Refunds & NDA

Okell

saajan_12 said:

Okell said:

I agree with @IvanOpinion.

I don't have a problem with NDAs in a business setting where it's a commercial decision and both parties are free to choose whether to enter into one or not - often with legal advice.

But I'm very unhappy with NDAs between businesses (including charities) and individuals (including employees and consumers).

If businesses act unlawfully (whether deliberately or through sheer incompetence or ignorance of their legal responsibilities) in their dealings with individuals I see no reason why they should be able to hide that wrongdoing behind some artificial legal shield.

I don't have a particularly high opinion of charities and their holier than thou attitudes at the best of times (eg Oxfam in Chad and Haiti and their JK Rowling cartoon) and from the threads I've read on various employment rights boards many of them seem to be poor employers and unaware of employee rights.

Insofar as charities are funded from public donations it is entirely wrong that they can hide payouts resulting from mismanagement/ignorance/incompetence/malice from the public gaze.  And insofar as they benefit from tax breaks at public expense it's doubly wrong.

Unfortunately my and Ivan's opinion aren't much practical use to the OP


(Perhaps they should pay for the OP to receive independent legal advice on the merits of her claim before settling and signing a NDA - as I believe is the practice in employment rights settlements?)

I don't really see why it matters who the NDA is between - eg a company v individual employee may well have an NDA to protect proprietary work product or methods they have developed. The employee blabbing that xyz company is exploring opportunities in a certain untapped sector / region may lse a competitive advantage they previously had. 

IMO its understandable to have an NDA to protect trade secrets and plans. Its less fair & transparent to have NDAs covering past performance, treatment of people and generalised experience. I'm not sure how tricky that would be to define legally, let alone if there's sufficient consensus on this. 

I've not made myself clear.  I have no problem with NDAs in respect of legitimate business interests.  I do have a problem with businesses gagging employees and former employees to prevent embarrassing information coming out.

Alderbank said:

Back in 2019 the (then) government said that while NDAs are valuable for protecting legitimate corporate interests they were aware that they were increasingly being abused by businesses to unreasonably silence individuals and hide errors and poor practice.
Penny Mordant promised that they would introduce New legislation to tackle the misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), also known as confidentiality clauses, in the workplace.

Nothing happened.

This ^^^ is what I have a problem with

RefluentBeans

Okell said:

saajan_12 said:

Okell said:

I agree with @IvanOpinion.

I don't have a problem with NDAs in a business setting where it's a commercial decision and both parties are free to choose whether to enter into one or not - often with legal advice.

But I'm very unhappy with NDAs between businesses (including charities) and individuals (including employees and consumers).

If businesses act unlawfully (whether deliberately or through sheer incompetence or ignorance of their legal responsibilities) in their dealings with individuals I see no reason why they should be able to hide that wrongdoing behind some artificial legal shield.

I don't have a particularly high opinion of charities and their holier than thou attitudes at the best of times (eg Oxfam in Chad and Haiti and their JK Rowling cartoon) and from the threads I've read on various employment rights boards many of them seem to be poor employers and unaware of employee rights.

Insofar as charities are funded from public donations it is entirely wrong that they can hide payouts resulting from mismanagement/ignorance/incompetence/malice from the public gaze.  And insofar as they benefit from tax breaks at public expense it's doubly wrong.

Unfortunately my and Ivan's opinion aren't much practical use to the OP


(Perhaps they should pay for the OP to receive independent legal advice on the merits of her claim before settling and signing a NDA - as I believe is the practice in employment rights settlements?)

I don't really see why it matters who the NDA is between - eg a company v individual employee may well have an NDA to protect proprietary work product or methods they have developed. The employee blabbing that xyz company is exploring opportunities in a certain untapped sector / region may lse a competitive advantage they previously had. 

IMO its understandable to have an NDA to protect trade secrets and plans. Its less fair & transparent to have NDAs covering past performance, treatment of people and generalised experience. I'm not sure how tricky that would be to define legally, let alone if there's sufficient consensus on this. 

I've not made myself clear.  I have no problem with NDAs in respect of legitimate business interests.  I do have a problem with businesses gagging employees and former employees to prevent embarrassing information coming out.

Alderbank said:

Back in 2019 the (then) government said that while NDAs are valuable for protecting legitimate corporate interests they were aware that they were increasingly being abused by businesses to unreasonably silence individuals and hide errors and poor practice.
Penny Mordant promised that they would introduce New legislation to tackle the misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), also known as confidentiality clauses, in the workplace.

Nothing happened.

This ^^^ is what I have a problem with

Strong agree with this - but I thought NDA’s can’t be used to silence illegal activity (in terms of criminality?). But I may be misunderstanding entirely. 

It is weird to see them in the consumer landscape - hence why I originally queried whether it is a B2B contract? 

Okell

RefluentBeans said:

Okell said:

saajan_12 said:

Okell said:

I agree with @IvanOpinion.

I don't have a problem with NDAs in a business setting where it's a commercial decision and both parties are free to choose whether to enter into one or not - often with legal advice.

But I'm very unhappy with NDAs between businesses (including charities) and individuals (including employees and consumers).

If businesses act unlawfully (whether deliberately or through sheer incompetence or ignorance of their legal responsibilities) in their dealings with individuals I see no reason why they should be able to hide that wrongdoing behind some artificial legal shield.

I don't have a particularly high opinion of charities and their holier than thou attitudes at the best of times (eg Oxfam in Chad and Haiti and their JK Rowling cartoon) and from the threads I've read on various employment rights boards many of them seem to be poor employers and unaware of employee rights.

Insofar as charities are funded from public donations it is entirely wrong that they can hide payouts resulting from mismanagement/ignorance/incompetence/malice from the public gaze.  And insofar as they benefit from tax breaks at public expense it's doubly wrong.

Unfortunately my and Ivan's opinion aren't much practical use to the OP


(Perhaps they should pay for the OP to receive independent legal advice on the merits of her claim before settling and signing a NDA - as I believe is the practice in employment rights settlements?)

I don't really see why it matters who the NDA is between - eg a company v individual employee may well have an NDA to protect proprietary work product or methods they have developed. The employee blabbing that xyz company is exploring opportunities in a certain untapped sector / region may lse a competitive advantage they previously had. 

IMO its understandable to have an NDA to protect trade secrets and plans. Its less fair & transparent to have NDAs covering past performance, treatment of people and generalised experience. I'm not sure how tricky that would be to define legally, let alone if there's sufficient consensus on this. 

I've not made myself clear.  I have no problem with NDAs in respect of legitimate business interests.  I do have a problem with businesses gagging employees and former employees to prevent embarrassing information coming out.

Alderbank said:

Back in 2019 the (then) government said that while NDAs are valuable for protecting legitimate corporate interests they were aware that they were increasingly being abused by businesses to unreasonably silence individuals and hide errors and poor practice.
Penny Mordant promised that they would introduce New legislation to tackle the misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), also known as confidentiality clauses, in the workplace.

Nothing happened.

This ^^^ is what I have a problem with

Strong agree with this - but I thought NDA’s can’t be used to silence illegal activity (in terms of criminality?). But I may be misunderstanding entirely. 

It is weird to see them in the consumer landscape - hence why I originally queried whether it is a B2B contract? 

They shouldn't be, otherwise it might be argued that both parties are involved in a criminal conspiracy.

But an employer can act unlawfully - and not want that to become publicly known - without acting illegally.

eg an employer unlawfully sacks an employee but comes to a settlement with the employee on condition that the terms of the settlement and surrounding circumstances remain confidential.