The topic of discussion was the fact that we're trying to encourage employees to share salaries with each other. They wanted to try to argue that it was against the "corporate culture" and "Attitude" and that it creates an "uncomfortable work environment" where people who might not be willing to share that information are feeling pressured to, and compared it to sharing medical information.

    • Nagarjuna [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Sorta. You have to file a ULP with the NLRB, wait months, go to arbitration, etc. If you haven't been fired, then the consequence is a stern talking to and a poster in the break room saying "you can discuss wages"

      If you have been fired, you get your job back and possibly backpack minus unemployment.

    • sovietknuckles [they/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      that's why

      They wanted to try to argue that it was against the “corporate culture” and “Attitude” and that it creates an “uncomfortable work environment”

      instead of directly punishing them or telling them not to

          • MeatfuckerDidNothing [they/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            No, of course not, that's not what I'm saying, I'm just saying that it is an obvious threat that you'd have to be a US judge not to see

            • sovietknuckles [they/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              No, I was serious actually. But the NLRA doesn't keep you from getting fired if it's for an illegal reason like that, it just means you can sue them later if you can afford to

              Edit: Or if they made you sign an arbitration agreement like @Nagarjuna described, that's your option instead