5 ms·

> What prevented them from trying again? I doubt the settlement had a clause that said "you can't start a union". Why wouldn't it have one? I'm sure the lawyer

> What prevented them from trying again? I doubt the settlement had a clause that said "you can't start a union". Why wouldn't it have one? I'm sure the lawyers involved here wouldn't miss the obvious question. Seems like a sound way to make the issue go away for a while: pay the instigators a bunch of money with the stipulation that they not continue to instigate. Nothing stops other people from trying again, but buying out the ones in charge of the effort goes a long way towards setting it back. Plus, by settling out of court, the company avoids the risk that the court decide its behavior was illegal. The courts may do so in the future, but it would take getting caught again. In the meantime, the company can refine its methods of limiting unionization while better avoiding obviously illegal behavior. Most of that is contingent on setting existing unionization efforts back, to buy time for efforts to be mobilized or improved. The easiest way to set any social movement back is to eliminate key points of coordination. Putting an NDA and other clauses into the settlement agreement achieves that end and puts the law on the company's side. All that's left at that point is to figure out everyone's price.

jalapenos 3y ago
I imagine writing down the ways in which you're agreeing to break the law doesn't bode well if the government comes after you and that document gets presented in court. Likely the illegal bits were whispers, winks, and head nods.
- try_the_bass 3y ago
  I mean, is it actually illegal to add terms to the settlement that require some party to (essentially) promise not to go back to doing the thing? It seems like it follows the same principles as non-compete stipulations that come with certain forms of severance, right? I think those often take the form of "we'll pay you this severance, and in return you'll agree to not work in the industry for a couple years". Or am I just uninformed and those are illegal, too?
bluefinity 3y ago
> Why wouldn't it have one? Because that's illegal?
- lazide 3y ago
  Only if done in specific illegal ways. A certain type of Lawyer specializes in finding the other ways.
batguano 3y ago
As someone who received that settlement, it didn’t. And a no union clause would be just as illegal as their conduct in the first place.
- try_the_bass 3y ago
  So did you end up starting a union after the settlement?

jalapenos 3y ago

I imagine writing down the ways in which you're agreeing to break the law doesn't bode well if the government comes after you and that document gets presented in court. Likely the illegal bits were whispers, winks, and head nods.

try_the_bass 3y ago
I mean, is it actually illegal to add terms to the settlement that require some party to (essentially) promise not to go back to doing the thing? It seems like it follows the same principles as non-compete stipulations that come with certain forms of severance, right? I think those often take the form of "we'll pay you this severance, and in return you'll agree to not work in the industry for a couple years". Or am I just uninformed and those are illegal, too?

bluefinity 3y ago

> Why wouldn't it have one? Because that's illegal?

lazide 3y ago
Only if done in specific illegal ways. A certain type of Lawyer specializes in finding the other ways.

batguano 3y ago

As someone who received that settlement, it didn’t. And a no union clause would be just as illegal as their conduct in the first place.

try_the_bass 3y ago
So did you end up starting a union after the settlement?