ahead guys, argue for the status quo.


Since nothing in your post remotely addresses the issue of constitutional authority to ban NDA's, raised in my post, I'll simply ignore yours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:30 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Since nothing in your post remotely addresses the issue of constitutional authority to ban NDA's, raised in my post, I'll simply ignore yours.

Except that you didn't ignore it. You replied to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:31 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Non-disclosure agreements should not now or ever be banned. I know a person who worked for Mick Jagger, even though Jagger is a wealthy celebrity he deserves a degree of privacy. The same is true of every person, regardless of their wealth or stature. The same is also true of private business and organizations such as trade unions.

Can you imagine how a Fox News could twist and change the meaning of what is said at a closed Union meeting. Or MSNBC from a closed board of directors meeting. People deserve their privacy with very few exceptions.

There's nothing that a person can't repeat at a closed union meeting. There are no NDAs or gag orders.

And I've never signed an NDA in my life, and I'm not likely to.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ely and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group