5 ms·

> can't the company fire them at any time with no reason? One of the employees is based out of Sydney, so No, California at-will employment law doesn't apply.

by timv 9y ago

> can't the company fire them at any time with no reason? One of the employees is based out of Sydney, so No, California at-will employment law doesn't apply. It would be interesting to see what grounds they are using to fire him. Based on previous experiences with other companies, I found that it's not unusual for executives in one country to think that the employment law in their jurisdiction is universal and just assume they can apply it to employees in other countries.

Animats 9y ago
California labor code section 201 (a): "If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately." Firing someone in California requires that they be paid in full right then and there. This includes payment for accrued vacation time, comp time, etc. Were these employees paid off properly?
- dekhn 9y ago
  Err, no. Payable immediately doesn't mean somebody has to hand you a wad of cash.
  - Animats 9y ago
    In California, it does.[1] California has the strictest law in the US on this. [1] http://www.turleylawfirm.com/blog/final-paycheck-laws-for-terminated-employees-in-california.cfm http://www.turleylawfirm.com/blog/final-paycheck-laws-for-te...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dekhn 9y ago
      Fair enough. Salesforce has enough money that they can afford to pay the minor penalty for violating this.
  - late2part 9y ago
    You're right. They can also hand you a check.
  - lightedman 9y ago
    For the California employee, they have to PAY YOU IMMEDIATELY, THEN AND THERE. That means either a pre-loaded card, check, or cash in hand, or other acceptable instrument of legal tender, such as a money order.
- sowbug 9y ago
  The penalty is the employee's wages, day-for-day, up to 30 days. So yes, it will probably be payable, but it's just money (rather than somehow invalidating the termination, for example), and it's unlikely either side will care much about the amount.
- pjdemers 9y ago
  They are probably still getting full salary and benefits until the next scheduled payday. That's how companies in CA get around the rule that employees must be paid in full on their last day.
bobbles 9y ago
You can be fired as an Australian employee at any time but they will still need to pay out the notice period in their contract and whatever accrued annual leave they had. Most notice periods in AU are 4 weeks so you either are fired with 4 weeks notice or fired immediately and paid for those 4 weeks. (The notice period also applies if you decide to leave the organisation) The rule specifically is: Can notice be paid out instead of worked? Yes. An employer can either: Let the employee work through their notice period, or pay it out to them (also known as pay in lieu of notice). If the employer pays out the notice, the amount paid to the employee must equal the full amount the employee would have been paid if they worked until the end of the notice period. This includes: incentive-based payments and bonuses loadings monetary allowances overtime penalty rates any other separately identifiable amounts. If the employer pays out the notice, the employee does not accrue any annual leave for the notice period they were paid out for. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/notice-and-final-pay https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/notice-and-fin...
- timv 9y ago
  But employment in Australia is not at-will, so regardless of their obligations to pay out the notice period they also need to have a valid reason for the dismissal. https://www.lawsociety.com.au/community/publicationsandfaqs/UnfairDismissal/index.htm https://www.lawsociety.com.au/community/publicationsandfaqs/... They might have one here, but I doubt it. Specifically John Cramb (the Australian) was presenting alongside Josh Schwartz the director of offensive security. It seems that one could reasonably establish that John was acting under the directions of his superior, and that would mean that the default position would be to assume that his actions were sanctioned by the company unless they can prove that he knew otherwise. And even then, they would be expected to provide a written warning, or justify why the violation was so extreme to justify immediate termination (which would be very difficult given he was active under the instructions of a superior). Base on the limited evidence we have, it seems that Salesforce has unfairly dismissed John, and that the Californian executive ought to have consulted with an Australian HR lawyer before he acted.
  - PeanutCurry 9y ago

by timv 9y ago

Animats 9y ago

California labor code section 201 (a): "If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately." Firing someone in California requires that they be paid in full right then and there. This includes payment for accrued vacation time, comp time, etc. Were these employees paid off properly?

dekhn 9y ago
Err, no. Payable immediately doesn't mean somebody has to hand you a wad of cash.
- Animats 9y ago
  In California, it does.[1] California has the strictest law in the US on this. [1] http://www.turleylawfirm.com/blog/final-paycheck-laws-for-terminated-employees-in-california.cfm http://www.turleylawfirm.com/blog/final-paycheck-laws-for-te...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dekhn 9y ago
    Fair enough. Salesforce has enough money that they can afford to pay the minor penalty for violating this.
- late2part 9y ago
  You're right. They can also hand you a check.
- lightedman 9y ago
  For the California employee, they have to PAY YOU IMMEDIATELY, THEN AND THERE. That means either a pre-loaded card, check, or cash in hand, or other acceptable instrument of legal tender, such as a money order.
sowbug 9y ago
The penalty is the employee's wages, day-for-day, up to 30 days. So yes, it will probably be payable, but it's just money (rather than somehow invalidating the termination, for example), and it's unlikely either side will care much about the amount.
pjdemers 9y ago
They are probably still getting full salary and benefits until the next scheduled payday. That's how companies in CA get around the rule that employees must be paid in full on their last day.

bobbles 9y ago

You can be fired as an Australian employee at any time but they will still need to pay out the notice period in their contract and whatever accrued annual leave they had. Most notice periods in AU are 4 weeks so you either are fired with 4 weeks notice or fired immediately and paid for those 4 weeks. (The notice period also applies if you decide to leave the organisation) The rule specifically is: Can notice be paid out instead of worked? Yes. An employer can either: Let the employee work through their notice period, or pay it out to them (also known as pay in lieu of notice). If the employer pays out the notice, the amount paid to the employee must equal the full amount the employee would have been paid if they worked until the end of the notice period. This includes: incentive-based payments and bonuses loadings monetary allowances overtime penalty rates any other separately identifiable amounts. If the employer pays out the notice, the employee does not accrue any annual leave for the notice period they were paid out for. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/notice-and-final-pay https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/notice-and-fin...

timv 9y ago
But employment in Australia is not at-will, so regardless of their obligations to pay out the notice period they also need to have a valid reason for the dismissal. https://www.lawsociety.com.au/community/publicationsandfaqs/UnfairDismissal/index.htm https://www.lawsociety.com.au/community/publicationsandfaqs/... They might have one here, but I doubt it. Specifically John Cramb (the Australian) was presenting alongside Josh Schwartz the director of offensive security. It seems that one could reasonably establish that John was acting under the directions of his superior, and that would mean that the default position would be to assume that his actions were sanctioned by the company unless they can prove that he knew otherwise. And even then, they would be expected to provide a written warning, or justify why the violation was so extreme to justify immediate termination (which would be very difficult given he was active under the instructions of a superior). Base on the limited evidence we have, it seems that Salesforce has unfairly dismissed John, and that the Californian executive ought to have consulted with an Australian HR lawyer before he acted.
- PeanutCurry 9y ago