Posted on 02/22/2023 12:07:51 PM PST by Twotone
Companies can no longer offer severance agreements that prevent employees from making disparaging remarks about their former employer, the National Labor Relations Board ruled Tuesday.
The big picture: The federal agency said these agreements require employees to waive their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, and that such policies are a violation of the act.
According to the NLRB, "the employer’s offer is itself an attempt to deter employees from exercising their statutory rights, at a time when employees may feel they must give up their rights in order to get the benefits provided in the agreement." Employees also cannot be prevented from disclosing the terms of their severance packages as outlined in any exit agreement, the NLRB said.
Details: The NLRB's decision reverses two made during the Trump administration that found these types of agreements were "not unlawful."
The NLRB said in its decision its previous rulings were wrong and did not recognize “that unlawful provisions in a severance agreement proffered to employees have a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the exercise of employee rights.” The previous decisions, made in cases involving Baylor University Medical Center and International Game Technology (IGT), stated that offering similar severance agreements to employees was not unlawful by itself. "Today’s decision, in contrast, explains that simply offering employees a severance agreement that requires them to broadly give up their rights…[and] that the employer’s offer is itself an attempt to deter employees from exercising their statutory rights, at a time when employees may feel they must give up their rights in order to get the benefits provided in the agreement," the NLRB's ruling said.
Thought bubble via Axios' Javier E. David: Taken together with the FTC’s recent move to ban noncompete agreements, as Axios Markets’ Emily Peck has recently covered, it’s clear the Biden administration is assertively reorienting workplace rules to be more supportive of workers, who have clawed back more power in the post-pandemic era.
So isn’t this about the First Amendment?
One of the rare times I actually agree with this administrations positions. Using severance pay as coercion has been a long standing and unethical business practice that needs to stop.
If a business wants that level of secrecy they need to put it contractually up front in the initial hiring phase, not when they have an employee under duress, such as in a severance scenario.
What about doing something about the B.S disney pulled with severance packages offered only if you trained your paki replacement?
Thanks for Pissing on my house that's already burnt down.
woke, not woke, woke,, not woke... I forgot what day are we were on ?
It’s not about free speech. You have a choice, take the Severance and be silent. Or don’t take it and speak your mind. This is one less incentive for companies to give Severance.
I signed one of those agreements under duress. I needed the money during a time it was difficult to find employment.
Does this mean I can now talk about the employer who called me while I was on vacation to tell me that if I don’t get the clot shot I will be fired when I return, prior to the time period expiring?
I don't think they'll do anything about that.
It's OK to require work duties in exchange for severance, but not to make someone give up their right to speech.
After all, in most cases the employee doesn't have a right to severance.
I would certainly consider the agreement you signed null & void after this ruling.
My husband had to sign such an agreement. When another employee decided to sue their former employer, he asked my husband if he would testify as a witness. Because of the agreement, he told his former co-worker that he could only do so if subpoenaed.
I don’t know if the other guy continued his fight, but we were in no financial position to sue, but we could have. They have big time lawyers, and we are just regular working folks.
However, being laid off at that time was a great blessing to us, because we learned a lot about people, true friends, and so forth. My husband found an even better job than the one he had, with great people to boot. We are very grateful, though we could be bitter if that is how we want to go through life.
A company just did this to my son. Made him sign this very thing for 5 months pay. He had only been there 5 months.
At some point employers are simply going to stop offering severance pay entirely.
If they stop offering severance because they cannot use it to take away your rights by the use of a threat then they would not offer a severance to begin.
If this makes all companies stop offering a severance maybe we should be asking if it was ever right to begin with and how many were basically blackmailed to shut up and hide a company’s malfeasance?
Plenty of companies give severance because they feel it is the right thing to do. My issue is with those who use it to hide their unethical behaviors.
The language about this is usually a two-way street. So does this ruling allow companies to say bad things about former employees, or is it a one-way relaxing of the rules?
This just means that companies will not be offering as much in severance pay...
Not buying that idea.
Corporations have way too much power over individuals. Restrictions on speech after being dismissed for any reason is an example of too much power and must not be permitted.
Companies provide severance payments to avoid much more severe responses than mere disparaging words. They will continue to do so, or not, regardless of a few nasty comments from departed staff.
that is the reality ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.