Companies can no longer silence laid-off employees in exchange for severance(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Companies can no longer silence laid-off employees in exchange for severance
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/success/severance-agreements-rule-change-from-nlrb/index.html
13 comments
Previous: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34890024
Won’t this just lower everyone’s severance? Now there’s no reason to pay more than minimum requirements or maybe a bit more if you want to present a benevolent public image.
> Won’t this just lower everyone’s severance?
It depends on how often a gag clause was just throw in because it could be, and how often that was an integral part of the company's requirements.
It depends on how often a gag clause was just throw in because it could be, and how often that was an integral part of the company's requirements.
That's not clear to me. By the same line of thinking, companies would have to pay more because the absence of confidentiality clauses allow unions to negotiate more effectively.
A reason to pay more than minimum requirements is because a shitty severance won't help your benevolent public image (unless you forbid people from talking about it). I'm not sure which effect outweighs the other.
A reason to pay more than minimum requirements is because a shitty severance won't help your benevolent public image (unless you forbid people from talking about it). I'm not sure which effect outweighs the other.
That's not the main reason for paying more though. The main reason is because there's usually a clause in an increased severance package that says you won't sue the company for compensation.
It's not clear from the article if this new ruling precludes those types of clauses. If it does then it most definitely will reduce the size and type of severance offers.
I read the article as saying that the severance agreement can't prevent you from discussing work and severance related issues with co-workers, unions or the NLRB. If the restrictions are just those then it may not have that big an impact on severance sizes.
It's not clear from the article if this new ruling precludes those types of clauses. If it does then it most definitely will reduce the size and type of severance offers.
I read the article as saying that the severance agreement can't prevent you from discussing work and severance related issues with co-workers, unions or the NLRB. If the restrictions are just those then it may not have that big an impact on severance sizes.
What if it raises it because now that a former employee is unencumbered by non-disparagement clauses, employers have an incentive to offer decent/generous severance to ensure the former employee is not a now disgruntled former employee?
-
legal minimum pay is what everyone will get
If there weren't any bad things to talk about then people only got the minimum anyway.
This stops companies buying the silence of people who'd keep quiet for more cash, which stops bad companies who do bad things from hiding their bad things so easily and it stops people who'll keep quiet about bad things for personal profit from gaining.
That's a win win.
If there weren't any bad things to talk about then people only got the minimum anyway.
This stops companies buying the silence of people who'd keep quiet for more cash, which stops bad companies who do bad things from hiding their bad things so easily and it stops people who'll keep quiet about bad things for personal profit from gaining.
That's a win win.
Targeted non-disparagement and, for senior folks, gardening leave, are both still valuable and on the table.
There are other rights (forced arb) that you sign away when you sign a voluntary severance
[deleted]