3 ms·
Your link indicates they aren't covered by the WARN act. It is fewer than 499 employees and less than 33% at a single facility.
by KGIII 9y ago
Your link indicates they aren't covered by the WARN act. It is fewer than 499 employees and less than 33% at a single facility.
- dredmorbius 9y agoAh, good eyes. I wasn't sure quite what the threshold was. I've seen companies get spanked for a pattern of layoffs which stay just below the threshold, so there's that. If there's a plausible case that this is targeted at union organisers / organisation, there's that as well, though prosecution at the national level strikes me as unlikely, even with Musk's testy relationship with the Trump administration. There's also California law to contend with. Same article: California requires advance notice for plant closings, layoffs, and relocations of 50 or more employees regardless of percentage of workforce, that is, without the federal "one-third" rule for mass layoffs of fewer than 500 employees. Also, the California law applies to employers with 75 or more employees, counting both full-time and part-time employees.
- KGIII 9y agoI am entirely unfamiliar with California's regulations. But, unless the penalty is insignificant, it seems unlikely that they'd flagrantly violate the law. It seems very likely that they were advised by legal council and followed those recommendations. The visibility of Tesla makes me suspect they are very likely to be aware of both optics and law. Disclosure: I am invested in Tesla and have been since the early days. However, I've made every effort to remain objective,
- dredmorbius 9y agoI don't know if Tesla did or didn't follow legal requirements. I am, however, pointing out that there are in fact legal notice and procedural requirements to be followed.