5 ms·
But what's her actual point? They're not allowed to fire disabled veterans? You get to keep receiving bonuses after firing? "A signing bonus or sign-on bonus i
by wavee 8y ago
But what's her actual point? They're not allowed to fire disabled veterans? You get to keep receiving bonuses after firing?
"A signing bonus or sign-on bonus is a sum of money paid to a new employee by a company as an incentive to join that company.
To encourage employees to stay at the organization, there are often clauses in the contract whereby if the employee quits before a specified period, they must return the signing bonus."
- olliej 8y agoThere’s a difference between quitting and being laid off, you know that right?
- daeken 8y agoRetracting a sign-on bonus when you're laying someone off -- rather than them quitting or being terminated for cause -- is wrong. That's tantamount to wage theft, IMO. Reversing someone's yearly bonus after the fact is just as bad.
- matz1 8y agoIts not wrong unless the contract specifically says being laid off as exception.
- daeken 8y agoJust because something isn't illegal/breach of contract doesn't mean it's right.
- tylersmith 8y agoThen they shouldn't have agreed to it.
- SolaceQuantum 8y agoIt shouldn't be wrong to assume that a contracted amount of money will actually be given to you without an added assessment that "if I'm laid off I should still get that money". Contracts cannot be used the same way one can code defensively, because when humans are involved defensive moves are also hostile moves- and the only way keeping the negotiations going is leverage on both sides.
- matz1 8y agoWell, actually It doesn't matter what you think right or wrong, what matter is can u force the other party to follow what you want.
- xeromal 8y agoI think we're arguing what is morally correct while you're arguing what is legally correct. You're right legally, but it still sucks that everything has to be defined to the Planck length and you'll still probably get screwed.
- SolaceQuantum 8y agoThe implication is that both sides don't necessarily have leverage, meaning you cannot force fair behavior by yourself. This power disparity is something society at whole tends to recognize, and is thus able to leverage social norms to shame a company into behaving align with societal understandings of fairness.
- wavee 8y agoThere are two sides to this story, we don't know why he was fired, and we don't know Tesla's policies regarding bonuses. It sounds like it wasn't a one time payment, but rather a monthly addition. It makes complete sense to retract that after firing.
- bronco21016 8y agoThis is very common in the industry I used to work in. You’d get a sign on bonus but only after a certain threshold. Usually completion of training. If for some reason you didn’t make it to that threshold (lay-off, quit, fail training, etc.) you saw none of the bonus money. It wasn’t even paid out until that threshold was met. I have sympathy for the couple in that it’s really tough to lose a job you just moved for but unfortunately that’s just kinda life. It doesn’t seem to me a Twitter rant solves anything other than marking one’s self as a potential headache to other employers.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- paulie_a 8y agoIf you fail training or quit you should not get the bonus. If you were fired for cause same thing. That's on the employee. But layoffs were coming and probably known, that was out of the employee's control. Pay the damn bonus as goodwill. Does a company want a reputation of "yeah they hired me but unfortunately with cutbacks I was new, but they made good on their promises even though I hadn't been there long enough" Or "they hired me, enticed me with a signing bonus and then didn't bother making good, fuck that company" I don't care if the contract specifically allowed that, it will leave a bitter taste in that employee's mouth. And it will be repeated regardless of the original contract. Reputation matters more than some line in a contract.
- threeseed 8y agoDid you even read what she wrote ? She has a list of grievances not just the signing bonus. I think if Tesla had shown her husband a bit more respect she likely wouldn't have posted it. Giving someone 0-day notice and physically escorting them out of the company is simply unacceptable.
- k_sh 8y ago> Giving someone 0-day notice and physically escorting them out of the company is simply unacceptable. This is a pretty common practice, especially when dismissing employees that work with sensitive information (e.g. architecting trade secrets), or work in public-facing positions (e.g. spokesperson or PR). It avoids the risks found in the question of "what will this person do when they know they're on their way out?".
- tylersmith 8y agoUnacceptable how? They had no responsibility to do otherwise. They no longer wanted the employee so he was removed immediately. Are they supposed to give him notice even when he has no value to them?
- SolaceQuantum 8y agoIt's unacceptable on the level of treating people with appropriate acknowledgement of the inherent fuzziness of society- employees need time to get hired elsewhere, and employers need time to find a replacement- thus it is courteous to give notice on both sides of the relationship. By not acknowledging this fuzziness of human society, one is also giving the message that people will not be treated with what is the standard understanding of human dignity.
- pritishc 8y agoSure, if he has no value to them, the company has every right to let go of him and hire someone better. Doesn't mean that they have to do it as if their worker is an unfeeling mechanical automaton whose sole purpose was to spend his existence slogging for the company, and that he somehow failed in that regard. A little empathy wouldn't hurt.