Cool, so now can I talk about how my former employer offered me severance only if I signed something not to talk about it because I was about to file a long term disability case and they knew it?
> now can I talk about how my former employer offered me severance only if I signed something not to talk about it because I was about to file a long term disability case
Your right to talk to a lawyer was never jeapordised. Your right to complain to the NLRB or threaten litigation/arbitration was also probably never in question. (Your claims may now be strengthened or expanded.) Your right to disclose it publicly, e.g. here, may not be protected.
Who was the head of the NLRB for both this case and the one it overturned? It smells of political decision making as the article points out it’s overturning a precedent from 2020 which itself was overturning previous precedent.
In 2020, John F. Ring was the chairman, joined by William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan. All Republicans, save for lone dissenter Lauren McFerran.
McFerran is now the chairman, and Kaplan is still on the board. Ring and Emmanuel were replaced by David Prouty and Gwynne Wilcox, respectively. Both have union backgrounds.
I can't seem to find the original case to see the board make up then.
The Trump Whitehouse was in the process of intentionally contravening much of the administrative state - EPA, CDC, NRLB, IRS, USCIS, etc etc. So overturning precedent to favor anti-labor policy was perfectly consistent with the overall vision.
Could an employee receive severance and still be able to sue to determine if there was a WARN act violation or discrimination of federally protected classes?
It depends on when you signed the non-disparagement agreement.
> The decision involved severance agreements offered to furloughed employees that prohibited them from making statements that could disparage the employer and from disclosing the terms of the agreement itself.
Was the agreement part of getting hired? or getting laid off?
That said, I suspect that this will result in a reduction of severance agreements since there is very little that the company can gain out of a severance agreement now (I am assuming this also extends to various "you can't sue the company for wrongful termination" and similar).
I’m not sure about this. In reality, there’s very little incentive for anyone to dish on their former employers other than in small private circles, which probably happens even after signing these agreements anyways.
It makes you almost instantly unemployable. And even if you’re now retired, it’s almost certainly not worth the hassle it will cause.
If someone has enough of a grudge to publicly complain then the suing by the company will only add to their complaint and, if anything, might be an incentive for them to publicly complain.
I don't think this is true. In my experience, the employer sees the non-disparagement clause as mostly unimportant[1]. The reason they compensate you is your agreement not to sue.
[1] Specifically, when I have asked to remove it, they have done so without any back-and-forth and without asking for anything in return.
I was paid off after a senior member of staff at a company I worked at did something he should not have (not sexual). I'd rather have had the pay off. No one forced me to sign anything. And I would have been worse off getting "justice" than a cheque...
I don't know that it's meant to be 100% for every employee's benefit. Disallowing companies from paying off their employees not to talk cuts off a means that companies have to hide wrongdoing.
After paying you off, the senior member of staff could do exactly the same thing to your replacement who, without the context of your experience, might assume that no one knew what was happening to/around them (when everyone around them knows) and/or that there was no recourse (although the company was fearful enough of you to pay you off.)
I don't get what happens if you refuse to sign one of these when you're laid off. Aren't employers still required to offer severance under laws like the WARN act? It's not like they can fire you for not signing...
Typically with a tech company where they are concerned about a person walking out with IP the company will instead put the employee on garden leave for the duration.
It would also be completely within the WARN act to say "you are going to be laid off on April 24th, however you are required to show up for the next 60 days and do knowledge transfer to the rest of the team." And then on April 24th, you sign that you acknowledge that you've been let go, you hand in your badge, get your final paycheck and payout of any accrued vacation and then walk out the door and that's it - no other payments.
Employers have never been required to offer severance.
> There is no legal requirement under California law that employers provide severance pay to an employee upon termination of employment.
---
Typically, the stuff you sign when you leave is a payment contingent upon a promise not to cause future problems for the company. Don't disparage them, don't threaten to sue them for certain things relating to being discharged from the company.
If you don't sign it - you don't get the severance pay.
Maybe if they're offering additional benefits beyond the legal requirements, ie longer severance, they could threaten to withhold those? I guess what some companies were doing is saying "ok, we give you 4 months severance, but you agree to waive X, Y, and Z rights".
Just a note. The NLRB rules on Labor Law ie Union Rules. This is pretty narrow in that you can’t be asked to waive rights that the NLRB covers which are primarily around your rights to organize and the rules that govern those processes. Not employment rights in general.
For the large majority of HN who are not organized (or being organized) this wouldn’t impact them at all.
[+] [-] ok_dad|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|3 years ago|reply
Your right to talk to a lawyer was never jeapordised. Your right to complain to the NLRB or threaten litigation/arbitration was also probably never in question. (Your claims may now be strengthened or expanded.) Your right to disclose it publicly, e.g. here, may not be protected.
[+] [-] lovich|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sfteus|3 years ago|reply
McFerran is now the chairman, and Kaplan is still on the board. Ring and Emmanuel were replaced by David Prouty and Gwynne Wilcox, respectively. Both have union backgrounds.
I can't seem to find the original case to see the board make up then.
[+] [-] xadhominemx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackily|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kayodelycaon|3 years ago|reply
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/qa-understanding-waivers-...
[+] [-] anxtyinmgmt|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shagie|3 years ago|reply
> The decision involved severance agreements offered to furloughed employees that prohibited them from making statements that could disparage the employer and from disclosing the terms of the agreement itself.
Was the agreement part of getting hired? or getting laid off?
That said, I suspect that this will result in a reduction of severance agreements since there is very little that the company can gain out of a severance agreement now (I am assuming this also extends to various "you can't sue the company for wrongful termination" and similar).
[+] [-] worldmerge|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dreamcompiler|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charcircuit|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HarryHirsch|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baggy_trough|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhaway84773|3 years ago|reply
It makes you almost instantly unemployable. And even if you’re now retired, it’s almost certainly not worth the hassle it will cause.
If someone has enough of a grudge to publicly complain then the suing by the company will only add to their complaint and, if anything, might be an incentive for them to publicly complain.
[+] [-] dmazin|3 years ago|reply
[1] Specifically, when I have asked to remove it, they have done so without any back-and-forth and without asking for anything in return.
[+] [-] LatteLazy|3 years ago|reply
I was paid off after a senior member of staff at a company I worked at did something he should not have (not sexual). I'd rather have had the pay off. No one forced me to sign anything. And I would have been worse off getting "justice" than a cheque...
[+] [-] pessimizer|3 years ago|reply
After paying you off, the senior member of staff could do exactly the same thing to your replacement who, without the context of your experience, might assume that no one knew what was happening to/around them (when everyone around them knows) and/or that there was no recourse (although the company was fearful enough of you to pay you off.)
[+] [-] AlexandrB|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shagie|3 years ago|reply
Typically with a tech company where they are concerned about a person walking out with IP the company will instead put the employee on garden leave for the duration.
It would also be completely within the WARN act to say "you are going to be laid off on April 24th, however you are required to show up for the next 60 days and do knowledge transfer to the rest of the team." And then on April 24th, you sign that you acknowledge that you've been let go, you hand in your badge, get your final paycheck and payout of any accrued vacation and then walk out the door and that's it - no other payments.
Employers have never been required to offer severance.
For example - the document on final pay for California. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/finalpay.pdf
> There is no legal requirement under California law that employers provide severance pay to an employee upon termination of employment.
---
Typically, the stuff you sign when you leave is a payment contingent upon a promise not to cause future problems for the company. Don't disparage them, don't threaten to sue them for certain things relating to being discharged from the company.
If you don't sign it - you don't get the severance pay.
[+] [-] chrisco255|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peyton|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vector_spaces|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cp9|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] compiler-guy|3 years ago|reply
But it also might send jobs overseas and to non union shops, just like Colorado and New Mexico have become havens for filming outside of Hollywood.
[+] [-] jfengel|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mlindner|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mikeryan|3 years ago|reply
For the large majority of HN who are not organized (or being organized) this wouldn’t impact them at all.
[+] [-] Aloha|3 years ago|reply