I'd personally argue (and do argue, in fact!) that you should take the evidence of such agreements and facts to mean that you actually have nothing to lose by becoming... labor aware, let's say. Don't make my mistakes: reject ERGs, which are a way of tracking groups likely to unionize (hot tip: ERGs are for underrepresented groups, which are typically the groups most impacted by layoffs, so guess which groups are _probably_ a little more... labor aware?). Don't be quite so obviously pro-labor; they have enough lawyers and enough capital on hand to not give a single shit about whatever action you could potentially bring against them. But do form a union. Or a guild; there are too many companies owned by too few stockholders to _not_ also form agreements across company boundaries. And not one of those unions that's already waved the white flag to get their foot in the door, either. It's our best bet against the technological abuse we're seeing. RE: For anyone curious about this: if you formally disagree with the reason behind your layoff, congratulations! You're blacklisted. And if you follow up with compelling evidence of mistreatment, congratulations! You're DEFINITELY blacklisted and should probably follow that thread to whatever end it has for you. If you sign the settlement offer, which is probably what you're going to do because justice is about who has the most capital and they've cut off your funding, congrats, you're now _legally_ barred from working for any company they own ever again. It's standard language and they won't remove it. What's interesting, however, is much like a warlock pact, the only thing I'm _not_ barred from talking about is the specific agreement about what was considered a settlement. I can talk about literally everything else. I low-key suspect they do this so that particularly mouthy people (me) will discuss what happens when you try and face off against corporate and how even if you win, you lose. Why else let me freely talk about everything? RE: ...