NLRB rules that employers can't require laid-off staff to waive labor law rights

Cool, so now can I talk about how my former employer offered me severance only if I signed something not to talk about it because I was about to file a long term disability case and they knew it?

Who was the head of the NLRB for both this case and the one it overturned? It smells of political decision making as the article points out it’s overturning a precedent from 2020 which itself was overturning previous precedent.

Could an employee receive severance and still be able to sue to determine if there was a WARN act violation or discrimination of federally protected classes?

So I can disparage my former employer that laid me off?

Good. Now I hope they ban forced arbitration agreements. For everybody.

That needs to be said? How are we better off with the law not applying to individuals?

The result will be that severance packages offer less compensation.

I am actually opposed to this.<p>I was paid off after a senior member of staff at a company I worked at did something he should not have (not sexual). I&#x27;d rather have had the pay off. No one forced me to sign anything. And I would have been worse off getting &quot;justice&quot; than a cheque...

I don&#x27;t get what happens if you refuse to sign one of these when you&#x27;re laid off. Aren&#x27;t employers still required to offer severance under laws like the WARN act? It&#x27;s not like they can fire you for <i>not</i> signing...

Sorry for editorializing title, was trying to get it to fit the title length limit

Organize and win

Just a note. The NLRB rules on Labor Law ie Union Rules. This is pretty narrow in that you can’t be asked to waive rights that the NLRB covers which are primarily around your rights to organize and the rules that govern those processes. Not employment rights in general.<p>For the large majority of HN who are not organized (or being organized) this wouldn’t impact them at all.