EDIT: I've worked at some shops that were "cultish" and would look at testifying without a subpoena as not being part of the team. Fucked up, but organizations are often so. You need to do the right thing in the smartest way possible.

You can choose not to be a part of these organizations.

Mortgage, kids... Sometimes you need a paycheck.

Mortgages are not inherently bad. It's what you take the mortgage for is the bad decision.

Example:

Good:

Having a mortgage for a legal duplex (2 dwellings) and renting the other half out, while you live in one.

Bad:

Getting a house that's one big sink hole of cash and having more bedrooms/lawn/what have you.

You can be employed to build someone else's dreams. However there are other options available to you that don't involve being a rat.

If you do decide to testify, I would strongly recommend finding someone completely unrelated to the case who can coach you on how to be a witness. Not what to say, but how to say it. My only experience testifying was in a small criminal trial, but the advice I was given was to keep my answers short, factual and free of emotion.

Some companies will immediately discount you if you testify against a former employer. For those that look closely at the case, though, you do not want to come across as someone testifying because they bear a grudge. A calm, passive, "just the facts" attitude will be the best for your career.

* You may not be called to testify because you've made yourself a hassle, which solves your career problem but implicates you morally.

* Converting your testimony from freely-provided to compelled might have logistical implications. I've been compelled to testify before, and it was a nightmare for me. I'd have been happier if I could have told the trial participants "I'm busy this week, fuck off".

Otherwise, explain the situation to the prosecutor and detective and ask to be subpoenaed. They'd likely be happy to comply.

Whereas everyone else at the company were good team-players and kept their mouth shut and head down, so the plaintiff wasn't sure if s/he could count on their testimony or if they even knew anything.

Again, just explaining how someone might fear the logic would go. Not saying anyone does or should actually think like this.

It's interesting to consider, and I don't know. I'm not a legal professional tho I imagine a legal professional would say "there's not enough information."

So on those points alone I feel it's far more likely what you suggest is incorrect. Also I'm inclined to believe that. One reason is it works to choose the benefit of the doubt (not only because it's a legal doctrine), one reason for that being the benefit of the doubt creates harmony amongst people. Search for the good, sometimes it takes effort, and it's worth it. You'll be happier, definitely, if you see the good. On that point, I'd say we're wired to imaginatively perceive the bad, because we're wired for "threat landscape analysis". Tho this disturbs the mind, and maybe isn't always a clarity that works for people. Seeing the good is more unnatural and yet I think also very valuable.

Finally, if a person is asking strangers for advice at a pivotal moment, I'd say they're valuing and respecting others. It also works to respect their vulnerability in reaching out and help. I mean, that's the putative spirit of "Ask HN", right?

Maybe I'm missing something here, and benefit of the doubt goes a long way it seems to me. I'm also finding the HN Guideline, "Don't say anything you wouldn't say to someone's face" really useful in guiding choice on what to say here! :)

There was a time when I didn't know how useful "being yourself" was. I don't believe I'm the only one. For instance, people substitute defining themselves by a contrarian viewpoint relative to others, until they work out who they really are. Case in point: the petulant teenager.

And when you don't know you don't know, the questions you ask and actions you take don't display an understanding of that -- so it works to address the non literal if you want to contribute to helping people with those requests.

I hope this helps ! :)

Just in case I'm misreading you, this post comes across as quite passive-aggressive and patronizing given your opening line.

Anyway I'm trying to say something like:

Not everyone may know that. Being yourself is important, all decisions flow from your values works. Sometimes it works to address the substantive content of a question which may differ from the literal.

If you have any ideas how I can say this in a way that works, thank you :)

Looking for advice about what testifying could do to his career image in the long-term from a crowd that likely has relevant experience is about career impact. Explicitly.

Except it really isn't about the explicit literal question, it's about the unasked real question.

What happens when you don't know you don't know something, or when asking what would be unacceptable?

A proxy question is substituted, and you hope someone hears what you're really saying.

Also, from a literal sense, I'd say whether you feel the choice is authentic is actually all about career impact. You're choosing to make your career something which isn't you, or something which is. What is the impact on you, and subsequently on your career, for each choice?

Thanks for saying that you're right and that my answer isn't addressing the question. I invite you to create an answer that addresses the question you see, so we can learn from you! :)

In general, however, I don't think that I would want to work for a company that would hold a bias against me due to my participating in presumably honest testimony when a previous employer was brought to court for whatever reason.

Several years ago in The Netherlands we had a website blockade of The PirateBay. Most ISPs had to block it, it was stupid, and it did not work at all. The ISPs were challenging it legally. The question got asked: "How effective is this blockade anyway? Can we measure it?".

I did not realise it at the time, but this was somewhat an identity inflexion point for me, and very much changed my career.

As a scientist in computer networking, with some knowledge of Bittorrent, I thought to myself, how hard can it be? I could take some torrents off TPB, record IP addresses passing by and checking which ISP they come from. I finished the bittorrent measurements, wrote a report, and tried to publish it. Only the dean and the faculty lawyer got wind of it, and they were not amused, and saw a risk of getting sued by the entertainment industry.

I challenged them on this, and noted that I would publish this, even without their support. Fortunately I also got full support of my professor, and we did get to publish it. It was used in the court case, and it helped show the ineffectiveness of the website blockade, so it got lifted.

This little weekend project changed my research interests, has made me focus on ethics in computer science research, and especially security research. This has changed much of how I initially planned my career, and it has gotten me to where I am now. I have enjoyed every minute of it, and months later also realised I was not happy with the way my career was going.

I took some risk in doing this, but it was something I believed in. The change was possible because I was a researcher at a university, so that made it somewhat easier.

Still, kudos for standing up for what you felt was right and not giving in in the face of such pressure, that was pretty brave.

All papers are online at staff.fnwi.uva.nl/j.j.vanderham/research/articles.html

So, the thoughts:

* I would refuse to testify against my former employer unless I were subpoenaed. Even then, I may move to quash the subpoena (this may be different in your case, of course).

* Being subpoenaed could include depositions and travel and courtroom testimony and rescheduled evidentiary hearings because the judge has a murder trial that's running long -- it could take weeks of your life. This is not an hourlong process. Also, everyone else involved in this process is going to be paid for their time; who pays for yours? Do you even want, ethically speaking, to be paid for your time? Remember the "major law firm" does not work for you and does not have your best interests at heart; their interests may be opposed to yours. To protect yourself you could hire your own attorney, who isn't going to work for free.

* If your former employer has an active fanbase and strongly and convincingly denies your allegations, you could be attacked by name, and your family members dragged into this, online and via social media.

* There are innumerable laws and regulations, some of them rather nuts, and at least one employee at every large company may have innocently violated one of them at some point. Do the laws you believe your ex-employer violated punish behavior that you personally believe should be illegal (malum in se vs. malum prohibitum)? And did management know about and approve these illegal actions, or was it a rogue employee at fault? If the answer to either question is "no," you may want to drop this.

* Now that you've been contacted by a law firm, you could be subpoenaed even if you do not respond and try to drop this.

* If you believe your former employer has institutionally engaged in actions that are illegal and unethical, you have other options beyond testifying. You could write up your experiences and post them publicly, anonymously if necessary.

When the rubber hits the road this is what happens and worse

You mention that the company you worked at is popular here on Hacker News. So let's assume we are talking about Apple or Google or perhaps AirBnB. So from now on, when people look up your name, they will see something like "Testified against Apple".

A lot of companies will quietly remove you from consideration, if they see that you have testified. And, sad to say, this might exclude you from a lot of the better paying jobs in the industry.

All the same, you have to ask yourself, how will you feel about yourself if you don't testify? What kind of world do you want to live in? What sort of tech industry do you want to live in?

Based on? This sounds important enough to warrant real data rather than our guts, whims, direction of the wind, or whatever else.

For many, many years after that, when I was looking for a job in that city I had to put an asterisk on my CV that said "Did not part ways amicably. Please contact me for details" -- everybody in that city knew this employer and many people had heard of the story. Possibly this hurt me for jobs, but of course I never noticed. I worked for other very prominent companies in that city with no problem at all. I have never had difficulty finding good work, so it was fine.

I had one other experience (with another prominent big company) where I was ordered by a very high up executive to add code to the system that was illegal (this was a telephone system, so there are some laws about what you are allowed to do). I refused and they threatened me, but I didn't back down. I think they found someone else to do it behind my back. Again, this could have been quite risky for me, but I refuse to do anything illegal in my job and do not want to work for a people who think I should have caved.

There is always work for good programmers. There are also always things that will prevent you from working with some specific companies, whether that be a bad performance on the day of your interview, bad luck about getting your CV seen by the right people at the right time, a mismatch in personalities or skills, or sometimes situations in your history. It depends on the situation, but it is far from game over to have a mark like that in your history. I no longer put an asterisk on that company on my CV. They even called me up one time to try to recruit me. I had to remind them what happened the last time I worked there. Time heals all... eventually.

This is probably true. At the same time, some will certainly see it as a good thing and want to hire OP.

At best, they'll ignore it. It won't be a net positive unless the hiring company is some kind of issue-oriented non-profit, or the role itself is issue-oriented.

Personally, there are some issues I would absolutely fall on my sword for. And there are some I certainly wouldn't. It's your own moral compass.

Yes, you can imagine that they would see things differently when actually facing a hiring decision, but my base assumption is that most of them don't.

Regardless, I personally would favor any candidate who did the right thing in difficult circumstances. I don't hire people who will just go and do whatever I tell them; I've got computers for that. I hire people to help make good things happen. And for that, I need some confidence that when faced with a choice between easy and good, they'll pick good.

More than a decade back I was brought into a company to help them experiment with new ways of working. There was one engineer on my team who thought my ideas were nuts. He argued so much that the management offered to give me somebody more tractable. I stuck with him, though, and as he worked in the new approach, he came to appreciate it. By the time I left, he was an unstoppable advocate for improving my client's engineering practices. Over the next few years he made a huge difference there.

When I look back upon the best people I've worked with, they're all like that. They're professionals, in the sense of having a strong sense of professional and ethical duty. As far as I'm concerned, one person like that is worth any three over-obedient clock-punchers.

Presumably, those kinds of places just wouldn't care if you testified against a former employer who broke the law. Because it just wouldn't matter.

In America, companies break the law. In Soviet Russia, the law breaks companies. Or something

People are going to lie to you and tell you they wouldn't hold it against you. But they would.

Sure, OP "should" do the right thing and testify honestly, but in the big scheme of things, it probably will make hardly a lick of difference, and it could very well have extremely negative ramifications for his career.

I have a hunch that they type of politics you encounter will vary widely based on the size of the company.

Edit: scare quotes were not needed

Or Uber

They don't put their "regular, probably honest" employees into areas that are lawbreaking.

My point is, you need to look out for number one and not let some law firm looking for (their own) payday get you entangled in their profits, because none of them give a fuck less about you.

So without more clarity on which laws were broken and your role in this (are you the primary witness? Sole witness? One of a dozen?) it's hard to give specific advice.

But just don't let yourself get screwed because some lawyers see a payday they damn well aren't going to share with you.

ps -- if you get a subpoena, get your own lawyer. Maybe even get one now; a lawyer's job is risk management and that's what you need.

ps2 -- Depending on what happened, when people ask, "What kind of person do you want to be" the response might be, "The sort who has a career and can afford indoor living." Here's another whisteblower about mortgage fraud who has destroyed her career [1]

[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witn...

I agree with the other posters: if you do want to testify, ask for a subpoena.

Living a virtuous life is always 'hard mode'; if it were not, would we ever have bothered to identify virtue?

For example, Bill Gates. We all hated on Microsoft in the 90s. But Gates has become an amazingly generous humanitarian, which he couldn't have done if he donated all his money to charity in the beginning and didn't focus on ruthlessly building his company.

Also, if the law that was broken was actually a major thing then I'd be hard pressed not to testify. It might affect your career, but only with companies that themselves have questionable ethics. You probably don't want to work for them anyway.

As an exercise I would look into the recent lawsuit against VC firm Kleiner Perkins. Search the web for "kpbc lawsuit" and read how people have reacted to that case.

->

"XXX isn't complying with YYY regulations!"

->

"Apple isn't complying with workforce competition regulations!"

So what you're saying is there's a certain level of integrity, and if someone goes over that level of integrity then they are too integer, and you don't want to work with them?

Hah. Easier said than done. :)

But no, seriously OP, don't rely on this. Whitewashing one-self via attempted SEO is more likely to fail than not fail.

You don't even need to go for extensive SEO, as Search Engines may change their algorithms every now and then.

What you can do is, you can create a website for your professional profile where you write blog posts. In one of the blog posts, you can clearly explain your standpoint in your own words. Just link this website to your Linkedin and other social networks. This is important because you have to say in your own words what you want others to see about you, so as to nullify any false idea others may get on googling you.

The recruiter who is going to hire you will surely see the link to the website that YOU have listed and if he really cares about you, that person will read the blog posts. So you definitely have control.

Celebrities all across the world have to deal with stuff which might malign their image, every single day. And you can notice that many celebrities just give a clear statement in their own words and it works out well.

Finally, it comes down to the decision whether you would like to testify or not.

we here seem to be using a lot of opinion and not much fact ...

Either way, be aware that you can be forced to testify. As long as your testimony is based purely on facts, then I don't see future employers as having issues with it.

I am still inundated with invitations to interview.

I think you will be fine too.

Edit: Look up the names of people who have sued their employers. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/ Try googling their names and see if you can link them to the cases. I bet the connections are hard to make.

There is a ton of bad behavior going on in this industry and I have pondered whether or not to write about our experience as a warning to all other start-uppers/innovators. I've been going back and forth on whether or not to come out and say who the company is and those who scammed us out of our technology. Though will doing such make me look bad, when the narrative is Silicon Valley companies are no friend to the little guys with no connections!?!

For the career advice;

You will be a lot more known than your projects since this topic will be covered by media as well.

This can be risky too.

The bad:

If law firm loses the case, then you will end up with them as a loser too which will lower your chances getting a similar job like you are working now.

Keep in mind that you former employer also have lawyers to defend themselves, and at the end after the case, they will most probably be still operating.

The good:

You will be known as someone that actually did something about the problem. This can open opportunities for you to work for/as something else than what you are doing now. (they might want to host you on TV, interviews, people would would want to hire you to do some other things, i don't know maybe IT specialist for law firms?)

For both cases, doing what you are doing now MAY not be easier for you after this. (This is my opinion)

Taking or not taking this risk should be ONLY your decision since advantages and disadvantages will mostly affect you.

There are some other things came to my mind that might be worth thinking about as well.

- Do you have a family to take care? (taking risks are easier when you are single)

- Would you be happy doing something else than what you are doing now?

- What are you expecting that will happen when the case is over? (How will you feel about it?)

And one more thing,

Since i am not a lawyer, you actually can find another law firm or a lawyer and ask them about this offer you got. And listen what they are saying about the whole thing.

Good luck!

When people are thinking of hiring you, they aren't thinking whether you'll sue them legitimately. They're afraid of a spurious suit.

Can you live with yourself ethically if you don't testify?

Are there ways that telling the truth about what you witnessed could actually be an advantage to your career?

Say, for example, that you witnessed sexual harassment and were put on the stand to talk about that. Sure, there may be some shitweasel who won't hire you because you "snitched" - but there may be a woman founder of a healthier and more profitable company (http://qz.com/361602/companies-run-by-women-perform-better/ , just sayin') who takes your having testified as a positive, rather than a negative, signal.

Integrity counts for a lot. If someone doesn't want to hire you because you showed integrity under difficult circumstances, did you really want to work for them in the first place?

Now if you're worried about testifying because you yourself behaved unethically, that's a whole other story.

Not everyone is willing, interested, or capable of affording themselves the luxury of working for such a place though it can be very rewarding to make those life choices.

In this sort of circumstance the merits of the case might make a difference to future employers and to yourself, whether the legal action and your participation in it seems morally just.

You have to weigh your specific circumstances and the circumstances of the case to make your decision, likely nobody but you can really understand enough to give solid advice.

Their goal is to add value to the company with each hire. They could agree with your ethics and even applaud your speaking out, but still pass on you because your past history as a whistleblower (or at least close enough to one for the term to broadly fit) makes them nervous about what you might do over a difference of opinion even if they believe their company to be ethical and law-abiding. Unless you happen to be a major witness in the case and the defense manages to drag you thoroughly through the mud, it's unlikely that your CV will be tarnished enough for it to be automatically rejected as though you marked down a felony conviction on the application.

It's not completely analogous, but imagine a hypothetical case where Edward Snowden is applying for a position at Google. Were you to poll Google employees, I'd expect strong support for his actions. Hell, his leaks clearly benefited Google by informing them what the NSA was up to and how they were tapping into their internal traffic. But would that support prevent them from worrying about what might happen if he disagreed about certain activities at Google? Snowden already demonstrated a strength of character strong enough to go against the massed might of the United States government of all entities, and for all of their marketshare, Google's own reach pales in comparison. I don't think it'd automatically disqualify Snowden, but it's something that would probably be considered at least in part.

For an employer, it boils down to a simple risk analysis. What's the likelihood that the applicant will find themselves in a similar situation again, and how does that weigh against the value that their work would add to the company? There's really no simple answer here, let alone a guaranteed one. If you're a strong candidate that they'd otherwise want, it'll matter less would be the case if you had little to offer them compared to other candidates.

It's not going to affect your career in the slightest, unless it's a gigantic, newsworthy case and even then, it's unlikely anyone will care about your participation as a witness.

For example, do you think they're good laws? Or do you think these laws are widely broken, at least technically, by all comparable companies because they're unrealistic, and any harm to non-consenting third parties is negligible?

Do only a few of the worst operators, or worst divisions of a larger company, break these laws? Do the laws effectively protect identifiable victims?

This could matter, because with good laws, lawful operators are happy to see transgressing competitors take a fall. And lawful operators need to hire people who help them stay compliant.

But with problematic laws, that are hard to obey and thus widely violated but with no harm to others, people who (cheerfully) become involved in their enforcement can become distrusted. (Did you earnestly try to check the lawbreaking when first observed, or just stockpile evidence for a later legal assault? The 2nd strategy can appear to be scheming or disloyal even if the law is righteous.)

IFF (and it's a big IFF) anyone ever sees your testimony as part of a hiring-evaluation, whether they care will depend on whether the case looks like a shake-down/gotcha/technical-violation, or a remedy-of-great-injustice.

OTOH, I tend to agree with others that this is unlikely to be a big deal. Individual witnesses don't get that much coverage. Unless you're the plaintiff/whistleblower, you're just one of many people called upon to tell the truth. The case could easily be resolved long before your testimony becomes public. Even if it seems at the moment like a giant controversy involving titans of the industry, it'll soon become a footnote, not a headline, about your career, and equally as likely to help (with most major and upstanding employers) as it could hurt.

Your answers and justifications could swing the pedlndulum either way. I would want to know that you believed you did the right thing, and that you took the time to really question what the right thing was.

i wouldn't worry about it.

You're thinking only about your career? How about the mental and emotional toll that being involved in a court case can take? Don't doubt that there is one. These are all costs to you.

This may be too simplistic and quite conservative, but if you are not personally involved in the legal case, nor the actions that were taken which were illegal, then it is the company's problem and not your own. I like to hope the legal system was designed to get to the bottom of the issue, which has already been identified.

From a career or personal perspective, it might be a better idea to stay out of it unless you must be involved, either because it is needed to serve justice or because it is required because you are subpoenaed. Why not let the court decide if that is needed? One thing I know for sure is, if one side or the other needs/wants you bad enough, you will get dragged into it.

On the other side, if you don't need to be involved, it is probably safer to stay on the sideline. Especially if there is any chance that you aren't sure about the legality of the issues involved. Why take the unnecessary risk and burden to yourself? The company probably wouldn't do that for you.

As for your career question - I think most reasonable employers may ask, but would realize that the actions of a corporation do not equal those of an individual working at that corporation. I do think your career can survive being associated with such an entity, even if you have to be involved.

Worst case, change the entry on your resume to make the company name anonymous when applying for jobs... instead of XYZ, Corp, just say "A Major Consumer Technology Firm", etc. I have seen folks do that and it is not totally unacceptable.

Good luck with your decision.

But many other people have to pay their bills and exist in a hiring environment which is somewhat hostile - maybe they can't move to the Bay Area, they are not very outgoing and networked, rumors have been spread about them, they are old - this industry is punishingly picky and hiring managers like nothing better than filtering you out. So, bottom line, a lot of us don't have leverage and do have to play stupid corporate games (and work at shitty and occasionally unethical employers) on pain of losing our livelihoods. It's all fun and games until you have to stop writing code and go work at Wal-mart.

If this issue is of Schindler's List magnitude, I guess you have to bite the bullet, but if all you're doing is making a law firm happy by being a +1 that might not be worth the risk of self-destruction.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/23/nobody-likes-a-tattleta...

Large public Companies (assuming we are talking about a case against a public Company) may be reluctant to have you because HR might freak out. HR is all about damage control and compliance. But startups to medium sized Companies can be talked into it, and if you work is valued and appreciated, you should be fine. As a founder or executive of several Companies from 1 to 80 people here in California, I would not take this against you.

As a side note, I would also advise you to do some SEO on yourself as was said by porter. It's unfortunate, but worth it.

So it really isn't a choice of "do I or don't I" it is really about the choice you made when asked. The actual choice here may be whether or not you need representation.

As others have said a) is pretty easy to avoid if you aren't the star witness in a major trial and you have any sort of web presence (or you have the same name as someone famous.) Assuming a potential employer did hear about the trial, they are going to care a lot more if your testimony is related to something they MIGHT be doing\accused of doing. If you are being asked to testify that your ex-employer over worked employees or allowed a culture of harassment to exist, then sadly the HR person or hiring manager may worry that you'd make an accusation against them because those conditions are sadly pervasive and\or subjective. If on the other hand you are testifying that the ex employer is clubbing baby seals to make fancy watch bands, then they are much less likely to care because they know they aren't also clubbing baby seals (or if they are, you should be happy they pass on you.)

On a personal level, I'd probably ask them to get a subpoena and testify. I'm reading between the lines, but it sounds like you think it's the right thing to do. If you really believe that then it's worth doing, even if it might have s marginal effect on your some job applications down the line. Tech is big, good engineers are scarce, and most jobs will come from your personal network anyways, and the small downside is worth sleeping well at night.

While I don't think we should selectively obey laws, there are certainly some that are very stupid and I'd question the judgment of someone who went to great lengths to punish a firm for violating one.

You certainly can try to fit into that perspective, but those vasalls and slaves turn productive companys into king-courts that go nowhere. Better start sooner then later to openly not be one of those. So it actually depends on the crime comitted. If the crime in question was part of such a court and the shenanigans those produce. Hit it. And write it in your resume. Dont hide it. Show it and the reason why you did it. And would do it again. Make clear, that kings without cloths have a tendency to loose there head throughout history and that speeding up the fall of unmerited authority is a virtue.

Also, it wont be found out over the web, but via personal contacts. You and everbody meets twice in live, and they will chat. So if you do testify- tell it right now.

That doesn't mean don't testify though, what's more important to you, your career or getting the company punished for what it did?

The only thing you haven't mentioned that might be relevant is if your silence might hurt someone. Then you have to weight own disadvantage against their disadvantage. Although I'd probably do the moral choice, I don't think it's the smarter one. In real life moral decisions often don't pay off, not even for the people you try to protect.

Also if you have spouse or other people who depend on you (e.g., brothers/sisters) discuss with these people and make a decision together. Your decision will also influence their life.

If it's something that most people in your industry actually think is bad, go for it.

Then again, there are now so many and so broad regulations that any business will violate some on a daily basis. I would like to work with people who don't go to the legal system whenever they can.

After that, even if you left the company, they wouldn't get sued or have any media attention. You wouldn't be known as 'the whistleblower' and probably get a decent compensation.

It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui.

The above are all three quotes from Helen Keller.

I will suggest that you do whatever it is you believe to be ethical. Well paid careers are often careers in which character and trustworthiness are important. It is part of why you get paid: They can trust you with the keys to the thing or the personal data on people or whatever. If a law firm knew to contact you, then it isn't a secret that you have insider info. If you do the unethical thing, people learn of that.

If you want some "plausible deniability," sure, tell them to subpoena you. But reputation matters immensely and when something like this comes into your life, the question is not whether or not you can avoid the consequences. There will almost certainly be consequences. There will almost certainly be a price to pay and, whatever you choose, the price may well be painful. When all is said and done, do what you believe to be the ethical thing. It will do the most to protect your employability. So avoiding the consequences should not enter your mind. The choice here is which set of consequences do you prefer?

There is also no price you can place on a clear conscience. I like being able to sleep well at night. I have a medical condition, so a good night's sleep is something I have fought hard for. I would hate to lose my good sleep habits over a guilty conscience. Having lived my entire life suffering from a serious medical condition, I believe firmly that bars do not a prison make. The prison of our own body or our own mind is often far worse than anything anyone else can do to us.

Best of luck with both your decision and the path forward.

Finding a good career path may take quite some time, but working for the wrong company can cost magnitudes of more time.

For most HN readers, including me, the answer is an obvious "testify", because we see it as a big plus. Do you want to work for people who see it as the right thing to do, or people who avoid it?

----

If they did something so awful that it's keeping you awake at night, do it.

Otherwise, don't.

...

Wait... are you still reading?

Don't!

....

Okay, darn it...

If you STILL want to do it:

Career-wise, make sure it's something which is universally seen as awful AND will probably continue to be seen as such. If the wind changes direction, there's still going to be a record about what you've done. Things seen as obviously right can be seen as obviously wrong in the time of a single decade. When this happens, the 'major law firm' and all those who did encourage you to do it will magically vanish.

> Would it be a deal killer if I applied at your company?"

Depends on what and why you did it.

If you testify only because someone broke the law, from my point of view as a hypothetical employer, you are a huge liability. Most people break the law multiple times a day and don't even know it. I honestly don't want people around me who are ready to report me just 'because I broke the law'.

If you've done it for moral reasons, even if I agree with you, I might have to refuse to hire you because it might gives a bad image to my business.

Now, what if I agree with you and you did something which is currently politically correct. Is there any advantages? Not really... I still don't know if you are good at your job; I'll have to evaluate you the same as everybody else.

In short, there's no advantages (employer/employee-wise) to doing it. Only potential downsides.

It's like behind an asshole on a social network. It might gives your friend a few giggles, but it can hurt you years down the line.

Is it because you think he should testify, and you just downvote the opposed side?

Is it because you don't agree with my hypothetical employer?

Is it because you don't like the distinction between morality and law?

It would be much more helpful to say what you don't agree with.

The sad thing about this is that OP specifically asked for career advice, not an open "should I / would you do it".

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What's good for society may not always be good for the individual.

If not, do what you think is right. You'll be your best critic and fan, pay attention to what's good for you.

Separately, if you want to spend your life working for soulless corporations, then the publicity could hurt you.

If you want to work for good people that understand real issues, they'll appreciate what you do if you handle yourself honorably.

This reminds me of John Boyd's famous question: "Do you want to be somebody or do you want to do something?"

It's highly admirable to care about the world, but sometimes it turns out the world will not care about you.

Listen to all the opinions/advice you can get, adjust your beliefs in the light of this new information, then make a decision you'll be most conformable with.

Maybe I grew up listening to too much rap music, but personally I would stay on the sidelines.

However, don't get pressured into doing something you're not comfortable doing. If you morally want to do something, but only feel comfortable doing it anonymously just stick to that. And if the law firm doesn't see any benefit from your anonymous reporting then I would recommend to just leave it at that.

- do you think the company did something wrong?

- do you want to help discourage other companies from doing the same thing in the future?

If the answer is yes to both, then you should testify.

The truth is, no one here has a crystal ball that will tell them the impact of testifying on your future. In life, you sometimes have to just go with what you think it right.

As an employeer, the kind of lawsuits that give me pause would be from a sanctamonious employee out to make a quick buck.

This lawsuit look like the testamony is coming from a principaled employee: the kind of employee that I would be proud to work with that would call me to better behaviour.

Ive always kept my mouth shut for the same reasons... most employers are doing something wrong, and no one likes a tattletail.

Instead of doing the world a service by testifying, you could do the world a service by not buying t-shirts made in sweatshops, or something like that.

The moralising in this thread is too much.

I would testify.

Consider that the law firm can subpoena you. If the choose to do that you would have no choice but to testify - or rather, you could be prosecuted if you choose not to.

Also it is the right against SELF incrimination. One can be compelled to incriminate others.

I agree completely with your second paragraph.

Let's say Sally is suing Joe for wrecking her car. I was driving Joe's car, and I fled the scene of the accident.

I'm subpoenaed in the civil matter to come testify for Sally to say what Joe did.

I'm pretty sure that you can tell the judge you refuse to answer due to 5th amendment right.

Source: I did this once in a federal civil suit (no vehicles involved)

What's the measure for "self incrimination". For example if I'm called as a witness for a relatively minor offence (non-violent theft say) but it will mean giving evidence that I was cheating on my spouse; that's not criminal but it's potentially going to ruin my life, why would I testify?

What about the converse, there's almost always something you could decide was unlawful, you were speeding, you dropped litter, you jaywalked, you illegally parked - if your testimony might reveal such things then can you claim the fifth?

"Is There a Cause for Which You Would Give Your Life?" http://www.warplife.com/mdc/essays/mental-illness/give-your-...

For me, now, there are lots of such causes. But then I am fifty-one years old, I have witnessed a great deal of evil in the world and so would welcome the opportunity to make right that which is wrong.

Some would have had a lot more to lose than she did; say someone who had an outstanding arrest warrant, someone who owed a lot of money, no I would not blame them.

There is no single perfect advice anyone can give. This is my off-the-cuff sense for what my own thought process would be.

IMO in our bizarre litigation-driven society, no good comes out of putting yourself out there unless you 100% CYA which is the mistake I made here. CYA or you'll (probably) be sorry.

It's simple: do the positives outweigh the negatives?