Meta's mass layoff severance agreements illegal, says judge Separation agreements Meta gave to employees during mass 2022 layoffs are illegal, a US judge has decided, and the reasoning could have implications far beyond Zuckercorp. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge Andrew Gollin issued a decision [PDF] on Friday, finding Meta's separation agreement violated …
The Orange Jesus will abolish the NLRB on Day 1 as a Dictator. Money well spent in his eyes
The TDS is strong in this one. Why are you assuming Trump will win? The Democrats now have Harris, unburdened by a has been..
Plus Trump may not be a fan of the spender of Zuckerbucks. And as the board & counsel is appointed by the President, surely it would be more evil to stack the NLRB so that any appeal by FaceMelta fails. Or perhaps Trump will decide that FaceMelta has too much power over (anti)social media and call for it to be broken up. After all, it's a competitor to his own social media business.
The U.S. is FUBAR'd.
I suppose the rest of us should look up Medize although things aren't looking too clever behind our bamboo curtained Media.
Everything everywhere seems to be in rather a mess, somewhat I imagine a Boris Johnson☆ attempt at rôti sans pareil* would look like, if anyone were daft enough to let him near an actual kitchen.
☆ a talent that could arguably stuff up stuffing things up
* a Turducken on steroids as it were.
Because if it turns out they missed one, or another one arrives between writing the press release and publishing it, they'll get roasted for being wrong. I almost never make a definite statement for the same reason, because people, especially the media, often forget the implied "to the best of my knowledge and belief". Saying "approximately" instead saves several seconds and avoids the need to type a few letters.
"Because if it turns out they missed one, or another one arrives"
Of course. But the sensible way to deal with this is to round the number sensibly and say "about" or "above". Don't state it to a degree of precision you aren't confident you've achieved. "About 7,510" gives a sense of the scale of what they're talking about without looking silly on the one hand, or being caught out on the other.
Probably. However, the original phrasing suggests to me that what they really mean is something like "by our count it is 7511, but there might be others"; which the rounding/about wording doesn't really quite match, being more vague.
But I agree that "approximately 7511" is not the best shorthand wording, although atm I can't think of better...
"the little people that help him make the billions"
Surely, the little people who made the millions for him -- I doubt he did much personally towards those millions other than hiring said little people and paying for their skills and talents. Too many CEOs get credited with "creating" corporate success, whereas they were merely in post when that success was created by the rank and file.
Well, the majority of the share holders and board members who tell most CEOs what to do, though in nice vague not legally responsible words. But it's pretty clear to virtually any CEO of a company with public shares: the only thing the shareholders care about is mo' money, mo' money, mo' money! It is almost a law in the US that they ignore anything else.
With that goal in mind, egotistical psychopaths seem to be remarkably successful in the US.
I am confused here. The agreement says "we'll give you $X because you're out of here, but if you agree to keep shtum we'll give you £X+Y"
If this isn't allowed how about 2 agreements:
1. "we'll give you $X because you're out of here"
2. "agree to keep shtum and we'll give you $Y"
Two bits of paper rather than one but job done?
I imagine impartial judges would look through that. You're trying to do an end run around the rules. (You may even find this was two bits of paper. I can't be bothered to dig into it to see.) If the law says you can't constrain a departing employee like this, then you can't constrain a departing employee like this - no matter how you arrange it.
This explains it-
Gollin noted that Carlson didn't immediately file the case, instead waiting until an NLRB decision in February 2023 (McLaren Macomb) that barred employers from offering severance agreements that require employees to waive their rights under the NLRA.
So I guess it's how shtummy the termination agreement was. I guess it's a bit like in the UK saying you'll get a payoff, providing you agree never to take the employer to tribunal. So I guess it's a fairness test about whether the termination agreement was effectively an unfair contract and denied employees rights.
Alumoi,
You can sign any piece of paper they give you, but those papers can’t change the law. A clause in a contract can’t overturn the law, even in the US.
There are differences though. In the UK you can’t sign away certain rights if a contract is deemed to be unfair. That is where one side writes the contract and the other party is only able to take it or leave it. In that case basically all tricksy sub-clauses in the small print have bugger-all legal validity. There are some bits they can put in, so long as they put it in big letters on page 1, but even there contract law is quite strict.
Advice also matters. Rich people and companies are expected to lawyer-up. So you can get a sales director to sign a 1 year non-compete non-disclosure agreement in an employment contract that would be unenforceable on an ordinary worker.
Most EULAs are complete bollocks. Just because a lawyer wrote it, doesn’t make it true. Problem is that it would be expensive to beat one in a way that sets legal precedent, as big software companies have a lot of lawyers to fight you.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
