Labor watchdog wants SpaceX's gag clauses to disintegrate like its exploding rockets The US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has challenged SpaceX's severance agreements, alleging the paperwork unlawfully limits what staff can say and do once they leave the rocket maker. The complaint, filed Wednesday evening by an NLRB regional director for Seattle, says SpaceX requires its former workers to: Not …
Interesting.
In French law, any illegal clause in a business contract is automatically deemed invalid by any tribunal. As a consequence, SpaceX France would have no leg to stand on in front of the Tribunal des Prud'Hommes, where employee/employer litigation takes place.
You don't see endless articles in French newspapers outlining what is illegal in employment contracts.
Why is it necessary for the US Labor watchdog to remind US companies of the law ? Isn't the law supposed to be known ?
Or are there business lawyers who still think that, just because someone signed a contract, the clause that says that the employee's firstborn's soul belongs to the company is valid ?
Even if it's found to have no force when brought up in front of a court, former employees would likely be wary of crossing this contract before that point. Especially if there's a threat of their being tied up in litigation for ages - they might get their legal expenses paid back in the best case, but that's a significant amount of lost personal time, extra stress, and loss of free cash that they'd face until its over. There's the risk that the best case isn't what they'd get too. The NLRB knocking the contract down is much more effective at removing its effects than relying on people to challenge it individually.
I disagree. First, the Tribunal des Prud'Hommes is basically free. I know, I've been there on occasion and I've never had to pay a dime.
Second, as soon as the employee brings up the offending clause, the judges (the three of them) waive it away on basis of illegality. The employer has no argument to bring.
Case closed. The whole affair takes 30 minutes max, and the employer is made to to back off and maybe pay reperations if called for.
But of course, I'm talking about what happens in France. I agree that, in the Land of the Free with Justice for All, there will be lawyers involved and those guys up the costs by, lately, $300K/hour.
So yeah, expensive.
I was talking about the US not France, yeah. Seeing the failed attempts to take the US health system in a sane direction (Obamacare as implemented is tinkering on the edges, no more) I can't imagine that uprooting the US legal system could ever succeed. There's less money in it than health but much, much more power.
No, America had been through that, you call it the “gilded age”, and a combination of unions, activists, and politicians put an end to it - union membership, laws protecting striking workers, banning child labour, workplace safety, these had to be fought for. They didn’t come pre-packaged with the US constitution.
The rich have been seething ever since, and have been wanting to bring that “gilded” time back. Both in the UK and US.
And this is why companies like the US automakers are busy shedding jobs in the US and moving production from traditional union areas to places like Mexico.
I believe Stellantis have just shed another chunk of jobs as part of their 'EV transition plan'.
"I believe Stellantis have just shed another chunk of jobs as part of their 'EV transition plan'."
If the minimum wage for putting a nut on a stud is $28/hr in addition to a whole sheaf of benefits, they have to move. There are plenty of union automotive jobs that are equivalent to digging ditches. Engineers are always looking for ways to put the expertise into the tooling or simplifying jobs so there's little training needed and less of a chance of making big mistakes. Unions tend to think of pay scales in terms of seniority rather than skill. If a worker has been putting nuts on studs for 25 years, the notion is they should be able to support a family of 8 and a fleet of large pickups and caravans (motorcycles, boats, watercraft, dune buggies). For much less, a worker in a country such as Mexico can make enough to support a large family but maybe not the motorized cavalcade.
If any job pays less than a decent living wage, no-one would do it. Of course "decent living wage" means different things to different people, which is why there is usually someone desperate enough to take on a shitty job with shitty pay that no-one else will do. But sometimes there are jobs that simply cannot get done in a certain location / country because the expectations of all the job seekers are higher than the economic value the job delivers, in which case the job will either not get done, or it will get outsourced to somewhere where it will deliver an economic benefit.
So you have a choice between earning a "barely scraping by, with help from friends" job or no job at all...
No - minimum wages need to be enforced; it's clear from round the world and all across history that the minimum wage needs a boost.
Hell most people who claim universal credit in the UK are in work, just not work that pays enough to live... i.e. the government is subsidising the profits of exploitative companies.
I wasn't disagreeing with the idea of a minimum wage, I was pointing out that in practice it can be at odds with economic reality. There *should* be a minimum wage in a country that allows everyone in that country to have a roof over their head, food on their table and clothes on their back. But the crude reality is that for some jobs, (minimum hourly wage X hours needed to be spent on the job) is higher than the resultant market value of doing that job. That is exactly why there are for example very few clothing manufacturers in developed countries.
The social / economic problem with that is that large multinationals can take advantage of large differences in cost of living (and therefore wage expectations) between nations, and get fat off the arbitrage on the difference. There's no real solution to that for as long as there is relatively free movement of goods with significantly less free movement of people. Of course in the long term, poorer countries will get richer faster until all or most countries have a similar standard of living. At that point there is no advantage to offshoring and most jobs can be done locally, but that will also mean that current middle-class luxuries will become relatively much more expensive since there's no more imported cheap labour or imported cheap goods based off foreign cheap labour.
Because there are many jobs that are not for "a living".
A high school student working after school is not providing a living.
A spouse supplementing their family income is not a living.
We make these entry level jobs so expensive that they eventually they will be replaced with automation and then the problem of "idle males" becomes even worse than it is now!
"Because there are many jobs that are not for "a living"."
Indeed - if you aren't working full time then you aren't going to get a full time salary - but the minimum wage isn't a minimal annual income, it's a minimal rate.
A student doing an evening/weekend job has limited hours to work, and so won't make that much money - but their time isn't less valuable because they have other financial support.
A spouse working isn't "supplementing" their family income, they are contributing part of their family income. Maybe you didn't realise, but the 1950s ended some time ago.
Stellantis N.V. is a multinational automotive manufacturing corporation formed from the merger in 2021 of the Italian–American conglomerate Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) and the French PSA Group.[13][14][15] The company is headquartered in Amsterdam.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellantis
There's surely ebb and flow of these things in the US, France, and other countries. The Reagan-Thatcher years were rife with anti-unionism, but Joe Biden is quite the opposite (thankfully). Emmanuel Macron is not liked by French unions (many very large street protests). Most recently, the French gov (eg. Bruno LeMaire) stated there was a need to cut budgets by €10B this year, and that this should come from social programs and acquired workers' benefits ... in a typical "Robin des Bois à l'envers" move.
There's no perfect country, On Lâche Rien!
"They didn’t come pre-packaged with the US constitution."
This is where an interest in history is useful. One has to look at what was considered normal at the time the US Constitution was written. Kids from lower income families often did enter the workforce as soon as their labor was worth anything. Long hours at work "build character" and we all know that idle hands are the devil's playground. We've come a long way since 1779 and that's why the US Constitution was written expecting there would be changes. One of the adaptations was for Congress to form agencies and departments to look after segments of society as opposed to Congress overseeing these things directly. This is why there is a NLRB. Their area of focus is on the workplace and worker law.
That's how things are supposed to work in the US as well -- I like to use the example of how you can sign a contract to have someone killed, but if your contract killer just takes off with your money, good luck suing them in court to get it back or to force them to complete the terms -- but the kind of unfortunate reality is that most people don't know these provisions are unenforceable because labor laws in the US are so weak and you have self-serving politicians who are always looking for excuses to water them down even more. Basically, someone would have to call the employer's bluff, risk being sued, and then challenge in court that the provisions are contrary to state and/or federal law and are thus unenforceable. The whole process could take years and cost more than the average person might make in a year. Sleazy lawyers working for companies like SpaceX are well aware of this and exploit it to the fullest extent they think they can get away with.
I like to use the example of how you can sign a contract to have someone killed, but if your contract killer just takes off with your money, good luck suing them in court to get it back or to force them to complete the terms
You are correct in that such a contract is not enforcable in a court of law.
You are ignoring that by signing such a contract, you are creating evidence of your having committed a serious crime.
You also are ignoring the practical aspects of such things. "Real" contract killers don't work for Joe Q. Sixpack. They work for high-resource criminal organisations which have long memories and a serious revenge ethic.
Yes, but it's just an example to illustrate a simple point: You can put whatever you want into a contract, it doesn't mean it will be upheld by a court just because all parties signed on the dotted line. Any time something in the contract is contrary to state or federal law (in the US) it's unenforceable automatically. Still, doesn't mean a company with infinitely more resources than you couldn't drag you into court, even knowing they'd eventually lose, betting on the fact that you won't have the money to fight the case and will voluntarily agree to the unlawful terms.
"because labor laws in the US are so weak and you have self-serving politicians who are always looking for excuses to water them down even more. "
The labor laws vary from state to state, but they aren't usually weak. The issue is people's aversion to putting themselves forward. Companies are also making employees sign contracts that demand arbitration and will point to that if anybody complains so more complaints get dropped at that response even if that might not be allowable. A company I worked at for a couple of years presented everybody with a new contract with all of the outrageous clauses (they hired a legal intern and lawyer) and insisted they had to have that to be able to offer profit sharing. Complete fertilizer and only a couple of people agreed to sign it (company went BK and never did earn any profits). If you want to talk to an attorney, you will really need a well paying job so you have enough money each month to pay them for an hour of their time.
FFS man, even China... CHINA has labor tribunals. The US has a couple of largely toothless and perpetually underfunded agencies like the EEOC and NLRB. In almost the entire rest of the industrialized world, if a company does you wrong, you can plead your case to a tribunal for free. In the US you have to pay for a lawyer out of your own pocket, and can be forced into binding arbitration where the arbitrator almost always rules in favor of whoever pays the fee, which is why companies always say they'll pay for arbitration, and even then you need a lawyer you have to pay for out of your own pocket to have a remote chance. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer for something like this with no guarantee you'll win. Also, in almost the entire rest of the industrialized world, you are probably part of a union, and part of your union dues will pay for the union to provide you with a lawyer for these situations.
The US' labor laws are like wet toilet paper compared to Europe. Even China is ahead of us in some respects. And unlike social security or medicare, slashing funding for the EEOC and NLRB isn't likely going to garner a lot of headlines in the mass media.
Sorry, you are incorrect.
In the US you do not pay a lawyer if you want to sue for this. You retain a lawyer on percentage. Which means the lawyer gets paid 30% of the judgment if they win. In most EEOC cases they do win because in most case the employer settles as it is less costly to settle than to fight, no matter the merits of the claim.
NLRB cases are almost always brought by the government.
That assumes you can find a lawyer who will take your case on contingency and subsequently win at trial, and/or the EEOC/NLRB/Other to take your case. Neither of which are in any way guaranteed. The EEOC, just for example, gets thousands of complaints a day, and has the resources to take up maybe a couple dozen of them. So, unless you've got like a smoking gun email or audio recording, don't expect them to do anything other than issue you a right to sue.
"In most EEOC cases they do win because in most case the employer settles as it is less costly to settle than to fight, no matter the merits of the claim."
For some values of "win". Settling always involves the accused "paying to make it go away" and never results in a real or proper win of the accused being legally punished and being stopped from further breaking of the law and demonstrating to other companies that the relevant practice is illegal.
I often feel that "settling out of court" is not just the easy route, but part of the US social norm, ie looking after ones self, first and foremost, being "independent" etc. all part of the "American Dream" of if you work harder you will succeed. That's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but there are consequences. And it's somewhat balanced by US charitable giving that seems to be quite a strong thing.
I look forward to the day a threat of actual serious consequences like jail time wakes Musk up to the fact that the rich cannot just claim "constitutional rights" that don't apply or sometimes even exist and break the law. This yahoo is making a habit out of thumbing his nose at the law, and I hope a stop is put to it soon: permanently!
"How many SpaceX launches will there be before the next Ariane launch?"
How many of those launches will be for their own Starlink service? SpaceX launches a bunch of sats since they are so cheap, but they also have to raise more money from private investors a couple of times each year to keep the doors open. ULA doesn't have to do that since they charge an appropriate amount of money for their services.
Because laws in the US are written in vague nonsense language to insulate legislatures from any responsibility when said law is misused! Then bureaucrats interpret said laws as they see fit and in line with their political ideology!
Labor laws in the US are there to protect Mob run unions and shitty employees!
If you are quitting, don't sign anything! If you are being let go, and they are handing you a big chunk of cash with a "sorry about that", Sign the damn paper and don't be a shit after you are gone. If they are not paying you a severance, F them and don't sign anything! (I feel the same about notice, if you are not going to give me notice of my impending termination, why should I be obligated to give you notice when I leave.)
This ain't rocket science! (pun intended)
Because IN THE US, getting sued isn't free. And even if you ARE in the right and eventually the courts find in your favour, that doesn't mean you then get reimbursed for the costs of your defence lawyer. Which means just getting sued, even if you are right, could potentially bankrupt you. You CAN try to counter sue to get your money back, but you'll be fighting company lawyers for years (again, on your own dime) before you MIGHT recoup some of your costs. Most normal people can't afford that. So even if technically speaking the clauses are unenforceable, US companies know that the threat of getting sued for breach of (illegal) contract is enough to keep people in line anyway.
"So even if technically speaking the clauses are unenforceable, US companies know that the threat of getting sued for breach of (illegal) contract is enough to keep people in line anyway."
So the I suppose the real question is which law enforcement department is responsible for enforcing those laws. Why should an individual need to pay for a lawyer and sue instead of reporting the breach of law to the right department and they then take it up? Just hand over a copy of the offending documentation that demonstrates, in writing, the illegal acts. In proper and well run, "perfect" systems, that's how it should, work. I know it doesn't and I know why. Cost.
"So the I suppose the real question is which law enforcement department is responsible for enforcing those laws."
That would be agencies such as the NLRB to investigate the claims and send those cases over to some Justice department mob. The police (FBI, etc) handle crimes, not civil matters.
"but you'll be fighting company lawyers for years (again, on your own dime) before you MIGHT recoup some of your costs."
In the Art of War it is said that perfection in battle lies in sapping the will of your opponent so that they give up without fighting. That's what plenty of companies do starting with the terms in their employee contracts.
As a professional photographer I've had to learn a lot about Copyright. Lawyers that defend their infringing clients go to classes to learn how to frighten people like me into just going away without filing a case in the courts. As much as I don't like attorneys as a class, I just hand over infringements to mine (need to find a new one) for them to deal with. Their approach is usually to get them to pay up without going to court either as it's more profitable to not spend time waiting around at courthouses.
Why is it necessary for the US Labor watchdog to remind US companies of the law ? Isn't the law supposed to be known ?
Of course it is known. The question is whether it applies to "me" ("me" being any large US-based megacorp who owns several Congresscritters and/or Regulatory agencies, or the rulers of such corp's; ref. Boeing, Meta, El Muskrat, t'pineapple, etc.).
"One rule for me, another for thee" seems to be written into the bylaws...
"Certain exceptions" indeed, Elon.
Broadly worded clauses that ban people from discussing working conditions, employer policies and practices, severance terms and wages, conditions of employment, and related matters are likely to fall foul of the NLRB.
NDAs about trade secrets are OK, for example, but that's not what we're talking about here.
C.
"With certain exceptions, non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses are still legal and not just in relation to SpaceX"
I think you'll find that even in the US, it's the exact opposite. Non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses or illegal and unenforceable, with certain exceptions.
Reuters documented at least 600 previously unreported workplace injuries at Musk's rocket company: crushed limbs, amputations, electrocutions, head and eye wounds and one death. SpaceX employees say they're paying the price for the billionaire's push to colonize space at breakneck speed.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-musk-safety/
Worse than that.
I can't seem to find the right search terms to find the supporting article, but basically, SpaceX has a bunch of nasty clauses in employee contracts that seem designed to cheat employees out of their stock options. Like SpaceX has the option to buy back any stock options that have vested within 6-months of an employee leaving the company, and the employee doesn't really have a say in the matter.
I'm sure there are a lot of engineers who think that working on rockets at a company like SpaceX is a dream job... then they look at the employment contract and you're essentially selling yourself into indentured servitude. All the perks can be taken away at a snap of Xitler's fingers. I'm normally a pretty "live and let live" sort of person, but I would very much like to see Xitler have to try living like the rest of us. Let him have an actual job where he has to show up and do actual work, not just be shitposting on Xitter all day while getting paid millions of dollars. Let him be on the receiving end of all those policies he loves to foist on others. Maybe even have some people to tell him to go back to his country, and harass him, because his accent gives him away as a non-native. Let him live paycheck to paycheck for a year or two. Let him have to choose between things like food, rent, and necessary medication because he doesn't earn enough to cover all three. Let him get fired from a few jobs because he's sexually harassing women by propositioning them to have his children -- not that he could afford to pay women to stick a turkey baster of his sperm inside them, let alone the child support. I think if more Fortune 500 CEOs were subjected to these kinds of conditions, it would have a rather profound impact on their thinking about the way employees are treated.
Found it. Or at least something covering the same topic.
https://news.yahoo.com/leaked-spacex-documents-show-company-191914484.html?guccounter=1
The money quote is thus
SpaceX requires employees to agree to some unusual terms related to their stock awards, which have a chilling effect on staff, according to sources and internal documents viewed by TechCrunch.That includes a provision that allows SpaceX the right to purchase back vested shares within a six-month period following an employee leaving the company for any reason. SpaceX also gives itself the right to ban past and present employees from participating in tender offers if they are deemed to have committed “an act of dishonesty against the company” or to have violated written company policies, among other reasons.
So, basically, not only can SpaceX basically forcibly buy your vested shares in the company for probably a lot less than they'd go for during an IPO, but they can take them away for various undefined reasons and even prevent you from selling your shares. Selling shares in a privately held company is always a bit trickier than a public one, but SpaceX seems to take it to the next level.
"So, basically, not only can SpaceX basically forcibly buy your vested shares in the company for probably a lot less than they'd go for during an IPO,"
Don't hold your breath for an IPO. That would mean Elon and SpaceX would come under the scrutiny of the SEC and shareholder lawsuits. There's no way Elon could put a dime towards anything Mars unless he could show a fully thought through plan for how that might make returns on the investment. As much as he tries to talk up putting a million people on Mars, there's vanishingly little work he's showing on so many of the details other than the rocket. He doesn't even show convincing CGI for an interior layout. What's out there is all fan-fiction.
I personally don't give a wet gerbil's fart if SpaceX ever goes public or not, but employees with stock in the company might. And I think anyone who is even paying a little attention knows the whole Mars thing is just a grift to fund SpaceX. Even if we could launch a rocket tomorrow and establish a guaranteed successful colony on Mars, there's no way Xitler would be on that rocket. For one, he'd probably never survive the stresses of the launch and stroke out before they got into orbit, but even if he managed to survive that, there's no way he'd be able to survive without his constant ego fluffing on Xitter for the 6 or so months it takes to get to Mars, not to mention that there likely won't be Internet service on Mars. We're not even getting into the psychological stresses of being confined to a tin can hurtling through the void for 6+ months, unable to get away from the other people onboard, which is just one more way he'd fail miserably in the attempt. One thing I suppose I can begrudgingly give Xitler, is that he knows, even if subconsciously, that he'd never make it to Mars... so he spends his time destroying this planet.
"We're not even getting into the psychological stresses of being confined to a tin can hurtling through the void for 6+ months, unable to get away from the other people onboard, which is just one more way he'd fail miserably in the attempt."
While I agree with most of what you posted, I'd just like to point out how big Starship is and that Musk would be entirely capable of fitting one out as a "private space yacht", just for him and his family and/or staff to make the journey :-) No need to put up with the cramped conditions of with the 99 other people on the "cattle class" ships.
I think if more Fortune 500 CEOs were subjected to these kinds of conditions, it would have a rather profound impact on their thinking about the way employees are treated.
Unfortunately, it probably would not. First reason: there's a high degree of sociopathy amongst high-level executives; they simply don't have empathy for others. Second reason: there's a mental thing which some (many? increasingly-many?) people have which is a sort of hyper-self-centeredness, in which they cannot connect things which happen to them as being consequences of things they've done. To them, "bad" things happening to them are random lightning bolts hurled by a capricious Zeus, or a result of the world/universe/everyone unfairly conspiring against them.
An example: An executive of a major company was telling a story on himself of his having been at a party and getting drunk. Following the party, he drove homeward, but got lost in suburbia. He then (thought he) realized where he was, and knew he could get to his house which was on the next street in an area of winding streets and cul-de-sacs. To get to his house on the next street, he simply drove through the side yard lawn of some random family. After reaching the next street, he did not see his house, but then (thought he) realized his house was on the yet-next-street-over, and so drove through the side yard of yet another family, taking out a fence, smashing a dog house (sans dog) and coming to a halt when the front end of his car dropped into the shallow end of a ground-level swimming pool. After exiting the car through the open driver's window, wading through the pool to the ladder and hauling himself out, the homeowner and his wife arrived to see what all the noise had come from. Upon seeing the situation, the wife verbally tore into him, yelling about how irresponsible he was, and how he could have killed their dog had it not been inside with the family, etc., etc. The drunken executive turned to the husband and said, "Your wife sure is a judgmental bitch. I'm surprised you two are still married to each other."
And that's when the homeowner punched him in the face.
When the executive woke up, the police had arrived, and they arrested him. Telling this story twelve years later, with all the wisdom and maturity he had gained in that time, he said to his audience, "They arrested me. Can you believe that?! THEY ... ARRESTED ... *ME*!!"
Call me an eternal optimist, but I think for every Xitler-type executive there are at least one or two "normal" people. There's a bit of a confirmation bias when these are the only stories we tend to hear about, because the people at the center of the story are raging assholes. There are, however, plenty of other executives who we never hear about because they tend to keep their behavior within acceptable deviations from the norm.
"Call me an eternal optimist, but I think for every Xitler-type executive there are at least one or two "normal" people. "
You are an optimist!
I'll give that you could be correct, but that "normal" people aren't the sort that wind up on the C-Level of many large firms. Those individuals are the A types that will happily steamroller over everything and anybody in their way to that corner office.
I'm sure there are a lot of engineers who think that working on rockets at a company like SpaceX is a dream job... then they look at the employment contract and you're essentially selling yourself into indentured servitude. All the perks can be taken away at a snap of Xitler's fingers.
I don't think you can call $130K++ engineer salaries "indentured servitude". Yes, workers may be on the hook for some loss if they fall out with the Big Boss, but that is still not indentured servitude. There are people in the US much closer to "indentured servitude", such as some agricultural workers living on the margins in the shadows, cheated on wages, abused by horrible overseers, without recourse to the law. Maybe we should reserve that expression for them, instead?
Also, I don't think think Space X would have been as successful as it is without the majority of employees actually enjoying and doing excellent work because of it.
The issues with the labor board are just part of the story, not the whole story.
> Also, I don't think think Space X would have been as successful as it is without the majority of employees actually enjoying and doing excellent work because of it.
They probably *do* enjoy their work.
Right up to the point something goes wrong and they have to leave. Then they get hit by these unfair clauses.
And because of those clauses, they get screwed over their vested shares - and threatened with more repercussions if they complain.
So to their ex-colleagues they just quietly disappear and everyone left continues in blissful ignorance, until it is their turn...
I saw an advert in one of the UK Farming press threads. I hope it was a joke.
"Part time job for someone thinking of dabbling in farming. You will need to have a second job to pay for your normal expenses as we can pay no more than the farmer is paid. You will not be expected to work longer than the farmer who averages 80 hours a week."
"Lord of free speech for all *"
It's ironic that he's claiming his "free speech" is being trampled when he post lies and half-truths on Xitter while at the same time tries to put a gag on all of his employees if he doesn't fire them for speaking out. There was also a non-disparagement clause in the Twitter purchase contract that Elon signed that he violated almost at once. Elon went on a rampage to tear down Twitter with claims that it was all bots, there was a shadow agenda, etc. Had he not done that, he might have been able to buy his way out of the contract, but the damage had been done, the contract violated. He has free speech all right, he just doesn't know when to shut up. It seems telling customers to F-off is having some long term effects.
The NLRB is a government agency that sanctions extortion of US businesses. It should be disbanded along with the repeal of the NLRA!.
If you publicly disparage the company you work for or its leadership, even if you think it is valid, you should be sacked! If you feel that strongly about it, leave, sign nothing, then do what you will.
Look, I've been through redundancy 3 times here in UK in last 15 years, each after our British firms were "acquired (read: FUBAR'd) by American companies".
Each time, my separation led to 2 payoffs, and each one with the secrecy agreement was quite explicit, though I doubt enforcable on;
Not disclose the terms of the severance agreement.
Not disparage company, its officers, directors, employees, shareholders, or agents.
Not to voluntarily assist any litigation against the company and if compelled to do so, to notify company
Hard to fathom if the Muskyboy fanz will take any notice!
"Each time, my separation led to 2 payoffs, and each one with the secrecy agreement was quite explicit, though I doubt enforcable on;"
The thing to find out is if you are still due a redundancy even if you don't sign that you will abide by those terms. I've had that come up where the company offered me money to sign an exit contract, but they still had to pay unused holiday pay which turned out to be more with no conditions. The tribunal found in my favor and the company didn't sweeten the deal by offering me extra money to sign their contract. Not that I would have.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
