Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder

6/12/2016

This article from The New York Times discusses a common practice among American companies to impose restrictions on employees who have been laid off, preventing them from speaking negatively about their former employers. It highlights the case of Jason Katz, who was laid off from his job at a technology consulting firm and faced a non-disparagement clause that prohibited him from speaking negatively about the company. The article examines the legality and ethics of such clauses, exploring the broader implications for employees' rights and freedom of speech. It also raises concerns about the potential for abuse and the silencing effect it has on laid-off workers. The article emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in the workplace, advocating for increased protection for employees facing such restrictions.

unemployment ꞏ layoffs ꞏ job loss ꞏ economic downturn ꞏ american workforce ꞏ job security ꞏ workplace discrimination ꞏ job market ꞏ labor rights ꞏ corporate culture ꞏ employee rights ꞏ whistleblowing ꞏ workplace ethics ꞏ workplace environment ꞏ workplace communication ꞏ employee silence ꞏ workplace regulations ꞏ labor laws ꞏ workplace confidentiality ꞏ workplace transparency ꞏ employee voice ꞏ job satisfaction ꞏ career satisfaction ꞏ workplace injustice ꞏ free speech ꞏ workplace policies ꞏ employee treatment ꞏ workplace dynamics ꞏ workplace power dynamics ꞏ workplace culture ꞏ workplace politics ꞏ job insecurity ꞏ workplace stress ꞏ workplace bullying ꞏ workplace retaliation ꞏ workplace fairness ꞏ workplace accountability ꞏ workplace challenges ꞏ labor exploitation ꞏ workplace exploitation ꞏ corporate misconduct ꞏ worker silence ꞏ worker rights ꞏ worker protection