Image commercially licensed from: Unsplash
Have you ever thought about why some workers never speak out against their employers?
The US National Labor Relations Board declared in February that most businesses could no longer prevent employees from disparaging their former employers in public. The NLRB, a federal agency, also ruled that companies could not prevent a former employee from discussing the amount and nature of their severance package.
Because it safeguards a worker’s ability to criticize their employers or discuss the details of their severance package in public, this law has been dubbed a victory for employee rights. However, the choice does contribute to a little more open company atmosphere.
Still, employment experts and former employees are still determining how much this will change the current culture of secrecy, which lets discrimination and other kinds of wrongdoing continue. First, there are many times when the rule needs to be fixed. Second, the fear of speaking out against an employer and being labeled unhirable because of it is so ingrained in today’s labor market culture that the law itself might not change the situation the way it was meant to.
A major change?
Employers in the US have been putting terms in severance agreements for decades to ensure former employees don’t say bad things about them or give out information like trade secrets or sensitive data. In recent years, though, some employers have changed these rules so that employees can’t talk about anything that could be hurtful or private, even if it’s about discrimination, harassment, or an unsafe work environment.
In 2020, the NLRB said it was okay for companies to make employees give up their right to speak out to get severance pay. However, since then, the new people in charge of the NLRB have shown a more worker-friendly attitude. This led to the latest decision, which overturned the 2020 decisions.
Some people were happy about the NLRB decision because they thought it was a win for workers’ rights, but others reacted more calmly. Legal experts and people who have been fired and felt they couldn’t say anything bad about their employers or severance terms are worried that it won’t make much of a difference. Tom Spiggle, an employment lawyer in Virginia, says, “It will definitely make a difference for some workers, but it probably won’t be a big deal.”
Some legal experts say that one big reason is that the ruling exempts a wide range of workers and groups. The NLRB does not have authority over federal, state, or local government agencies. This includes public schools, libraries, and parks. Airlines and trains don’t either.
Another problem is that the ban does not apply to some types of workers, like independent contractors, farm and household workers, and anyone who works for a parent or spouse. But supervisors, who most people think of as anyone who hires people or decides how much they get paid, are also not covered. This is one of the most notable exceptions.
Speak out and be known as a problem-maker
But even if the law applies to a worker, the NLRB’s move might make them less likely to speak out against their bosses.
Tech worker let go Kim says there were many things she didn’t like about the company. For example, she thought the culture was “sexist.” Even so, she says that even if the ruling had protected her when she was fired, she would never have thought of coming out to say bad things about her employer, especially right after she was fired.
Aviram has seen similar feelings in other workers. She also says that laid-off workers might complain about their employers to close friends and family when the economy is uncertain, but in public, they focus on what they can control, which is finding a new job, instead of what they can’t control, which is a bad experience at a former workplace.
Read Also: What protein powder does to your body
Spiggle says that since the ruling is so new, how companies will respond to the NLRB’s new standard is still being determined. “Non-disparagement clauses are now almost always part of a separation agreement. “They are very important to businesses,” he says. So, seeing what business leaders think about this will be interesting.
It’s too early to say how much it will or won’t encourage workers to speak out against their employers or change how people feel about others coming forward.
Kim is still hopeful, even though the ruling wouldn’t have changed what she did. “It could be a sign of things to come, like a gradual shift in power in favor of the worker. “Bosses might treat their workers better just because they know they have less protection,” she says. “At the end of the day, no one wants to risk being called out on social media for being a bad boss, even if it doesn’t happen often.”
References:
