Is this better?
NON-DISPARAGEMENT AND CONSIDERATION. I. Both Employer and Employee agree that the free and open exchange of ideas and information among employees, contractors, and agents of the Foundation is to be encouraged.
II. Employee agrees that, during the term of employment and for three years thereafter, Employee shall not, in any communications with the press or other media, or any customer, client or supplier of company, or any of company affiliates, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of Employer or its affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers.
III. Additionally, and in consideration of Employee's covenants in this agreement, no directory senior officer of Employer or member of the Board of Trustees of the Employer will, during the same time period, personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of Employee.
IV. No provision of this agreement shall be considered to supersede the whistleblower protection laws of the United States of America and the whistleblower protection policy of this Organization.
V. No provision of this agreement shall be considered to preclude complaints to appropriate supervisory personnel
----- Original Message ---- From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:15:16 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Future board meeting (5-7 april 08)
Agree. That's a godawful policy. For instance, "shall not....make any statement that ....is derogatory of employer" means that they cannot say "Wikimedia Foundation is not good at this". The reciprocal agreement is just as bad. For instance, it only prevents "directory senior officer[s] of Employer or member[s] of the Board of Trustees" from criticizing the employee. It does not prevent, for instance, independent contractors from being critical and disparaging of employees, something that, according to some accounts that I've heard, has been an issue before.
-Dan On Apr 13, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
- begin quote -
NON-DISPARAGEMENT AND CONSIDERATION. Both Employer and Employee agree that the free and open exchange of ideas and information among employees, contractors, and agents of the Foundation is to be encouraged. Employee agrees that, during the term of employment and for three years thereafter, Employee shall not, in any communications with the press or other media, or any customer, client or supplier of company, or any of company affiliates, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of Employer or its affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers. Additionally, and in consideration of Employee's covenants in this agreement, no directory senior officer of Employer or member of the Board of Trustees of the Employer will, during the same time period, personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of employee.
- end quote -
That's lawyerspeak for "You mustn't say bad things about your boss (and vice versa)." I would never have signed that. It doesn't even acknowledge the Whistleblowing policy, which is directly contradicts (presumably that policy takes precedence, but I would have expected it to be made explicit). The Whistleblowing policy only applies if what you're complaining about is actually illegal. If you just think your boss has been doing an appalling job, you're not allowed to do anything about it. Saying untrue, or purely hurtful things is clearly unacceptable, but anyone should be able to stand up and tell the truth as they see it.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
No. For one thing, what is a "directory senior officer"? For another, it does not address independent contractors. For a third, it does not address the over-broadness of the "shall not...make any statement that....is derogatory of Employer". Provision IV's first clause is unnecessary, as the agreement would not supersede US laws anyway.
-dan On Apr 13, 2008, at 8:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Is this better?
NON-DISPARAGEMENT AND CONSIDERATION. I. Both Employer and Employee agree that the free and open exchange of ideas and information among employees, contractors, and agents of the Foundation is to be encouraged.
II. Employee agrees that, during the term of employment and for three years thereafter, Employee shall not, in any communications with the press or other media, or any customer, client or supplier of company, or any of company affiliates, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of Employer or its affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers.
III. Additionally, and in consideration of Employee's covenants in this agreement, no directory senior officer of Employer or member of the Board of Trustees of the Employer will, during the same time period, personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of Employee.
IV. No provision of this agreement shall be considered to supersede the whistleblower protection laws of the United States of America and the whistleblower protection policy of this Organization.
V. No provision of this agreement shall be considered to preclude complaints to appropriate supervisory personnel
----- Original Message ---- From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:15:16 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Future board meeting (5-7 april 08)
Agree. That's a godawful policy. For instance, "shall not....make any statement that ....is derogatory of employer" means that they cannot say "Wikimedia Foundation is not good at this". The reciprocal agreement is just as bad. For instance, it only prevents "directory senior officer[s] of Employer or member[s] of the Board of Trustees" from criticizing the employee. It does not prevent, for instance, independent contractors from being critical and disparaging of employees, something that, according to some accounts that I've heard, has been an issue before.
-Dan On Apr 13, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
- begin quote -
NON-DISPARAGEMENT AND CONSIDERATION. Both Employer and Employee agree that the free and open exchange of ideas and information among employees, contractors, and agents of the Foundation is to be encouraged. Employee agrees that, during the term of employment and for three years thereafter, Employee shall not, in any communications with the press or other media, or any customer, client or supplier of company, or any of company affiliates, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of Employer or its affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers. Additionally, and in consideration of Employee's covenants in this agreement, no directory senior officer of Employer or member of the Board of Trustees of the Employer will, during the same time period, personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of employee.
- end quote -
That's lawyerspeak for "You mustn't say bad things about your boss (and vice versa)." I would never have signed that. It doesn't even acknowledge the Whistleblowing policy, which is directly contradicts (presumably that policy takes precedence, but I would have expected it to be made explicit). The Whistleblowing policy only applies if what you're complaining about is actually illegal. If you just think your boss has been doing an appalling job, you're not allowed to do anything about it. Saying untrue, or purely hurtful things is clearly unacceptable, but anyone should be able to stand up and tell the truth as they see it.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
No. For one thing, what is a "directory senior officer"? For another, it does not address independent contractors. For a third, it does not address the over-broadness of the "shall not...make any statement that....is derogatory of Employer". Provision IV's first clause is unnecessary, as the agreement would not supersede US laws anyway.
While I'm willing to consider Geoffrey's alternative in the spirit with which it was presented, it seems to me that any alternative at this stage only digs a deeper hole. If the non-disparagement policy is to have any value at all we need to agree to underlying principles first, and only then judge a specific text in terms of consistency with those principles. The principle that one should not speak ill of fellow Wikipedians is probably acceptable to most, but that pre-supposes that speaking ill is well-defined. In reality, what to some of is is just the normal cut and thrust of debate will be viewed as grave insult by others.
While a breach of such policy can always be easily remedied with a current employee by the simple phrase, "You're fired," that can't be easily applied to a trustee, or even a former employee. This is especially the case when that person is not a resident of the United States, and refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the US courts in this matter.
The anti-disparagement policy seems to be more characteristic of an inner circle closing ranks. This may not be the real intent, but it can be difficult for intent to match perception.
Ec
On 14/04/2008, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Is this better?
NON-DISPARAGEMENT AND CONSIDERATION.
I. Both Employer and Employee agree that the free and open exchange of ideas and information among employees, contractors, and agents of the Foundation is to be encouraged.
II. Employee agrees that, during the term of employment and for three years thereafter, Employee shall not, in any communications with the press or other media, or any customer, client or supplier of company, or any of company affiliates, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of Employer or its affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers.
III. Additionally, and in consideration of Employee's covenants in this agreement, no directory senior officer of Employer or member of the Board of Trustees of the Employer will, during the same time period, personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of Employee.
IV. No provision of this agreement shall be considered to supersede the whistleblower protection laws of the United States of America and the whistleblower protection policy of this Organization.
V. No provision of this agreement shall be considered to preclude complaints to appropriate supervisory personnel
Better, but still doesn't allow for people to publicly say what they see, which is sometimes a good thing to do.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org