[HN Gopher] Labor Board says non-disparagement clauses are unlaw...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Labor Board says non-disparagement clauses are unlawful - here's
       what that means
        
       Author : ohjeez
       Score  : 25 points
       Date   : 2024-01-30 17:39 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
        
       | Bostonian wrote:
       | I 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 wrote:
         | Are 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 wrote:
           | FTA:
           | 
           | 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.
        
         | jevoten wrote:
         | In 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 wrote:
         | This 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 wrote:
       | "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 wrote:
         | Insane 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 wrote:
       | Assuming, of course, that SCOTUS doesn't rule that the NLRB can
       | no longer exist.
        
       | throwaway81523 wrote:
       | This 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.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-01-30 23:02 UTC)