Skip to main content

UC/LLNL Staff Relations "Non-Disclosure Agreements

Image
By
"How do past UC/LLNL Staff Relations "Non-Disclosure Agreements" (NDA) legally relate to LLNS and the comments below? Can all UC/LLNL NDAs be legally made public by a former UC/LLNL employee or a current LLNS employee, or a former employee of either?" 


"...An NDA is valid for the length of the term exploitly stated in it. This can vary considerably, but a term of 1-2 years is fairly common in fast moving industries.

If the company you signed an NDA with no longer exists, then there is no aggrieved party to sue you for breaking the contract. So even if the language of the NDA somehow allowed the NDA to continue in force, you have nothing to worry about.

Please note, that if the assets of the company or the company itself were purchased, then the NDA is almost certainly still enforceable by the new owners..."

http://www.quora.com/Non-Disclosure-Agreements/How-long-is-an-NDA-valid

Comments

Anonymous said…
More importantly, if NDAs were signed by UC/LLNL management and employees prior to 10-1-07, is LLNS legally obligated to respect and uphold those NDA terms after they took over? NDAs can include modifications to salary, rank, leave, assignment, etc. with the hope of a "fresh start" by both parties, and to get beyond the workplace issues requiring the NDA in the first place.

If the terms of a NDA are significant, the involved managers would likely be in the spotlight for exercising "poor judgement" on an issue or several issues. These issues would then be acknowledged at least in a "no-fault" sense, by senior management in the form of a NDA. In the LLNS workplace climate, what happens to employees with UC/LLNL NDAs, and what latitude do the NDA involved managers have to harm those employees?
3/10/2015 9:01 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

Rumor corner

By scooby
LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
92 comments
Read more