Coming up with your own signature, and then starting to use it, are powerful moments in one’s life. The advice never to sign something unless you are absolutely happy with what you are agreeing to applies the same whether you are 18 or 80.
Some of us may have given away the power and inviolability of our monikers rashly or accidentally on something which seemed too good to be true. The same is the case when it comes to scam emails or messages which demand a quick response before you have had time to fully consider what you are about to do.
Few of us, though, have been actively coerced into signing something we don’t want to, or disagree wholeheartedly with. Surely such duress is the preserve of criminals intent on extortion?
Sadly not. Strong-arming people to put their signature on something they have not had time to consult on, or that they object to, is also the domain of the public sector, including government departments, local authorities and tertiary institutions, and private-sector businesses.
The threat, which some reportedly even state explicitly, is that they are going to terminate one’s employment regardless, so here’s the agreement and here’s a pen, you may as well sign it right now and get some cash.
It is a stunning abrogation of natural justice, as University of Auckland law professor Mark Henaghan says.
We know non-disclosure agreements are being used by organisations around the South, including the University of Otago, the Dunedin City Council and the Otago Regional Council. Not every organisation chooses to call them NDAs - in the university’s case, it prefers to refer to them as "clauses under which the parties agree to keep specified information confidential".
Of course, not every NDA signed across the country involves intimidation. Most probably don’t. But getting that breakdown of good NDA versus bad is something the media is very unlikely to ever be able to uncover. Perhaps the HR industry should start looking at this themselves?
What we can state categorically, from talking to people who have either been bullied into signing such "agreements" or who have witnessed them being unleashed on others, is that we know coercion is going into some NDAs.
While there appears to be no compunction on those who push such deals to act with any consideration of natural justice or kindness, the burdens their toxic agreements place on the outgoing staff member are brutal.
The departing employee may receive a payment, but that is the price for being muzzled for life.
The general thrust of the deals is you cannot discuss anything about the secret clauses, you need to get approval to go to counselling, and you are not allowed to disparage your former employer. Anyone found doing so could face legal action, including having to repay the compensation.
New Zealand ranks second worst in the world for workplace bullying. The fallout from largely employer-led bullying of employees is declining mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, attempted suicide and suicide. Workplace bullying conservatively costs the country more than $1.4 billion annually.
It’s only right and just that anyone on the receiving end of an NDA ambush should be given several days to get advice on the ins and outs. For someone who may have been a victim of workplace bullying, these entrapments are the final indignity, the final act of harassment.
Advocates can’t stop this themselves. Labour MP Helen White is showing courage about halting the bullies with a member’s Bill, but politicians across the spectrum must help clean up this dirty stain on our national reputation.
Those organisations and their bosses who engage in this abhorrent behaviour around NDAs - and they know who they are - need to take a long hard look at themselves, their unprincipled practices and the effects they are having on so many lives.
