4 ms·

Twitter's employees are presumably all at-will, so they could get rid of any of them immediately, if they wanted to. It's probably harder to hire them in first

Twitter's employees are presumably all at-will, so they could get rid of any of them immediately, if they wanted to. It's probably harder to hire them in first place though, instead of just hiring an agency.

dpark 11y ago
It's not free to terminate an employee in the US. The (former) employer pays for the cost of unemployment claims. A company like Twitter will likely also pay severance, because it makes them considerably less attractive to future hires if they don't, and also because it can be cheaper than dealing with a potential lawsuit from a terminated employee.
- amorphid 11y ago
  In the USA, or at least in California, the employer does not pay the unployement benefits to the former employee. The benefits are paid by the state, which in California is http://edd.ca.gov http://edd.ca.gov. The employer pays for unemployment insurance. If the employer has relatively few former employees filing for unemployment, that insurance rate may go down over time. The concern over covering the costs of unemployment benefits are related to a possible increase in unemployment insurance premiums. Source: http://www.calrest.org/tips-for-protecting-your-unemployment-insurance-rates.html http://www.calrest.org/tips-for-protecting-your-unemployment...
  - dpark 11y ago
    Yes, in the US most corporations pay unemployment tax (apparently nonprofits and government agencies can get a special reimbursement deal where they pay directly for unemployment costs). As you noted, unemployment taxes increase for corporations with lots of former employees claiming benefits. The fact that it's not direct doesn't eliminate the cost.
virmundi 11y ago
While at-will seems like firing quickly is common, it's really not. In a large company there are often (not always) many HR hoops to go through in order to fire. Often these have to do with legal processes. For example, an employee might have developed alcoholism. A company cannot legal dismiss the employee if the employee is willing to go to rehab. They can fire a contractor/consultant (provided the contract allows for that). It also has to do with morale. If Jim just disappears and he's a FTE, that makes people nervous. They might start looking at a different positions. If Sally the consultant is gone tomorrow, oh well. There is often an "us" v "them" relationship between FTEs and consultants. It's not necessarily antagonistic, but it's not as amicable as FTE to FTE.
- BlewisJS 11y ago
  I don't think you understand what at-will means. They can fire the employee for no reason at all, alcoholism or not.
  - mehrdada 11y ago
    IANAL, (nor am I the OP,) but my understanding is: You can do X for no reason != You can do X for any reason i.e. they can fire you when they wish to, but if you can demonstrate that the reason for firing was illegal, then it the firing is not for "no reason", but for an "illegal reason."
    - derefr 11y ago
      Can't they just fire the alcoholic because they don't like his tie, then? Or, say, assign him an impossible project and then fire him for not completing it?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        > Or, say, assign him an impossible project and then fire him for not completing it? What you're trying is in UK parlance called "constructive dismissal" and it's not good; many jurisdictions make this risky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

dpark 11y ago

It's not free to terminate an employee in the US. The (former) employer pays for the cost of unemployment claims. A company like Twitter will likely also pay severance, because it makes them considerably less attractive to future hires if they don't, and also because it can be cheaper than dealing with a potential lawsuit from a terminated employee.

amorphid 11y ago
In the USA, or at least in California, the employer does not pay the unployement benefits to the former employee. The benefits are paid by the state, which in California is http://edd.ca.gov http://edd.ca.gov. The employer pays for unemployment insurance. If the employer has relatively few former employees filing for unemployment, that insurance rate may go down over time. The concern over covering the costs of unemployment benefits are related to a possible increase in unemployment insurance premiums. Source: http://www.calrest.org/tips-for-protecting-your-unemployment-insurance-rates.html http://www.calrest.org/tips-for-protecting-your-unemployment...
- dpark 11y ago
  Yes, in the US most corporations pay unemployment tax (apparently nonprofits and government agencies can get a special reimbursement deal where they pay directly for unemployment costs). As you noted, unemployment taxes increase for corporations with lots of former employees claiming benefits. The fact that it's not direct doesn't eliminate the cost.

virmundi 11y ago

While at-will seems like firing quickly is common, it's really not. In a large company there are often (not always) many HR hoops to go through in order to fire. Often these have to do with legal processes. For example, an employee might have developed alcoholism. A company cannot legal dismiss the employee if the employee is willing to go to rehab. They can fire a contractor/consultant (provided the contract allows for that). It also has to do with morale. If Jim just disappears and he's a FTE, that makes people nervous. They might start looking at a different positions. If Sally the consultant is gone tomorrow, oh well. There is often an "us" v "them" relationship between FTEs and consultants. It's not necessarily antagonistic, but it's not as amicable as FTE to FTE.

BlewisJS 11y ago
I don't think you understand what at-will means. They can fire the employee for no reason at all, alcoholism or not.
- mehrdada 11y ago
  IANAL, (nor am I the OP,) but my understanding is: You can do X for no reason != You can do X for any reason i.e. they can fire you when they wish to, but if you can demonstrate that the reason for firing was illegal, then it the firing is not for "no reason", but for an "illegal reason."
  - derefr 11y ago
    Can't they just fire the alcoholic because they don't like his tie, then? Or, say, assign him an impossible project and then fire him for not completing it?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      > Or, say, assign him an impossible project and then fire him for not completing it? What you're trying is in UK parlance called "constructive dismissal" and it's not good; many jurisdictions make this risky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal