[HN Gopher] Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass emplo...
___________________________________________________________________
Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs
with proper
Author : thesecretceo
Score : 213 points
Date : 2022-11-04 14:49 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| crusty wrote:
| I wish I had confidence that there were Fediverse players ready
| to capitalize on this poo-show.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Everyone is employed until February 2nd. They receive full pay +
| benefits but don't have to work. This was in the termination
| email that fired employees received.
| cma wrote:
| The in-office requirement seems like clearly constructive
| dismissal given this:
|
| "2-day a week office requirement = 20% voluntary departures"
| "Day-0...sharpen your blades boys!"
|
| https://fortune.com/2022/10/06/elon-musk-jason-calacanis-ret...
|
| An office requirement because you think it helps the culture is
| one thing; an office requirement simply because you know the
| attrition it will cause so you "sharpen your blades"/salivate
| over the prospect is very different. Twitter encouraged employees
| to move out of state far away from offices, etc.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I don't think that's how constructive dismissal works (I am a
| former lawyer, but not an employment law specialist). I believe
| it is based on objective factors, not subjective intent or
| awareness of the likely outcome.
|
| If an employer says "you have to come back into the office 2x
| weekly" that is different from "you have to commute to our new
| office, located 60 miles away". The latter would be
| constructive dismissal because it is new, unexpected, and a
| material challenge for many employees. Ditto if they removed
| half the bathrooms, didn't provide enough office space for the
| workers, cut the parking lot in half, etc.
|
| But asking employees to resume doing something that they were
| willing to do when they first joined the company (assuming they
| joined pre-pandemic) would be difficult to characterize as
| constructive dismissal.
| cma wrote:
| > But asking employees to resume doing something that they
| were willing to do when they first joined the company
| (assuming they joined pre-pandemic) would be difficult to
| characterize as constructive dismissal.
|
| They encouraged people to move far away from the office,
| where ever they wanted, and then are doing this explicitly
| for the attrition side-effect, not because they need the
| people in the office.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Ah, I wasn't aware of that. So they said that people could
| be remote forever? Was this a company-wide policy, or just
| certain teams?
| spoils19 wrote:
| Company-wide. Here's a reference that took less than
| thirty seconds to find:
| https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1499422876134371329
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| the leaked email to a Twitter employee (if true) says that they
| are not actually being terminated, but rather suspended with pay.
| So it seems that Musk is in fact staying within legal bounds
| (which means the lawsuit won't go anywhere).
|
| > Today is your last working day at the company, however, you
| will remain employed by Twitter and will receive compensation and
| benefits through your separation date of February 2, 2023.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Yes, it's clear that the lawyers were involved and they're
| doing this within the rules.
|
| Elon is doing a lot of ill-advised things with his Twitter
| transition, but this armchair lawyering doesn't even take the
| basic facts into account.
| anon291 wrote:
| I mean realistically this just makes it worse for them should
| they try to seek external employment.
| prepend wrote:
| How much severance did they pay to employees? The WARN act
| maximum penalty is 60 days salary and benefits [0]. So if you're
| giving out severance packages of more than two months you can
| ignore the WARN act as you're paying the same or more than the
| penalty. And I assume that any deference agreement would involve
| not suing due to WARN act violations.
|
| [0] https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/eta/warn/faqs.asp
| erehweb wrote:
| Lots of people saying "Why is this lawsuit needed? Musk / Twitter
| HR would obviously comply with the law". Bear in mind that Musk
| has a history of not complying with legal obligations unless
| forced to (e.g. honoring the agreement to purchase Twitter).
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| illuminerdy wrote:
| > "Musk has a history of not complying with legal obligations
| unless forced to..."
|
| In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government,
| business, politician, friend, family member and neighbor I've
| ever known.
|
| In other words, that's how the world generally works.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| > In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government,
| business, politician, friend, family member and neighbor I've
| ever known.
|
| If your friends, family, and colleagues are routinely getting
| into legal trouble, you need some better friends, family, and
| colleagues.
|
| Of course, maybe you're part of The Family(tm), in which
| case... say no more.
| _jal wrote:
| > In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government,
| business, politician...
|
| If you mean that in the sense that everyone, no matter how
| powerful, needs to be subject to oversight, I agree with you.
|
| If instead you mean that in the schoolyard, "But Johnny was
| cussing too!" sense, well, if that's supposed to be a
| defense, it isn't. All I can suggest is be a smarter
| criminal.
| [deleted]
| afavour wrote:
| Your friends, family members and neighbors typically aren't
| going to have the power to fuck over thousands of former
| employees though. Great power comes great responsibility and
| all that.
| sebastos wrote:
| Governments, businesses and politicians do though..
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| _" Everybody else commits these crimes, or would if they
| could"_ is a common coping belief expressed by criminals. But
| it isn't true.
| mdaEyebot wrote:
| It's projection.
|
| I wish I had learned earlier that when somebody makes an
| accusatory statement, it is wise to consider that they may
| be inadvertently projecting their self and their intentions
| onto the people around them.
|
| It is very human to believe that most people think and feel
| in more or less the same way. So when we hear generalized
| statements about what people are like, or how they would
| likely react to a course of action, the sentiment will
| often be biased by how the speaker thinks, or would react.
| watwut wrote:
| I have to say, I have much better family and friends.
| dragontamer wrote:
| We only have to look at the Stripe layoffs (also happening
| this past week) to see that you're wrong.
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| And they get sued/fined/jailed for doing it if caught. Like
| he is currently being.
| marcinzm wrote:
| >In other words, that's how the world generally works.
|
| And suing people for it is also how the world works.
| barneygale wrote:
| Such cynical views of mankind should not be tolerated in the
| tech industry.
| WoahNoun wrote:
| Musk was openly antagonistic to an agreement he signed that
| waved all due diligence. In my business experience, most
| entities that sign a contract try to honor that contract.
| Musk does not. He tries to use his money and power to find
| every loophole in every business deal. It's shady, it's
| deceptive, and it's not conducive to long-term success.
| emkoemko wrote:
| remember how he defrauded the US government to get
| subsidies for Tesla? i don't even understand after finding
| this out how he does not get in trouble?
| mywittyname wrote:
| He definitely has a vibe of seeming to think he's above the
| law, IMHO.
|
| TBF, he is in most cases, just not that particular one.
| kenjackson wrote:
| Sounds like a lovely family.
| _chap wrote:
| The Boring Company didn't install a legal septic system for the
| families living at their HQ in Texas. And it goes downhill from
| there: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-15/elon-
| musk...
| trap_goes_hot wrote:
| Knowing the possible shitstorm it would cause, Twitter upper
| management sold the company anyway. Not that they care, they got
| fabulously wealthy off the deal.
| WoahNoun wrote:
| Not selling the at the price he offered would have been
| massively violating their fiduciary duty. Twitter stock would
| probably be worth like $20-30 given the current market versus
| the $54 offered.
| shrikant wrote:
| Shareholders were being offered a very nice premium on the
| stock price, so Twitter upper management would have been awash
| in shareholder lawsuits if they'd rejected the deal.
|
| Essentially, the Twitter board was snookered once Musk made a
| serious offer.
| blitzar wrote:
| _Essentially, the Twitter board was snookered once Musk made
| a serious offer_ and the market tanked making the premium
| >100%.
| trap_goes_hot wrote:
| I'm curious if this (lawsuits) has happened before.
| vasco wrote:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=shareholder+lawsuit+buyout+
| r...
| r00fus wrote:
| You do realize that if they didn't accept the offer, C-suite
| would be pursued by shareholder lawsuit holding them liable for
| lost valuation?
| NoblePublius wrote:
| There is no WARN act violation if the employee receives 60 days
| of severance and some consideration for vesting. Is there any
| evidence that didn't happen?
| voxl wrote:
| Is the lawsuit itself not evidence? Do you think employees are
| sitting there thinking "let's waste money and time on a lawsuit
| that will have no impact." There must have been some good faith
| believe that Musk had no intention of providing severance. Is
| that really so hard to believe from the outside?
| kcplate wrote:
| The employees who lawyered up before seeing any official
| termination documentation are probably on the hook for any
| legal fees incurred so far. Now that it appears that an
| appropriate work suspension and notice of termination date
| (essentially severance) was granted, its likely that there
| wont be many offers from lawyers to act on contingency fees.
| cronix wrote:
| Until, and if, it's heard by a court, a lawsuit is just a one
| sided opinion.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| No, the lawsuit is not evidence. In the US, anyone can sue
| anyone for anything. That doesn't prove there is merit at
| all.
| trap_goes_hot wrote:
| There is really no point arguing over beliefs, it's easier to
| settle things with facts/data. "humans are logical and act
| rationally" has never been a good apriori.
| readingnews wrote:
| Honestly, what? Every job I have had in
| IT/programming/universities/heavy industry have been "at will".
| We can fire you at any time for any reason.
|
| Is silicon valley not like this? What is this "advanced notice"??
| No, really, I am not taking sides, but is this how it works at
| some places? I have been working for several decades, I have
| _never_ heard of this.
| falcolas wrote:
| California is at-will. And it still requires 60 days notice for
| a mass-layoff, thorough a separate act, because it's a special
| case that's covered by a separate law.
|
| > "an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or
| termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before
| the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of
| the order"
|
| https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Cal-WARNAct.html
| notyourwork wrote:
| Without sounding dumb, this is saying that a company has to
| tell you 60 days ahead of time that in 60 days they will fire
| you?
|
| edit: Thank you for the clarification, appreciate the added
| insights.
| [deleted]
| nanidin wrote:
| Not only tell the person being laid off, but also inform a
| government office of the planned mass layoff so they can
| prepare unemployment resources, job transition/retraining
| programs, and things like that.
|
| Only applies in the case of mass layoffs.
| pwinnski wrote:
| Instead of phrasing it that way, think of it has companies
| being required to give you 60 days notice, just like they
| want you to give them two weeks notice. Every time I've
| ever been at a company doing layoffs, they paid salaries
| (and benefits) for _at least_ 60 days after the
| announcement, precisely because of laws like this.
| themadturk wrote:
| You also have to remember that being "laid off" is
| different than "being fired," at least under the law. I'm
| not sure where the line is drawn for "mass layoff," but
| these people aren't being fired for cause, or being let go
| individually at the whim of the employer (which is kind of
| what "at will" means for the employer).
| shagie wrote:
| Laid off often means that the position is being
| eliminated.
|
| I will draw attention to https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
| pkg/CFR-2012-title20-vol3/pd... which defines a mass
| layoff:
|
| > (c) _Mass layoff_. (1) The term "mass layoff" means a
| reduction in force which first, is not the result of a
| plant closing, and second, results in an employment loss
| at the single site of employment during _any 30-day
| period_ for: (i) At least 33 percent of the active
| employees excluding part-time employees, and (ii) At
| least 50 employees, excluding part-time employees.
|
| There is no difference of "for cause" or "not for cause"
| in the wording of the WARN act. There may be a difference
| in the contract (not removing a comic may be construed as
| "for cause") but if that employee was let go in the the
| frame of a reduction in force, they are likely covered by
| the WARN act too... of course, ask a lawyer.
|
| In particular, employers with a bit more
| pragmatic/cautious legal department will avoid firing
| people for cause in the 30 day window where a layoff
| happens to avoid the possibility that the fired employee
| falls into the same category as those who are covered by
| the WARN act.
| falcolas wrote:
| Pretty much, yes. It's an employee friendly policy, which
| is certainly not the norm. But given how long tech
| interviews can take, it's a good policy for tech employees.
|
| Note, I don't benefit from this since I'm not in CA, but I
| still think it's a good idea.
| chasd00 wrote:
| not fire but lay off. There's a difference, you can still
| be fired at any time but laying people off is different.
| The company is terminating their employment through no
| fault of the employee. That's a contract violation
| basically and so the terms are different.
| Macha wrote:
| Yes. They don't have to let you into the building, let you
| access their systems, etc., but they need to fulfil their
| contractual obligations in terms of pay and benefits for 60
| days.
|
| (EU laws apply more broadly, but the California one is only
| in the event of mass layoffs)
| jjmorrison wrote:
| Notice can be given in the form of severance.
| rco8786 wrote:
| Turns out employment laws are a thing and employees have some
| rights. Yes.
| nanidin wrote:
| The intent of the law is to allow time to prepare for macro
| level effects in case of a mass layoff. This gives the
| government time to spin up unemployment resources and job
| transition programs, in theory.
| Macha wrote:
| California has 60 days.
|
| Most European countries have more
| coredog64 wrote:
| Federal WARN Act requires 60 days. States like CA and NY have
| additional constraints, but it's typically more strict
| definitions of what constitutes a mass layoff (total count,
| number of employees at a single site) or who is covered.
| Haven't checked in a while, but ISTR NY, for example, has a
| lower employer size threshold than Federal law.
| quux wrote:
| New York as well
| themadturk wrote:
| Washington, too.
|
| https://esd.wa.gov/about-employees/WARN
| trap_goes_hot wrote:
| I wasn't aware of the 60 days in CA. Link? Thanks!
| WoahNoun wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retrain
| i...
| mikebonnell wrote:
| CA WARN act -- https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layo
| ff_Services_WARN
| sn41 wrote:
| In most European countries, there are notice periods. Germany
| has pretty stringent laws regarding this.
| chris11 wrote:
| Federal and California WARN acts require advance notification
| for mass layoffs. It's still "at will", but more regulations
| come into play if a lot of people lose their jobs.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| When companies plan to make a portion of a company redundant
| they typically need to annouce their intentions in advance,
| depending on the country. As is the case of this lawsuit.
|
| This is different to an employee being let go. This isn't a
| bunch of people being fired, this is retrenchment due to
| reorganization.
| deathanatos wrote:
| The complaint:
| https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23264502-cornet-et-a...
| mathverse wrote:
| Musk reminds me everyday of a russian/Eastern European oligarch.
| He is a thug.
| cronix wrote:
| > Additional plaintiffs, Justine De Caires, Jessica Pan, and Grae
| Kindel said they were terminated on November 3 by being locked
| out of their accounts.
|
| > Under Twitter's takeover deal terms, Musk had agreed to keep
| employee compensation and benefits the same. That means the laid-
| off employees should receive 60 days of salary and the cash value
| of the stock they were to receive within three months of their
| last date at the company, per law.
|
| Have they actually been "terminated?" When does "employment"
| actually, legally end? This might be closer to "suspended with
| pay," unless they're no longer being paid which would be hard to
| know as this literally happened hours ago last night. It could be
| he's just locking them out, continuing to pay them for 60 days,
| and then will announce layoffs. I think this lawsuit could be a
| bit premature if you set emotions aside.
| [deleted]
| pbreit wrote:
| Does anyone know what WARN actually requires? If they are
| copensated for 60 days, does that suffice?
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| Yes.
|
| > _An employer who violates WARN provisions is liable to each
| employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the
| period of the violation, up to 60 days._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini.
| ..
|
| He learned his lesson from a similar large scale layoff at
| Tesla. The lawyers in this case were the same lawyers in the
| previous case.
| quantified wrote:
| From [https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/read-blunt-twitter-
| email-...], it says that the actual termination date is Feb 2
| and they keep all compnand benefits until then. They just can't
| access company systems or violate the code of conduct. Seems
| like they're not actually laid off yet?
| maeln wrote:
| It is an interesting case. In France, the case was already
| judged and having your means of work (example: access to your
| professional email) cut off before the end of your contract
| (which include the required advance notice) is considered
| unlawful firing. The same goes if you are put in the "placard
| dore", meaning you are not given any work to do.
|
| Of course, the laws in France favor the worker a lot more than
| the U.S so it will be interesting what the result of the
| lawsuit will be.
| czbond wrote:
| In the U.S. for security purposes - you definitely cut off
| email access before actual termination. Employee actions are
| unpredictable, and poses a legal & liability risk to the
| company.
|
| Not a lawyer, but employees are only required email access
| for all if company policy say they must. Usually the policies
| say access can be removed at any time for any purpose the
| company management desires, because they are, after all, the
| managements systems to operate and provide.
| insanitybit wrote:
| > In the U.S. for security purposes - you definitely cut
| off email access before actual termination.
|
| This is done on the scale of hours, not months.
| czbond wrote:
| It's done on the scale of whatever time frame the
| management think the risk exists. In this case, if
| management thinks that risk exists for months - still
| acceptable.
|
| While unusual, if management needs to end the employment
| of staff but is precluded in doing so by law.... the only
| thing Twitter must do is provide normal compensation &
| benefits, nothing else. Under employment contracts, the
| employee must do whatever the employer deems acceptable
| (within legal limits, or leave under their own will.)
| insanitybit wrote:
| Are you an employment lawyer? You're making a lot of
| assertions about what's acceptable.
| wongarsu wrote:
| But those laws are about employers trying to force people to
| quit so they don't have to fire them. This case feels more
| equivalent to firing someone and putting them on paid leave
| during the mandatory notice period. Which seems like a common
| practice in some industries to prevent revenge acts from
| those who are let go.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| I mean in France, "at will" employment is illegal at first
| place.
| spoils19 wrote:
| Horrible for the free market, imo.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Probably not, since it encourages companies to actually
| invest in people that they can't just fire at will.
| Society comes out on top, and business is kept
| accountable for how they treat human beings. The free
| market with at will employment is a race to the bottom.
| France's model is more of a steady march to the top.
| filoleg wrote:
| > France's model is more of a steady march to the top
|
| Eagerly awaiting for France to have their own equivalents
| (in terms of success and worldwide influence) of
| Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc. As well
| as for their devs to be paid even remotely close to what
| they can get paid in the US.
|
| From what I am seeing, even "the year of Linux on
| desktop" is more likely to happen than that. Which
| doesn't inspire much confidence.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > As well as for their devs to be paid even remotely
| close to what they can get paid in the US.
|
| Perhaps the French would see that as a failure, not a
| success.
| baidifnaoxi wrote:
| This is exactly it. Terminated technically means, no longer
| receiving compensation or benefits.
|
| If Musk is basically saying "stop working" and we will pay you
| for the next 60 days (and even beyond), then this is completely
| legal as long as they are not restricted from seeking other
| employment during this "notice period"
|
| Edit: IANAL
| rajeshp1986 wrote:
| From what I hear from my personal connections at Twitter.
| They will be given 60 days pay so he is circumventing that
| California law.
| jfk13 wrote:
| According to the email reported by the BBC[1] they'll be
| paid until Feb 2nd, so that's more like 90 days. Other
| severance details not yet known, but as I understand it
| what's happening today is that they're being given notice,
| but their formal "employment" doesn't end until the notice
| period is over.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-63511430
| baidifnaoxi wrote:
| Not really. There are enough Privacy and Security best
| practices that would tell you that disgruntled employees
| are the most dangerous threat to a digital infra.
|
| He's actually complying with the spirit of the law while
| also doing what I'd prefer he did given the amount of user
| data that Twitter holds.
|
| No employee with a 60-day payoff is going to win in court
| when the hourly rate of these people has approached
| infinity
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| It is a federal statute. Basically, one of the remedies
| that courts can impose is that 60 days pay in lieu of
| notice.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retrain
| i...
| petesergeant wrote:
| > so he is circumventing that California law
|
| Not a Musk fan, but "circumventing" feels a bit weird when
| he's basically acting in the spirit of it?
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| Yeah, it sounds like he's complying, which seems like the
| obvious thing to do. I get that emotions are
| understandably high, and people think he's some kind of
| super villain/buffoon simultaneously, but how would it
| make any sense for him to make that kind of obvious
| blunder?
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| The guy is kind of known for making obvious blunders out
| of the blue or at least acting like he is above things.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| I feel like he'd get a lot of pushback all the way up and
| down the chain of command on this particular blunder,
| though. It'd be like trying to throw your car into
| reverse on the highway.. just because you can try to
| issue the command doesn't mean it'll get carried out
| jedberg wrote:
| It depends what you define at benefits. Is access to the cafe
| a benefit? Is access to the internal corporate directory a
| benefit?
| Closi wrote:
| No, not for the purposes of layoffs.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| It's almost as if Elon is being sued to ensure that he
| follows through with his obligations, since he's so
| consistently doesn't. Strange. It's like there is a purpose
| to the lawsuit.
| googlryas wrote:
| Consider: I'm going to sue you to make sure you don't steal
| my car. Makes sense right? You shouldn't be stealing cars
| so my lawsuit will be reasonable. I just want to make sure
| you follow through with what you should do
| hcurtiss wrote:
| That's a textbook sanctionable offense. Lawyers don't get
| to bring prophylactic frivolous claims.
| r-w wrote:
| What's stopping them?
| yakak wrote:
| If a reasonable person can't figure out what has happened
| in a job contract they can treat the other side as at
| fault and any competent court sides with them.
|
| Was this incorrect notification process or a lock out?
| Both are at odds with the job responsibilities and
| benefits.
| [deleted]
| illuminerdy wrote:
| Preemptive lawsuit's. To further tie up an already
| overburdened legal system.
|
| I like how you think, my man.
| vkou wrote:
| There's nothing overburdened about the civil court
| system, because the participants in it are largely
| responsible for paying for it.
|
| The criminal court system (and public defenders in
| particular) are another story.
| rco8786 wrote:
| You can't sue someone in advance of wrongdoing
| jacksnipe wrote:
| They were supposed to get paid on Tuesday.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Haha what. Go back to law school.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| Go back to Reddit. You'll feel like at home there with
| such comments
| sulam wrote:
| So you're saying that a law firm has decided to risk it
| by filing this lawsuit on behalf of a few no-name Twitter
| employees?
|
| You can't ascribe 5-d chess skills to Musk on this one,
| he's lost the benefit of the doubt.
| rco8786 wrote:
| No I am saying the lawyers are suing for something that
| has already occurred. Specifically not giving the proper
| advance notice as required by law.
| pb7 wrote:
| This _is_ proper advance notice as long as he pays for
| 60+ days of employment. There is no law that requires
| employers to let you do whatever you want with access to
| company resources for 60 days.
| supercanuck wrote:
| Obviously you can.
| pb7 wrote:
| That's not how lawsuits work. You don't sue someone for
| something they _might_ do with zero indication that they
| will. When you buy a company headquartered in California
| and elect to layoff half of it, you probably know your
| legal obligations.
| selectodude wrote:
| In a drug-induced haze, Elon offered to buy Twitter at a
| price that was a weed meme and after sobering up, went on
| a full court press in the media to get out of his deal.
| It required a absolute shitpounding in the Delaware court
| of chancery for him to cop to the legal obligations he
| clearly wasn't aware of.
|
| What on earth has this man done to make you think that he
| knows his legal obligations?
| googlryas wrote:
| How long was he in a drug induced haze for? Long enough
| to line up other institutional investors?
| pb7 wrote:
| >In a drug-induced haze, Elon offered to buy Twitter at a
| price that was a weed meme and after sobering up, went on
| a full court press in the media to get out of his deal.
| It required a absolute shitpounding
|
| There's no reason to take your comment seriously when you
| open like this. You clearly have a bias against the man
| and you're willing to run with assumptions as facts.
| Until there is evidence that Twitter was _not_ going to
| pay for 60 days of employment as required by law, this is
| a frivolous suit filed out of spite. Otherwise, similar
| suits would be filed against Stripe, Opendoor, Lyft, and
| the many other companies that did layoffs recently which
| are virtually identical to this one.
|
| Edit: Twitter is paying for 90 days of salary and
| benefits, similar to other companies, more than required
| by law: https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-
| telling-twi...
| freejazz wrote:
| Do you employment litigation? Have you read the
| complaint? Why should anyone take you seriously? You just
| seem like a Musk defender on a bent.
| pb7 wrote:
| I probably like him even less than the average person in
| this discussion. Believe it or not, it's possible to take
| a neutral unbiased stance based on facts instead of
| foaming at the mouth at every opportunity. Even serial
| killers have lawyers defending them. No one should take
| me any more or less seriously than anyone else here and
| just like everyone else here I am entitled to voice my
| opinion.
| freejazz wrote:
| It is possible? Amusing coming from the guy that went
| into a fit over the mention _clutches pearls_... drugs. I
| 'll take note. As if Musk isn't known for getting high on
| weed or taking other drugs.
|
| Who said you couldn't voice your opinion? I was pointing
| out you haven't given anyone any reason to take your post
| more seriously than the one you insist shouldn't be taken
| seriously.
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| He did something similar at Tesla with layoffs that
| violated the WARN Act. The lawyers filing this case were
| the lawyers on that case. They've seen this happen
| before.
| kibwen wrote:
| It is entirely reasonable to exhibit bias against someone
| who has _repeatedly_ demonstrated gross irresponsibility.
| If Musk wishes to be taken seriously, then at this point
| the burden is on him to demonstrate that he deserves to
| be taken seriously. We are no longer willing to extend
| him the benefit of the doubt.
| pb7 wrote:
| It's not at all reasonable to accuse someone of being on
| drugs when making an offer to buy a billion dollar
| company just because you don't like them. Stick to facts
| and you'll have others' support (including mine).
| selectodude wrote:
| Not to fall into a gossip-rag mess, but Elon Musk was
| allegedly on acid when he tweeted "Am considering taking
| Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." so this isn't
| some sort of insane off the wall claim being made here.
| wsinks wrote:
| Not questioning you fully here, but ... what reference is
| there for Elon doing this offer while 'in a drug-induced
| haze'?
| WilTimSon wrote:
| He doesn't have to know them, he probably has enough
| management and lawyers on retainer to warn him about
| stuff like that. It's highly unlikely they haven't warned
| him about this.
| selectodude wrote:
| Of course he does. But he tends to just do shit and let
| his lawyers figure it out later. Speculating from his
| past behavior, he almost certainly just fired everybody
| and his lawyers were like "yeah, you can't just do that,
| you have to do x, y, and z as well". At least this time,
| it seems that he's going to actually listen to his
| lawyers and pay out the garden leave.
| justapassenger wrote:
| He's always smartest guy in the room, and will do
| whatever he wants. He may share same future as previous
| smartest guys in the room.
| saagarjha wrote:
| And you think he listens to them?
| WilTimSon wrote:
| Ehh, I assume he does when it comes to money. I might
| have a very low opinion of him but I'm holding out a tiny
| shred of good faith in him not being an actual lunatic.
| However unlikely that seems as time goes on.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > he probably has enough management and lawyers on
| retainer
|
| Why do you think that? He hasn't replaced Tesla's General
| Counsel since they left in early 2019. But he's a lot
| more diligent with his personal life?
| sophacles wrote:
| > You don't sue someone for something they might do with
| zero indication that they will.
|
| Sure you do. Often the news reports this with the phrase
| "seeking injunction base on rumors that..."
| adastra22 wrote:
| That is exactly how lawsuits work. They can be used to
| get a legal judgement to force a party to Cary out a
| contract when there is reason to think the other party
| wouldn't otherwise comply.
| pb7 wrote:
| >when there is reason to think the other party wouldn't
| otherwise comply
|
| There is no reason to think that here:
| https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-
| twi...
| rtkwe wrote:
| The person suing got their termination notification on
| 11/1 so I imaging they know more about what their
| termination actually entails than you or I do.
|
| Also Musk consistently pushes and oversteps the legal
| boundaries of what he can and can't do to get his way.
| Him being in charge of Twitter at all is because he was
| forced to execute a contract he willingly signed what
| makes you think he'll be more calmly compliant to laws?
| spoils19 wrote:
| pb7 is probably correct here, as they are in many things.
| Elon probably knows what he's doing, you don't get to
| that level of businessmen without making all the right
| decisions.
| pwinnski wrote:
| This seems like a troll comment, given how disastrously
| Musk has handled the Twitter acquisition so far, and how
| many times he's been in trouble over mishandling things
| at Tesla and SpaceX.
| lovich wrote:
| That is a dangerous Calvinist line of thinking. If
| someone lies/steals/cheats their way to the top, you'd
| never notice because you are ascribing virtue to the
| person solely by their success
| baidifnaoxi wrote:
| // furiously flips through Wikipedia to remember wth
| Calvinism was again
| lovich wrote:
| It's a branch of Protestantism, the specific belief of
| theirs I was referencing was one that can be reduced to
| believing that the rich are because they are good and god
| wanted them to be and the poor and destitute are such
| because they are bad and god is punishing them
|
| Edit: the other poster here has a much better summary,
| with sources
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33472039
| none_to_remain wrote:
| Pray tell, do you consider any other religions dangerous?
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| Just the Protestant Work Ethic, which is pure Calvinism.
|
| > _Central to Calvinist belief was the Elect, those
| persons chosen by God to inherit eternal life. All other
| people were damned and nothing could change that since
| God was unchanging. While it was impossible to know for
| certain whether a person was one of the Elect, one could
| have a sense of it based on his own personal encounters
| with God. Outwardly the only evidence was in the person
| 's daily life and deeds, and success in one's worldly
| endeavors was a sign of possible inclusion as one of the
| Elect. A person who was indifferent and displayed
| idleness was most certainly one of the damned, but a
| person who was active, austere, and hard-working gave
| evidence to himself and to others that he was one of
| God's chosen ones (Tilgher, 1930)._
|
| > _Calvin taught that all men must work, even the rich,
| because to work was the will of God. It was the duty of
| men to serve as God 's instruments here on earth, to
| reshape the world in the fashion of the Kingdom of God,
| and to become a part of the continuing process of His
| creation (Braude, 1975). Men were not to lust after
| wealth, possessions, or easy living, but were to reinvest
| the profits of their labor into financing further
| ventures. Earnings were thus to be reinvested over and
| over again, ad infinitum, or to the end of time (Lipset,
| 1990). Using profits to help others rise from a lessor
| level of subsistence violated God's will since persons
| could only demonstrate that they were among the Elect
| through their own labor (Lipset, 1990)._
|
| > _Selection of an occupation and pursuing it to achieve
| the greatest profit possible was considered by Calvinists
| to be a religious duty. Not only condoning, but
| encouraging the pursuit of unlimited profit was a radical
| departure from the Christian beliefs of the middle ages.
| In addition, unlike Luther, Calvin considered it
| appropriate to seek an occupation which would provide the
| greatest earnings possible. If that meant abandoning the
| family trade or profession, the change was not only
| allowed, but it was considered to be one 's religious
| duty (Tilgher, 1930)._
|
| http://workethic.coe.uga.edu/hpro.html
| lovich wrote:
| You'll notice I'll called out the line of thinking, but
| yes, I could critique many other religions lines of
| thinking.
|
| Do you believe that any belief is rendered safe solely by
| being under the umbrella of a religion?
| pessimizer wrote:
| Irrational beliefs are the only protected beliefs. If you
| can prove a belief could be seen as rational, it
| immediately loses protection.
| none_to_remain wrote:
| I think it depends which religion
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > you don't get to that level of businessmen without
| making all the right decisions
|
| C'mon; he literally _just_ tried desperately to get out
| of the Twitter deal that 's the direct cause of these
| layoffs.
|
| Jeff Bezos's decisions about where to stick his weiner
| cost him tens of billions of dollars.
|
| No one makes "all the right decisions".
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| If I may white knight for one of the most powerful men in
| history for a moment: It's entirely possible that Bezos
| and his wife just drifted apart over the decades and
| separated amicably. And half of that fortune was always
| Mackenzie's from the start, that's how marriage works in
| the USA.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They announced the divorce _one day_ prior to his having
| an affair hitting the news cycle.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I mean we don't know anything about the internals of
| their relationship, and "hitting the news cycle is" I
| guess just some arbitrary hassle from their point of
| view. We could suppose that they grew distant, they
| basically separated, he started a new
| relationship/affair, and then they formalized the
| divorce.
|
| Regardless, their money was realistically getting split
| anyway, so the decision of when to start the affair
| probably didn't cost him anything.
| Domenic_S wrote:
| People try and get out of deals all the time. It's a
| normal part of business.
|
| Edit: I take it many of you haven't been a part of a
| company that gets an offer that falls apart later, tried
| to buy/sell property, etc etc. Deals fall apart
| _constantly_ , trying to get out of a deal isn't
| indicative of anything meaningful in and of itself. The
| only really unusual thing that happened in the Twitter
| deal was Twitter forcing the consummation.
| [deleted]
| lovich wrote:
| He waived his ability to do due diligence which is part
| of the normal business process that allows for backing
| out of a deal, because he was so confident in buying
| Twitter. Then he almost immediately tried backing out by
| claiming that things that would have been found out
| during the due diligence phase were a surprise to
| him(bots).
|
| It was forced because he left himself open to the deal
| being forced which was the idiotic mistake
|
| I think we can take it that you haven't been part of many
| businesses that actually had to compete and operate with
| other businesses with equal leverage. The way a business
| negotiates when it's getting bought out due to failing
| investor goals is a lot different than when the two
| opposing parties have equivalent leverage
| Domenic_S wrote:
| He did not claim that bots were a surprise -- in fact,
| getting rid of bots was the premise of his offer in the
| first place. His issue with the bots was that he thought
| there was evidence that there were far more bots than
| claimed and Twitter was dodging his requests for info.
| There are some plausible arguments that even outside due
| diligence that bot problem would be meaningful, like that
| it's a materially adverse change.
|
| But that's all beside the point. These kind of antics
| happen _all the time_ in the business world. The buyer
| threatens to back out, the seller takes them to court,
| they settle. LVMH & Tiffany comes to mind as a very
| recent example: it wasn't a due diligence argument there,
| either.
| kodah wrote:
| > Jeff Bezos's decisions about where to stick his weiner
| cost him tens of billions of dollars.
|
| People are allowed to want to divorce without it being
| referred to as "where he sticks his weiner". I think what
| grosses me out is that revenge porn was laid thickly on
| top of this that people just _actively ignored_.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > People are allowed to want to divorce without it being
| referred to as "where he sticks his weiner".
|
| No they're not. Getting a divorce doesn't give you the
| right to control how other people talk about your
| divorce.
|
| > I think what grosses me out is that revenge porn was
| laid thickly on top of this that people just actively
| ignored.
|
| People care about revenge porn because it hurts
| vulnerable people (i.e. the vast majority of us.) People
| don't give a shit about revenge porn about people who
| aren't vulnerable in any way.
| kodah wrote:
| I'm not a fan of Bezos or his companies but these are
| objectively shitty takes.
| paganel wrote:
| Not a fan of Bezos by any means imaginable, but I think
| that the revenge porn thing that happened to him was the
| work of a state actor, more exactly of Saudi Arabia.
|
| Not saying that that makes it better, quite the contrary,
| just that most probably it wasn't something personal,
| just a _raison d'etat_ thing.
| JakeTheAndroid wrote:
| This is insane. We don't live in a meritocracy. The idea
| that someone only gets to that level of wealth and
| business ownership because they make good decisions or
| understand the laws or requirements isn't something you
| can demonstrate with any consistency. Deciding to simply
| trust that he is correct because of his status is a
| dangerous game to play.
| pb7 wrote:
| Clearly they don't: https://www.businessinsider.com/read-
| blunt-email-telling-twi...
| dragontamer wrote:
| > When you buy a company
|
| Elon didn't even read the contract that bought the
| company. He spent the last 6 months in court trying to
| get out of the contract, not realizing it was ironclad.
| pessimizer wrote:
| He was trying to get out of it because it was a stupid
| deal at that price, not because he couldn't understand a
| contract. He was trying to limit the dumb consequences of
| his dumb impulse.
|
| Failing at that, he might as well lean into it. He's got
| enough money to make billions of stupid mistakes, and
| this stupid mistake gave him ownership of his favorite
| thing. A favorite thing that incidentally gives him
| leverage against a US government desperate to control
| social media, a US government who is basically a business
| partner on every company he has.
|
| He's likely to extract a load of profit out of twitter
| through that, anyway, we just won't see it because it
| will show up in his other businesses in the form of
| contracts, favorable regulation, and favorable
| legislation.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > not because he couldn't understand a contract
|
| The court case went on as long as it did (at great cost
| in lawyer time) because Elon thought he had a case.
|
| If Elon understood the contract, he wouldn't have wasted
| so much money on the courts and lawyers.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Sure you can.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment
|
| > It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a
| party involved in an actual _or possible_ legal matter
| can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the
| rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in
| a civil dispute (subject to any appeal).
| woodruffw wrote:
| > If Musk is basically saying "stop working" and we will pay
| you for the next 60 days (and even beyond), then this is
| completely legal as long as they are not restricted from
| seeking other employment during this "notice period"
|
| AFAICT, nobody was told to "stop working" today. They were
| all laid off, meaning terminated, no longer compensated, etc.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Nitpick, but this kind of "paid but not working", also known
| as Garden Leave in the UK at least, often needs to be
| specified in the contract. Otherwise the employee could argue
| in some jurisdictions that this is demeaning behaviour etc.
|
| No idea about the actual jurisdiction in question...
| LanceH wrote:
| Like someone was in a rush to be lead plaintiff, or the
| representing law firm.
| watwut wrote:
| I am pretty sure law firms were on full alert and actively
| competing for possible plaintiffs from the moment Musk first
| time walked through door.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| This is what always happens, and what will almost certainly
| happen here. They'll just give a few months severance.
|
| This is so much noise over nothing.
| anonymousab wrote:
| Musk had previously tried to avoid paying severance at Tesla,
| so it was absolutely not guaranteed to happen here.
| emedchill wrote:
| According to a leak to Business Insider[0], they are still
| "employed" but are not allowed to work.
|
| [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-
| twi...
| bourgeoismedia wrote:
| So 3 months of gardening leave with benefits and a final Feb
| 1 RSU vest. That seems completely fair and reasonable if it's
| accurate.
| nullc wrote:
| It'll be interesting to see if any of them are bold enough
| to argue that their ability to exert influence over the
| public via their role at twitter was a material part of
| their compensation.
| sulam wrote:
| You apparently have a very negative view of people who
| work at Twitter. I worked there for 4.5 years and
| literally no one I worked with or knew of there would
| ever make such an argument. The only people who even
| really have a claim to such an argument got last week and
| we haven't heard a thing from them, although I'm
| anticipating some sort of lawsuit having to be filed to
| recover the real USD compensation owed to them for their
| summary firing "for cause."
| nullc wrote:
| The posted email, linked two posts up stated that "Today
| is your last working day at the company, however, you
| will remain employed by Twitter and will receive
| compensation and benefits through your separation date
| [90 days out]".
|
| Unless they want to claim some side effect of working is
| part of the employee's compensation this lawsuit looks
| baseless enough to be an abuse of process.
| chitowneats wrote:
| There's usually at least one person who's willing to say
| the quiet part out loud in situations like this. Though,
| I imagine they'll complain about it on Twitter rather
| than trying to make a federal case out of it.
| kenjackson wrote:
| If that's the case, I bet the Twitter employees who still
| have a job, wish they got laid off. 60 days of pay is better
| than just resigning, which is what I'm sure I would do.
| postalrat wrote:
| Whats stopping you from resigning right now?
| bena wrote:
| I would imagine needing the paycheck.
|
| Those who were put on garden leave have 3 months of pay
| to lean on while they search.
|
| Those who were not, if they quit, their pay ends that
| day. They'd have whatever savings they have.
| postalrat wrote:
| You both seem to assume everyone wants to leave. Which is
| probably not the case.
| rideontime wrote:
| Anybody who stays on at this point deserves what they
| get.
| bena wrote:
| No. I'm not assuming that.
|
| You asked what was stopping someone (who wasn't fired but
| who wanted to leave) from just quitting.
|
| Now, kenjackson's statement is kind of generalizing from
| self a bit. He believes he'd want to leave in that
| situation and believes that most people share his ideals
| in this case.
|
| And while it's probably not the case, it's also not the
| case that the number is zero.
|
| There are valid reasons to stay in an undesirable
| situation until you can line up something better.
| kenjackson wrote:
| I said I probably would, which is why I would've rather
| been laid off. I don't work at Twitter though, so I'm not
| going to resign my current job because of Twitter though.
| User23 wrote:
| Good luck even showing actual damages then. Employment
| lawsuits from line employees really aren't that scary to big
| companies. The case law in California at least is quite
| clear. I'm not a lawyer, but the source for this information
| is a lawyer I conferred with. He said legally I had a solid
| case but he wasn't interested in 30% of three months
| compensation.
|
| Actual damages are practically capped around 3 months on the
| theory that you should be able to find a new job in that
| timeframe. And if you don't, then that's evidence you're not
| actually qualified qualified and the termination wasn't
| wrongful! And if Twitter is effectively paying 60 day's
| severance then it's even harder to show actual damages.
|
| Now theoretically punitive damages are a possibility. I
| assume that's what this lawsuit is hinging on, raising the
| however unlikely possibility that a jury might vote for
| punitive damages. That almost certainly won't happen though
| absent gross malfeasance: think outright full blown
| macroaggression racism or sexism. Otherwise, well privileged
| tech nerds like tweeps just aren't very likely to get a jury
| all riled.
| sulam wrote:
| There's a reason this is a class action lawsuit.
| RONROC wrote:
| The "move fast and break things" crowd cries foul when they
| happen to be the thing that gets broke.
|
| Funny how that works.
| soumyadeb wrote:
| Is Stripe/Lyft exempted from this?
| pwinnski wrote:
| As the recent announcements showed, they're including at least
| eight weeks of pay, so that complies with the CA-WARN law in
| question.
| nemo44x wrote:
| It's so funny to see this like it's actually serious. There's a
| reason why whenever you see big layoffs you see that everyone
| impacted by it is granted severance of a few months pay, etc.
|
| People act like Twitter is the first company to do layoffs. This
| is super common and has happened to numerous tech companies in
| the last month. But of course, Space Man Bad.
| pessimizer wrote:
| And it's especially common once somebody new takes over. And in
| this case, plenty of Twitter was openly hostile to Musk. That
| they're upset that they won't be retained to help him implement
| an agenda that they disapprove of is an entirely cynical ploy.
|
| Sucks to lose your job because management changed to someone
| you can't live with, but it would also suck to work a job with
| management you can't live with.
| daveoc64 wrote:
| It will be interesting to see how they approach these layoffs in
| countries like the UK or most of the EU, where you can't just
| fire people for no reason.
|
| I have seen some reports of Twitter employees in the UK being
| told they've been laid off, but that's simply not legal in te UK.
|
| For a company the size of Twitter, a process must be followed:
|
| https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/consultation
|
| The company can be forced to reinstate the employee if the
| company has been found to have ignored the law.
|
| Delaying the layoff until January doesn't remove the legal
| obligations Twitter has.
| mikestew wrote:
| Can we please fix the title? Not only is it incomplete and makes
| no sense, it also got butchered such that it is now wrong.
| Original:
|
| _" Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee
| layoffs without proper legal notice"_
|
| At least replace the "with" with "without".
| rickstanley wrote:
| The original title is 11 characters too long for submission.
| themanmaran wrote:
| "Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee
| layoffs without proper legal notice"
|
| Shaved off exactly 11 characters (including spaces).
| mikestew wrote:
| I didn't ask for the original title, I asked that the title
| be fixed. As an example, removing "mass employee" gets under
| the limit and leaves a title that's a lot more clear than
| what's up there now. "Twitter faces lawsuit..." gets you
| there, several ways of shortening without losing much
| meaning.
|
| HN guidelines ask that the original be used. But if original
| is too long, we should at least try to leave something that
| makes sense and doesn't incorrectly flip Boolean flags.
| rickstanley wrote:
| My mistake, I read you comment erroneously. Sorry.
| mikestew wrote:
| No worries, hopefully someone benefits from the
| discussion as to how and why HN titles sometimes end up
| the way they do.
| deathanatos wrote:
| Agree w/ your point, and your suggested title.
|
| Looking at the slug, it seems like TFA might have
| originally butchered, and later changed the title, too.
| blindriver wrote:
| It's also wrong. According to the email they received, they are
| getting paid until Feb 2023, plus one vest of their RSUs from
| what I heard. There is no legal basis for a lawsuit.
| 93po wrote:
| There's no _realistic_ basis for a lawsuit. However that won
| 't stop journalists from using language like "faces" lawsuit
| which means literally nothing has happened but we're going to
| speculate to generate clickbait.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Source? Do you work for Twitter? I haven't seen this claim
| anywhere.
|
| Edit: source is https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-
| email-telling-twi...
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| Previously posted, this includes part of the email they
| got:
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-
| twi...
| bedast wrote:
| Musk is openly antagonistic to any kind of regulation and
| regulatory bodies. This is all a game to him. Any fines he faces
| are the price of having fun, to him. It's why whether Twitter
| succeeds or fails is a moot point. He doesn't actually care about
| Twitter. It's a toy. It's an RC plane he's flying around, right
| now, and it's just a matter of time before he intentionally aims
| it into the ground to see how big of an explosion he can make.
| legohead wrote:
| I considered this purchase a miscalculation on his part. After
| he bought 9% of twitter, he wanted to do some market
| manipulation like with Tesla. Only he got burned last time, so
| he attempted to do it legit with his "offer". He never expected
| them to actually accept. And why he tried so hard to back out.
|
| However, now that it's done, I don't doubt his earnest or
| abilities to drive twitter forward. In any case it will be very
| interesting to watch.
| 93po wrote:
| There is zero evidence for literally anything you're saying
| and your accusations are completely baseless.
| 988747 wrote:
| If he wanted to manipulate market then just the rumor about
| the purchase would send stocks higher. In fact, after his
| announcement on April 14th, Twitter rose 7.5% on the next
| session (18th). No need to actually sign the deal to make few
| hundred millions of dollars.
|
| On the other hand, how would he cash out his gamble? You
| cannot announce that you want to buy 100% of the company
| stocks, and then start selling off the 9% that you already
| have, that would be a dead giveaway that the offer is not
| serious.
| renonn wrote:
| GaylordTuring wrote:
| emkoemko wrote:
| its becoming creepy
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| He has not done this with his other large businesses. He has in
| fact done the opposite, raising them from nothing to hugely
| successful companies that are also great for humanity. I'm no
| fanboy - I just call them like I see them.
|
| You'll probably mention a few side-projects of his that haven't
| done much - but he hasn't flown them into the ground either.
| They're just interesting experiments.
| atomicone wrote:
| wouldn't that damage his reputation as a credible CEO? Not sure
| if a billionaire would care, but still, he holds the office of
| the CEO in a few companies.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > wouldn't that damage his reputation as a credible CEO?
|
| Elon Musk? A credible CEO?
|
| And here I was thinking shitposting wasn't allowed on HN.
| notyourwork wrote:
| Why do you need credibility when you own the company? This
| isn't a public trading company where share holders can vote
| you out.
| dmix wrote:
| Here is the caselaw for the last time Tesla got sued under WARN
| Act:
|
| https://casetext.com/case/lynch-v-tesla-inc
|
| https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Cou...
|
| It gives a good summary of what the law is about
|
| It eventually got settled via arbitration:
|
| https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/tesla-workers-warn-act-...
| rco8786 wrote:
| My take is that this was always part of the plan.
|
| Whatever Elon settles the suit for will be far less $ than actual
| severance would have been.
| jleyank wrote:
| All of my layoffs had post termination pay to satisfy federal and
| state law. HR stressed that we were on salary (without working)
| during the termination period and that leaving would negate
| benefits. Once this period ended, there were usual benefits like
| n weeks per year of employment. Blatantly ignoring the rules just
| invites lawsuits and weakens em's position.
|
| Sux how rules and established norms of behaviour restrict one's
| actions.
| angrydev wrote:
| Just curious which state was that where they had to give
| severance? I'm in a US state that does not require anything
| after termination.
| jleyank wrote:
| Mass and Kansas. I can't say whether the state required
| additional payments above what's legally required (60 day
| notice) but they needed to give something to get people to
| sign things like termination agreements and non disclosures.
| Having just been laid off, they weren't all that willing to
| be nice and all that.
|
| If you want to be a jerk, that influences future hiring
| chances both ways. Most companies expect to need to hire at
| some point in the future.
| roflyear wrote:
| There is the WARN act which is a federal law. But that only
| applies to larger companies and mass layoffs.
| coredog64 wrote:
| WARN is Federal, but for you to see benefits, the layoff has
| to meet strict requirements. It's things like closing an
| entire site, laying off 33% of employees, 500+ employees,
| etc.
| Meekro wrote:
| The leaked termination notices are indicating that the fired
| employees will get post termination pay. See, for example,
| https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1588586560986882048/photo...
| chevman wrote:
| I highly doubt HR at Twitter is unaware of the laws here and not
| giving 60 days notice as part of the exit packages.
|
| This is basic stuff easily remedied by corrected exit package
| details if it did in fact happen.
| mrits wrote:
| It makes no sense. Can we apply this to all the other layoffs
| and probably upcoming layoffs in the coming weeks from big
| tech? How is Twitter the only company guilty of this?
| pwinnski wrote:
| Most companies approach mass layoffs pretty carefully,
| announcing the terms up-front, as evidences by the Stripe and
| Lyft examples this week. Twitter is the only company doing
| mass layoffs that's owned by Musk, to answer your last
| question.
| rtkwe wrote:
| It's also been 2 full days since one of the people in the suit
| received their termination information though so I would bet
| they know what Twitter's plan was for at least their
| termination. If not why didn't they have the info?
| trynewideas wrote:
| Are we sure HR wasn't laid off? The article notes Twitter
| didn't respond to a request for comment because the comms staff
| was laid off.
| ink_13 wrote:
| Another classic Musk maneuver. Tesla (in)famously doesn't
| have a PR department.
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| His PR department is his personal Twitter account.
| _jal wrote:
| I'm quite certain they're aware of the law. I also know Musk
| has violated it before.
|
| You seem to be implying that's irrational behavior, and
| therefore won't happen.
|
| I agree that it is irrational.
| jjmorrison wrote:
| This is not how the WARN act works. Companies do not need to give
| a 60 day warning to layoff employees. They can instead pay out 60
| days of severance. Which is what everyone always does since
| letting employees hang out at the office for 2 months after a
| layoff would be super weird.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| The amount of commenters here claiming putting people on
| gardening leave being illegal is absolutely astonishing.
| awb wrote:
| > it's seeking a range of relief, including compensatory damages
| (including wages owed), as well as declaratory relief, pre- and
| post-judgment interest, plus other attorneys' fees and costs.
|
| So, the penalty is paying workers the wages they would have been
| paid anyway under proper notice, plus interest? So for basically
| ~5-8% more Musk gets to terminate everyone today instead of in 60
| days.
| e40 wrote:
| The stunning thing is that he didn't consult a proper lawyer
| that would have told him how to avoid the lawsuit.
| klooney wrote:
| Tesla got hit for the same thing recently- probably he knew
| and just didn't care.
| nomel wrote:
| > he didn't consult a proper lawyer
|
| Do you have any evidence for this?
| e40 wrote:
| I run an HR department, albeit not for one as large as
| twitter. I have done layoffs. I always consulted a lawyer
| and it never triggered lawsuits. There are layoffs all the
| time at large companies that don't trigger lawsuits.
|
| Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all.
| nomel wrote:
| The existence of a lawsuit can't be used to judge the
| legality of the layoffs. Only the ruling can. It's
| possible (although a bit more unlikely) that the person
| filing the lawsuit is a terrible lawyer.
|
| Making factual statements/judgements seems misguided, at
| this point, in my IANAL opinion.
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| The lawyers filing this lawsuit were the same lawyers in
| the previous lawsuit over WARN Act violations.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| > _Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all._
|
| I disagree.
|
| He got bit by lawsuits over a previous mass layoff at
| Tesla. The lawyers who filed this lawsuit were the same
| lawyers involved in the previous one. Links pointing to
| the previous case:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900
|
| I think that Musk learned from that, and reading the
| email employees received today, I think the lawsuit will
| be thrown out.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-
| twi...
|
| On first sight, the mass layoffs appear to violate both
| California & Federal WARN Act notifications.
|
| After reading the email, it appears that they are getting
| 3 months of "gardening leave" instead paychecks getting
| cut off at end of day.
|
| > _An employer who violates WARN provisions is liable to
| each employee for an amount equal to back pay and
| benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retra
| ini...
|
| Europe has different labor laws. I know enough about them
| to know that I don't know enough to have an opinion on
| what might happen _over there_.
| keneda7 wrote:
| I think he did in this case. From a comment by Emedchill near
| the top of the comments:
|
| According to a leak to Business Insider[0], they are still
| "employed" but are not allowed to work. [0]
| https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-
| twi...
|
| So it seems they are still being paid and get their benefits
| until Feb 2th
| [deleted]
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Or maybe he did, and decided that getting them out the door
| now was worth the potential costs from the lawsuit?
|
| If, as some others have said, he's actually paying them for
| the 60 days, I don't think a judge or jury is going to be
| very sympathetic.
|
| "So, your boss basically told you to take 60 days off with
| pay?"
| zimpenfish wrote:
| I imagine his lawyers are much the same as Trump's -
| desperately going "Look, you just can't do that!", making
| sure their objections are written down just in case, and
| knowing full well he's going to do whatever anyway.
| MBCook wrote:
| No. There are also fines to the state/federal government. I saw
| one number (CA?) of $500/person/day. Don't know if that was it
| or minimum or what.
| keneda7 wrote:
| See the letter in the article below.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-
| twi...
| awb wrote:
| 3,700 employees @ $500/day would be $1.85M / day. Ouch.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Musk is worth $220 billion.
|
| At $1.85 million/day, he'd go broke in only 325 years.
|
| I don't think it's a major worry for him.
| [deleted]
| scarecrowbob wrote:
| I have seen a lot of sentiment wonder "why some people do
| not like Elmo Musk".
|
| This fact is probably something close to why I personally
| don't like the guy: he comes across as a personified
| avatar of the fact that laws don't really apply to folks
| with those kinds of resources, and that us peons have
| literally no recourse when faced with a rich person who
| wants to do whatever they feel like doing.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| I'm not sure I'd rank "giving employees 60 days pay for
| sitting at home doing absolutely nothing" up there with
| "working in a Victorian coal mine", in terms of abusive
| employee relations.
|
| What, in your opinion, would be fair, other than "paying
| them forever for doing absolutely nothing"?
|
| The law apparently says he has to pay them for 60 days.
| He's doing that.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is why you should hate your society and its values,
| not Musk.
| awb wrote:
| 1 month is $55M in fines at that rate. 300k verified
| users paying $8/month is $2.4M.
|
| If he's making a big deal about bringing in single digit
| millions per month to "pay the bills", you'd think he'd
| care about double-digit million fines, but who knows. He
| has more FU money than anyone else alive.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| > 300k verified users paying $8/month is $2.4M.
|
| That is far from the only source of Twitter revenue.
|
| Also, I'm about 99.999% sure that the $8/month thing is
| more about trolling the crap out of sanctimonious blue
| checks rather than actual revenue. They're basically
| Star-Bellied Sneetches who are going ballistic because
| the proles might also get "stars upon thars".
| awb wrote:
| > That is far from the only source of Twitter revenue.
|
| Yes, but he's claiming the $8/mo is to "keep paying the
| bills", so why focus on that small revenue stream and
| then pay a huge fine?
|
| > Also, I'm about 99.999% sure that the $8/month thing is
| more about trolling the crap out of sanctimonious blue
| checks rather than actual revenue. They're basically
| Star-Bellied Sneetches who are going ballistic because
| the proles might also get "stars upon thars".
|
| The revolution will be a subscription service, got it.
| 55555 wrote:
| They didn't have enough advance notice? Didn't they have like 6
| months of notice? Everyone knew that Elon was planning on doing
| mass layoffs after buying Twitter, a process which started many
| months ago.
| jefftk wrote:
| Among other issues with this view, Musk repeatedly said the
| deal was off and only closed after Twitter sued.
| mjmsmith wrote:
| IANAL, but "everyone knew" probably doesn't constitute "proper
| legal notice".
| nomel wrote:
| Rumors and assumptions don't count as notice, in the eyes of
| the law.
| klyrs wrote:
| Just like Trump can't declassify documents with his mind, there
| are proper procedures to be followed. Each individual needs to
| be given notice. Six months ago, he didn't have the ability to
| make that decision and it wasn't a sure thing and he spent much
| of the meantime trying to wriggle out of the deal.
| [deleted]
| notafraudster wrote:
| Among people I know at Twitter who got laid off, they have 60
| days of notice during which they don't need to work but still
| get paid + severance commensurate with their tenure (30+ days).
| All of them think this whole process is an absolute fucking
| shitshow and the company is going to swirl the toilet bowl, but
| I don't think any feel as though their legal rights were
| violated.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-04 23:03 UTC)