https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/severance-packages-silence-workers-nlrb-rules-17799428.php
10 replies (most recent on top)
Did WF ever require silence, or did they just require a promise not to sue?
This is a net negative development for the common employee. Like someone else mentioned, the effect will be to disincentivize severance packages. Company can lay you off whenever they want, so they can choose between keeping you on board or getting rid of you with no severance given they can’t be protected regardless.
Don't get too excited about this one. Companies just need to get more specific with their language and document who with and how you can and cannot discuss your employment situation. The ruling just said the wording was too broad. You could always talk to an attorney about it. Courts ruled years ago that severance restrictions were signed under duress and not enforceable during lawsuits.
"Gives companies less incentive to pay out severance. Will bite us all in the end..."
Also the first thing I thought of.
Gives companies less incentive to pay out severance. Will bite us all in the end...
Someone should start an anonymous blog.
I quit, so I can (AND I DO) say whatever the fu(k I want about the spineless middle and senior members of mortgage credit policy, who will soon be in the unemployment line. Maybe they shouldn’t have continued to intellectually ma-------e about the infinitesimal defect rate while accomplishing exactly NOTHING and blaming tech and rule developers for the fact that policy couldn’t articulate POLICY clearly EVER because they make it so stupidly complicated. Fu(k you guys!
This development could spell doom for the bank if enough folks started talking openly about their experiences at the bank and how out of control things really are.
Yep. Finally! FVk off, corporations!
it's on CNN too:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/success/severance-agreements-rule-change-from-nlrb/index.html