5 ms·
Maybe to limit the damage notified (and thus possibly upset) employees can cause.
by tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago
Maybe to limit the damage notified (and thus possibly upset) employees can cause.
- lukashed 9y agoThat must've been an interesting calculation. Now they're paying dozens of employees that literally aren't able to work three months worth of salary.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- baddox 9y agoSeverance is pretty common, and some companies will just keep you technically employed (and thus paid, and even given health insurance) with no expectation of you doing work or coming into the office. Three months is definitely on the generous side, but not that unusual from what I've seen and heard.
- pm90 9y agoYep. Severance is pretty common when employees are "laid off" i.e. their employment is terminated not because of employees fault. And generally, you are informed of it, and your credentials and such are revoked almost immediately. Quite different from when you voluntarily leave, when you give notice and do knowledge transfer and such. I imagine that is because the employee is unlikely to do anything bad, since they likely have a better future.
- praneshp 9y agoThey're going to place work second anyway (to finding a new job). It's usually to give them a severance, not screw folks on a visa, etc.
- juliantejera 9y agoSpot on. You never know who might have taken the news in a bad way and decides to lash out.