upvote
It’s funny as I see this argument from people who at the same time excuse Snowden for publicly exposing government surveillance overreach when he had similar tools (disclosure to relevant authorities) available to him.
reply
Legitimate whistleblowing has rules. I doubt publishing a book counts as whistleblowing.
reply
"disclosing them to relevant authorities" would not bring the message to those affected by such carelessness. I would think "Disclosing them to the public" brings more awareness in the public, and though might be illegal, serves better for public good. Legal is not always just or moral.
reply
This whole thread is about legality. Nondisclosure clauses are purely a legal construct, not a moral one.
reply
It’s kind of murky.

NLRB under Biden seemed to say that yeah you can disclose this to the media, and broad non-disparagements are unenforceable. But it’s also kind of a toss up depending on the NLRB, courts, administration, etc.

Trump’s NLRB has rescinded a bunch of that Biden-era guidance, so what is enforceable and what isn’t? Kind of hard to say at this point.

Arbitration agreed with Meta, but who knows what courts would say.

https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/nlrb-requires-change...

https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2226/2025-0...

reply
Well, the whole point is that courts won't weigh in, because of the arbitration agreement.

I took a negotiations course at university, and there was a section on arbitration vs the courts. There are plenty of good reasons to go with arbitration (employment contracts are not amongst them, though).

The one thing the professor highlighted was that if the arbiter was fundamentally unfair (e.g. civil rights violation), you're screwed. You can't then go to the court and make your case. There's no appeals process, etc.

I'm guessing there is no notion of "precedence" with arbitration, this being one of the reasons.

reply