5 ms·
Labor Board says non-disparagement clauses are unlawful – here's what that means
- throwaway81523 3y agoThis is from March 2023. If someone was going to litigate over it, they'd likely have done it by now. I haven't been paying attention, so maybe something like that has happened. I wonder how it went.
- AndreLock 3y agoThis came from the NLRB's McLaren Macomb case.
- Bostonian 3y agoI think this may hurt fired workers, because companies will have less incentive to offer severance pay if fired workers can criticize them in public anyway.
- hypothesis 3y agoAre you assuming that said clauses are coming in with layoffs? All I see is that they are part of a contract on day one, which is where it would make a difference.
- tempuser 3y agoFTA: That's of particular interest right now to laid-off Twitter employees — some of whom want to speak publicly about what happened when Elon Musk took over, but are muzzled by gag orders signed to get their severance.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jevoten 3y agoIn the same sense that it hurts workers if companies cannot (legally) pay them to commit fraud on the company's behalf. Yes, some worker might be paid less because of it, but we're all much better off not allowing the practice.
- aredox 3y agoThis is a textbook example of a Prisoners' Dilemma, where we - as a society - are worse off, because the set up exploits the fact it is difficult to coordinate and there's an incentive to break solidarity for one's own benefit. It is of benefit for all workers to know which abusive companies to avoid.
- datadrivenangel 3y ago"The new memo, by NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, explains that workers have the right, under the labor law, to speak publicly about working conditions — and that could include talking to former colleagues or the media about safety issues or discrimination." That sounds sane.
- isodev 3y agoInsane but in a good way. I'd hate to see the day when people aren't allowed to talk about conditions at their place of work.
- BillSaysThis 3y agoAssuming, of course, that SCOTUS doesn't rule that the NLRB can no longer exist.