Тег: Labor law

“Sign here and forget that we are assholes”: how NDAs kill the truth about employers

You have probably heard the following more than once: “The market will settle everything.” If an employer is a tyrant, pays peanuts, and forces you to work weekends for a “thank you,” then the invisible hand of the market should simply slap them. People will leave, new ones won’t come, and the company will either fix itself or go bankrupt.

It sounds beautiful. However, for the market to work, it needs information. If you are buying a car, you want to know if it has been in an accident. If you are selling your labor, you want to know if the buyer is a cold-hearted psychopath who will cheat you out of your bonus. And this is where the stationary bandit (the state) steps in with its club, helping corporations break the feedback mechanism.

Very often, employees are forced to sign NDAs. Non-disparagement clauses are particularly noteworthy. This is legal newspeak that translates as: “We will pay you below market rate, scream profanities at meetings, and force you to overwork, but if you write about it on social media or leave a review on Glassdoor/Habr Career, we will sue you into poverty, and our puppet state court will help us do it.”

Why does this break the market? In economics, there is a term “the market for lemons” from economist George Akerlof. If a buyer cannot distinguish a good car from junk, sellers of junk drive out honest sellers. The same happens with jobs. A bad company pays lawyers to draft draconian contracts. The employee is told: “Sign this stating you have no claims and agree not to speak ill of us, otherwise you won’t get a severance package or a recommendation.”

A person cornered by a mortgage and children signs and stays silent. Meanwhile, a new applicant doesn’t know that the company is a living hell. The market signal is distorted. A toxic business continues to exist because the stationary bandit provides it with the muscle to enforce an unconscionable contract. Instead of an honest reputation, which should be the primary currency in a libertarian society, we get a sterile space where all companies are “white and fluffy” until you get inside.

The funniest part is that sometimes state courts still cannot withstand this absurdity. Yes, the state is a machine of violence, but even this machine’s fuses sometimes blow from the sheer audacity of corporations. Here are a few examples where the right to tell the truth defeated a corporation’s right to silence:

1) The McLaren Macomb and NLRB case (USA, 2023). The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the States ruled that the very offer to an employee to sign a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement upon termination is illegal. The logic is simple: it violates employees’ rights to organize and discuss working conditions. Moreover, people cannot be forced to choose between a severance package and freedom of speech.

2) The Glassdoor case. Courts have repeatedly sided with review platforms when companies demanded the IP addresses of authors of negative reviews. They recognized that an employee’s opinion about a “toxic atmosphere” is simply an evaluative judgment protected by the First Amendment (in the USA), not defamation.

3) Russian practice (yes, it happens even here). Even in our latitudes, courts recognize clauses in employment contracts that prohibit employees from working for competitors or disclosing their salary as void. The right to free expression and the dissemination of information still works in some areas, no matter how much an HR director might wish otherwise.

What should a normal person do? Read what you sign (you can use AI models to look for “hidden pitfalls”). If you see a Non-disparagement clause without clear time limits and definitions, it’s a red flag. Remember the “Streisand Effect.” If a company sues a former employee over a review stating that it’s a bad place to work, that is the best advertisement that it is indeed a bad place to work. Furthermore, don’t forget that we live in the era of crypto-anarchism and Tor. Nothing currently prevents you from fulfilling your moral duty and telling everyone about a toxic employer anonymously, without consequences for yourself.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Laws exist, but protection does not: why Ubisoft is farting on the labor code

The recent loud scandal surrounding Ubisoft makes one wonder: why are all these massive codes and bureaucracy even necessary if people in the most progressive countries are still not protected from sadistic bosses? As we recently learned, bosses in Ubisoft’s French office abused employees for years: they made crude advances, drew obscenities on their desks, and sometimes literally released intestinal gas right in their faces. And this isn’t some trashy office in a basement on the outskirts of Voronezh—this is “enlightened France”!

The French state has long prided itself on laws and rights. But something went wrong. Ubisoft employees complained to human resources, only to be told to go away and not make a fuss. Only after years of public pressure and the MeToo movement did the matter reach court. “Well, it reached court, so what?” you might say. The result: the accused face suspended sentences and fines, which are pocket change for them. Did justice prevail? Yeah, keep dreaming.

If you think France is an exception, welcome to the USA! There, justice is sold at wholesale prices. Activision Blizzard, Fox News, Starbucks, and others—each high-profile case ended the same way: large corporations paid their way out with “fines” amounting to a couple of percent of annual profits and calmly moved on. For employees who dared to speak openly about the problems, life turned into hell. They were fired, harassed, and quietly silenced with money. The law seemingly exists, but it’s useless.

And how are things in Russia? Formally, the labor code guards your rights, but in reality, an employee before a boss is like a bunny before a wolf: if he doesn’t eat you, he’ll at least take a bite. And as for sexual harassment at work? One might recall Deputy Slutsky, regarding whom the “Ethics Commission” decided that grabbing women’s buttocks is somehow normal. The girls were even advised to go to the police, though going there is pointless because there is still no law against harassment in Russia. A classic vicious circle!

So what should you do if the state cannot protect you? Here, libertarians shrug and say: friends, maybe it’s time to stop believing in the mythical power of papers and bureaucrats? Maybe it’s time to take control of your own life? Because while hundreds of inspectors allegedly protect you on paper, in practice, only publicity, competition, and the right to leave freely save you.

Libertarian prescriptions are simple and sound. First of all, one must understand that reputation is a serious matter, and the Ubisoft scandal would have happened much sooner if the victims had not been afraid to speak openly. Also, workers must have the freedom to leave at any moment, because nothing sobers up a boss better than a mass exodus of talent to competitors—this will force him to use his head, and not other parts of his body. Independent employer ratings are also needed—things like Glassdoor clearly show where it is better not to go to work. If employees know the truth in advance, bad employers will quickly be left without people or money. And finally, attention should not only be paid to companies as a whole. Specific people who created the chaos and violence must be judged and punished, and their behavior should be widely publicized. Then others will be deterred!

No one wants to live in a society where a boss can afford to release gas in your face. But the state has already proven a hundred times: it is either blind, corrupt, or simply does not want to actually protect us. This means we need to trust bureaucrats less and trust ourselves and the people around us more. A free person is better protected than a subjugated one, and if people are given freedom and tools for self-defense, it will work more effectively than any cumbersome laws. And remember: changes do not come from the offices of officials—they start with each of us. If we do not respect our own dignity, no one else will. Therefore, it is worth befriending common sense rather than waiting for protection from a paper law!