Bill Targeting NDAs Used By Tech Companies Passes In Washington State (geekwire.com) 26
Landmark legislation that will drastically curtail tech companies' ability to stop employees from talking about mistreatment is headed to the governor's desk in Washington state. GeekWire reports: Last week, Washington legislators approved House Bill 1795 -- also called the Silenced No More Act -- in major victory for activists who have fought to limit non-disclosures and non-disparagement agreements. The legislation, introduced by Rep. Liz Berry (D-Seattle), makes it illegal for companies to ban employees from discussing "illegal acts of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour violations, and sexual assault."
"This bill is about empowering workers," said Berry in a statement last week. "It is about giving workers a voice. Despite the progress we've made in recent years, too many workers are still forced to sign NDAs and settlement agreements that silence them. This bill will allow all survivors of inappropriate or illegal workplace misconduct to share their experiences if they choose to do so." NDAs have long been common practice at many large tech companies, and often state that employees will have to repay severance money or face other financial ramifications if they violate the agreement.
Washington state will be the second state to ban these types of gag orders; California passed its own Silenced No More Act last year. There, the legislation passed despite vocal opposition from trade groups, which argued that employees could end up getting hurt if companies decide to limit severance payments, or to forgo them altogether.
"This bill is about empowering workers," said Berry in a statement last week. "It is about giving workers a voice. Despite the progress we've made in recent years, too many workers are still forced to sign NDAs and settlement agreements that silence them. This bill will allow all survivors of inappropriate or illegal workplace misconduct to share their experiences if they choose to do so." NDAs have long been common practice at many large tech companies, and often state that employees will have to repay severance money or face other financial ramifications if they violate the agreement.
Washington state will be the second state to ban these types of gag orders; California passed its own Silenced No More Act last year. There, the legislation passed despite vocal opposition from trade groups, which argued that employees could end up getting hurt if companies decide to limit severance payments, or to forgo them altogether.
union talk needs to be on that list as well! (Score:2)
union talk needs to be on that list as well!
Non-compete clauses as well? (Score:3)
I was curious if non-compete clauses were also still a thing here in WA. Apparently, in 2019, a bill was passed which limited salaries of non-complete agreements, restricted overly-broad NDAs with penalties, and a few other measures. I was actually unaware of this until I took a look just now, but it seems like a fairly sane bill.
So, good, looks like another NDA loophole has been closed. I'm generally not one for anti-corporate rants, but I think workers need protections like these as well, when these giant companies have too much power and try to block the only means discriminated workers have of getting their story out, which may be the only recourse an employee has left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always been that way in practice (I've never heard of one being enforced in my industry, for example), but employers still used them. Now if they use them in WA state, they have to do so with much more restraint, according to the new law. I think that's an improvement.
Re: (Score:1)
The legislator is a grandstanding idiot. No NDA pre-empts federal or state laws, and none of those illegal acts she states can be legally covered under an NDA ...already...
Re: Non-compete clauses as well? (Score:2)
I suspect that the aim of this law not to protect testimony about criminal or regulatory violations as it is to cover employees or ex-employees who try to publicisetheir claims. With the idea of rounding up more support for their case.
Re: Non-compete clauses as well? (Score:2)
Yes, enough with the, "The first rule of fight club is....".
Re: (Score:2)
Bad companies use them as a weapon to threatening sheeple. If a company asked you to sign one, walk. Don't answer any questions. Just walk.
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately, they aren't legal in California. Businesses routinely stick them in the employment contract anyway. The last time I signed an employment contract it contained the clause. I objected and they removed it.
Win for the Workers (Score:2)
Awesome news (Score:2)
NDA should all have exception for Government. (Score:2)
If I pay you not to talk to the police isn't that called bribery - and illegal?
I can see a valid reason to allow NDA's for the general population. But allowing an NDA to stop people from talking to the police, FBI, environmental agency, OSHA, etc?
Why should it be legal to stop witnesses from testifying against you? That should definitely be illegal. I can see stopping them from talking to your competition, and even to the press.
But it should be illegal for any contract to attempt to stop people from talk
Re: (Score:2)
If I pay you not to talk to the police isn't that called bribery - and illegal?
I'd say it depends on what happened. If I did something to you that is illegal why shouldn't I be able to agree restortution with you? Why shouldn't that have a "If you take this to the police / courts to seek restortution then this agreement is void?"
The real issue comes when someone has enough money to repeatidly break the law. Perhaps the law should include provisions to report any of these crimes along with settlement agreements so one off things doesn't have to waste the time of police / judges, BUT i
Sorry, this might actually be on-topic (Score:2)
Hope we can get something similar in Australia (Score:3)
I would really appreciate being able to talk about said places and situations without having to anonymise too much.
Re: (Score:2)
The existence of those clauses ... (Score:3)
Should be considered ample proof that the illegal activities are happening.
For example, a certain tech company in Silicon Valley had a clause in their employment contract that you could not sue for age discrimination. That they have that clause is proof enough that they are guilty of age discrimination.
What will the unintended consequences be? (Score:2)
Will this make companies less likely to settle? Sometimes, it's easier and cheaper to just settle then go through the long process of discovery and such. Not to mention interruptions to employees being interviewed and the gossip that comes from that. The result of this could very well be fewer people getting paid out and companies very rigorously defending themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, allow the settlements, but they must be registered in a similar way to political donations. Make the fact a person or company has had settlements and the general nature of the settlement publically searchable, but the exact details are restricted. If a company has too many then it triggers investinations and criminal proceedings.