wp-plugin-hostgator domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ol-scrapes domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Source: https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2022\/3\/4\/22962097\/apple-nda-harassment-civil-rights-shareholder-meeting-tim-cook<\/a> At Apple\u2019s annual shareholder meeting, investors in the company had more to consider than just how much money CEO Tim Cook and other executives stand to make \u2014 last year, the compensation for running a $2 trillion company added up to nearly $99 million for Cook<\/a>. Instead, certain shareholder proposals brought up issues with social and cultural impact, like addressing forced labor<\/a>, pay equity<\/a>, and employee NDAs<\/a>. On Friday, for the first time in years, two proposals actually passed (via CNET<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n Bloomberg<\/em><\/a> reports shareholders (unsurprisingly) opted to re-elect the same board of directors and approved the executive pay package outlined in the 2022 proxy statement. They also followed Apple\u2019s recommendation in voting on eight of the ten shareholder proposals presented, as noted in an SEC 8-K filing (pdf<\/a>).<\/p>\n One of the two measures passed was proposal number 10, which focused on non-disclosure agreements, with support from Nia Impact Capital<\/a>, the Transparency in Employment Agreements (TEA) coalition, and Silenced No More<\/a> co-sponsor Ifeoma Ozoma. It pushed Apple to prepare a report on potential risks from its use of concealment clauses (non-disclosure agreements) in the context of harassment, discrimination, and other unlawful acts. <\/p>\n Shareholders of Apple Inc. (\u201cApple\u201d) ask that the Board of Directors prepare a public report assessing the potential risks to the company associated with its use of concealment clauses in the context of harassment, discrimination and other unlawful acts. The report should be prepared at reasonable cost and omit proprietary and personal information<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In Oct, I was offered a separation agreement with a suppressive NDA and a pre-written statement about why I was leaving the company.<\/p>\n I’ve helped make such contracts illegal in Washington state and helped shareholders demand transparency and accountability.<\/p>\n How’s your heads now?<\/p>\n \u2014 Cher Scarlett #StandWithUkraine (@cherthedev) March 4, 2022<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n In response, Apple said it has added language to all separation agreements for US employees, explicitly noting that non-disclosure clauses do not prevent them from discussing \u201charassment or discrimination.\u201d However, not all Apple\u2019s employees are in the US or California, where the Silenced No More Act is now the law. The shareholders want the company to add that language to its employment agreement where they argue it provides more legal protection than simply sitting in the Business Conduct Policy.<\/p>\n Preliminary voting announced during the call showed shareholders slightly favored approving the measure, with 49.3 percent of votes in support vs. 49.24 percent against it, but as Marketwatch<\/em><\/a> notes, the number of abstentions prevented it from meeting the threshold of fifty percent or more in favor, at first. However, as reported by Apple\u2019s 8-K filing with the SEC, votes that came in on Friday pushed the in-favor crowd above fifty percent and got it approved.<\/p>\n Nia Impact Capital founder and CEO Dr. Kristin Hull said in a statement about the victory that \u201cNDAs make sense when we need to protect intellectual property or competitively sensitive information. They do not, however, make sense for cases of harassment or discrimination as they mask issues from other employees and investors.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n
<\/br><\/code><\/p>\n\n
\n