5 ms·

So basically BuzzFeed could just do the math on the ten weeks of severance by subtracting each employee's PTO, calling the remainder 'severance.' I don't think

So basically BuzzFeed could just do the math on the ten weeks of severance by subtracting each employee's PTO, calling the remainder 'severance.' I don't think they are obligated by law to pay any severance, though I could be wrong about that.

kevindong 8y ago
I don't know about Buzzfeed in specific, but some established companies have a formally stated severance benefits (i.e. if you're laid off for non-performance reasons, you get x weeks of severance).
- dudul 8y ago
  That doesn't make it required by law though. I don't think "at will" employment comes with any legally enforced severance requirement.
  - kevindong 8y ago
    At the company I was at, the severance benefit was a part of a contractually promised benefit package. I could definitely be wrong, but I do believe that if it's promised (even in a 'at will' employment), it can be enforced.
    - PascLeRasc 8y ago
      You're missing the point. Not all of us work at your company, and yours could discontinue that benefit anytime.
      - magduf 8y ago
        They could, but a lawsuit against them would be an easy slam-dunk. When a company signs an employment contract with you, they're bound by the terms of that contract, until both parties agree to amend it. They can't just discontinue some benefit at any time without subjecting themselves to a possible lawsuit.
        astura 8y ago
        This isn't how it works in the United States. Assuming benefits are actually written in a contract (and they aren't, not that I've seen anyways), if you're "at will" then they can terminate you for not signing a new employment contract with the new benefits when they feel like changing the benefits. Therefore, in practice, they have complete unilateral control over benefits. But they aren't going to write your benefits in a binding contract, because that's just not standard practice and there's no upside for them to do so and just creates more paperwork. When unions are involved, however, there's real contracts. However, unions are very uncommon in the US.
        magduf 8y ago
        What are you talking about? Yes, in "at will" states (which is 49 of them), they can fire you if you refuse to accept the new contract. However, this does not mean they can just ignore the old one: they still have to follow its terms, and if that means paying out your PTO when they fire you, that's what they have to do, or else you have a slam-dunk case for unlawful dismissal. Of course, this means you're getting your PTO paid out while simultaneously being laid off, but I never said the situation was perfect, just that they can't arbitrarily ignore their own employment contract. >But they aren't going to write your benefits in a binding contract, because that's just not standard practice Every professional job I can remember absolutely did come with written policies about things like vacation and PTO, and this stuff was written right into the offer letter. The offer letter is absolutely legally binding. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
        astura 8y ago
        Every job I've ever had the only thing I've ever signed was a letter saying my starting salary, I'm full time, and I'm at will, that's it. Nothing like "we agree on five weeks PTO a year accrued weekly and a 401(k) plan administrated by Vanguard with X,Y,Z investment options and a 6% match and a health insurance plan offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield with a $300/month premium" or whatever. Everything's really short and generic and leaves room for the company to come up with all the policies and dictate everything. I happen to have a job acceptance letter sitting on my desk right now. Reading through it, as far as benefits it says that the position is eligible for benefits, gives the benefits in very, very generic terms "PTO, retirement, health, dental" and they are "subject to terms conditions and limitations outlined in the plan documents and policies." Well "plan documents and policies" are under complete control of the employer, so the translation is "we decide the benefits and dictate them to you."
    - astura 8y ago
      If I was your employer and I wanted to do some mass layoffs without paying PTO or a severance and I was located in a jurisdiction where that was permitted, I'd just have HR change the severance policy a week before the layoffs assuming that the company has unilateral control over HR policies (which has been the norm in my experience). The vast majority of employers give themselves the ability to control benefits unilaterally. Even if that was a real "contractually promised benefit package," as in an actual contract was signed, unless you have a union, the contract is only good until the employer feels like it. If they want to change the benefits they'd just draft up another contract that doesn't have any severance and they'll make all employees sign it. Don't want to sign it? Then you're fired. Since you're fired you don't get severance, because severance is for employees who are laid off, not those who are fired for disagreeing with changes in company policies. In America absent a solid union contract (that's a REAL contract, not the form an employer gives you to sign) or laws specifying otherwise, benefits are at the sole discretion of the employer. Anyone whose been at a company more than a few years has seen significant changes to benefits packages. I worked at a company that, when I had been there for years, sent a short email saying "We will no longer be matching 401(k) contributions." That was it, thousands of dollars in salary cut just like that, with a few keystrokes and ZERO dialog. I also worked at a different company who was acquired by a major multinational corporation. The new corporation make us all sign a "no side projects" agreement. Some people grumbled a bit about this but one person said she wasn't willing to sign it, so the new corporate overlords fired her.
      - chimeracoder 8y ago
        > Even if that was a real "contractually promised benefit package," as in an actual contract was signed, unless you have a union, the contract is only good until the employer feels like it. If they want to change the benefits they'd just draft up another contract that doesn't have any severance and they'll make all employees sign it. Don't want to sign it? Then you're fired. Since you're fired you don't get severance, because severance is for employees who are laid off, not those who are fired for disagreeing with changes in company policies. This is not true. They are still required to honor the previous contract through its term. Forcing someone to sign a contract that essentially voids the previous one before its original term has expired, upon threat of termination, is literally a textbook case study in law school. > In America absent a solid union contract (that's a REAL contract, not the form an employer gives you to sign) or laws specifying otherwise, benefits are at the sole discretion of the employer. Anyone whose been at a company more than a few years has seen significant changes to benefits packages. I worked at a company that, when I had been there for years, sent a short email saying "We will no longer be matching 401(k) contributions." That was it, thousands of dollars in salary cut just like that, with a few keystrokes and ZERO dialog. I also worked at a different company who was acquired by a major multinational corporation. The new corporation make us all sign a "no side projects" agreement. Some people grumbled a bit about this but one person said she wasn't willing to sign it, so the new corporate overlords fired her. You're confusing two completely different things (contract vs. at will, and unionized vs. non-unionized) and ascribing power to unions that they don't have. A contract with a fixed term may prevent this situation, and that's something that can happen with or without a union. For entirely at-will employment, benefit changes can still happen with no notice (whether or not the labor force is unionized) and employees have the choice of continuing their employment or not. (The equivalent email to the one you received would read something like "The new contract agreed upon with the union no longer includes 401(k) contributions". At that point, employees still have two choices: accept the new terms or quit.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    The WARN act applies to most companies with 100+ employees and legally mandates 60 days notice.
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      I had an employer flout the WARN act. We all had 3 days notice. When I got another job about 2 weeks later, they wanted me to give them a written statement saying that I resigned. As politely as possible under the circumstances, I instead wrote a statement saying that the company laid me off on the day they stopped paying me, collected all my badges, and told me not to report for work unless someone called me to say where. I most emphatically did not resign, and if the company wanted to resume the working relationship that they unilaterally interrupted, all they had to do was start paying me again. The only reason I came in at all is so that they'd transfer my clearance to my new employer. If they wanted me to write some bullshit resignation letter, they had best be prepared to deal with the consequences of me not having been laid off, which is to say the salary I hadn't been paid while "benched". But with the small numbers involved, they only needed a handful of people to say they actually resigned, or that they got laid off at a different time, so it wasn't really worth fighting. And here I am, technically working for them again, after they got bought by a company with better cash flow. They certainly had an opportunity to read that letter in the old HR file before rehiring me. You can't count on the labor laws to protect you. Keep a 6-month savings buffer, update your resume every year, and try to make sure that it would hurt a little, but not too much, if you suddenly disappeared without wrapping up loose ends. The company should be able to survive if you got hit by a bus (or otherwise separated on zero notice), but it should also have to cry a little. And ask for more money than you think you're worth, to account for the chance that they'll screw you over without any warning.
CydeWeys 8y ago
Severance is the same for all laid-off employees. You wouldn't individually calculate it per employee like that. What they could do is have severance for all employees be N days, where N = 10 weeks - (avg # PTO days), and then also pay out PTO individually per employee. The company ends up paying out the same amount overall, but employees who had more PTO days stored up than average get paid out more and vice-versa for those with fewer. In that sense it is more fair, and this whole brouhaha started because the existing policy isn't perceived as being fair.
- nostrebored 8y ago
  How is it more fair that people who had days which they were not compensated for are paid the same amount as people who took days off which they were compensate for?
  - dpark 8y ago
    The parent comment specifically addressed that concern. Everyone gets the same severance (reduced by average accrued PTO) plus whatever their individual accrued PTO is. In this scheme no one gets uncompensated PTO.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    The comment I replied to suggested doing that. I corrected it and proposed the opposite in my comment. Hopefully it wasn't too unclear.
  - muro 8y ago
    That's Matthew 20:1-16. :) Edit: I assume of course that the proposed severance is at least as big as the PTO.
notjesse 8y ago
Almost all states are at-will. So severance isn’t required. But it’s usually for the employer’s peace of mind, it can prevent class-action lawsuits as well as former employees speaking negatively about them. Given they are a media company, a lot of the people laid off would be fairly good at getting lots of eyes on anything they say about Buzzfeed. It definitely makes sense for them to offer reasonable terms in the agreement to shut everyone up.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  If your employer is large, greater than 100 full time employees, you are probably protected by the WARN act which guarantees 60 days notice. BuzzFeed employees probably qualify.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Almost all states are at-will. So severance isn’t required. The former doesn't imply the latter; all (not almost all) US states have at-will employment, but that just means good cause is, by default (i.e., absent specific contract terms), not needed to sever an employment relationship; some states, and the federal government, nevertheless require notice or payment in lieu of notice and for some states additional post-layoff benefits (e.g., paying continued health benefits for a certain period) for certain large layoffs.
mywittyname 8y ago
Severance is intended to offset unemployment costs. Companies don't want to pay increased unemployment insurance premiums due to layoffs, so they give employees some token amount of cash that should cover them for just long enough to find another position.

kevindong 8y ago

I don't know about Buzzfeed in specific, but some established companies have a formally stated severance benefits (i.e. if you're laid off for non-performance reasons, you get x weeks of severance).

dudul 8y ago
That doesn't make it required by law though. I don't think "at will" employment comes with any legally enforced severance requirement.
- kevindong 8y ago
  At the company I was at, the severance benefit was a part of a contractually promised benefit package. I could definitely be wrong, but I do believe that if it's promised (even in a 'at will' employment), it can be enforced.
  - PascLeRasc 8y ago
    You're missing the point. Not all of us work at your company, and yours could discontinue that benefit anytime.
    - magduf 8y ago
      They could, but a lawsuit against them would be an easy slam-dunk. When a company signs an employment contract with you, they're bound by the terms of that contract, until both parties agree to amend it. They can't just discontinue some benefit at any time without subjecting themselves to a possible lawsuit.
      - astura 8y ago
        This isn't how it works in the United States. Assuming benefits are actually written in a contract (and they aren't, not that I've seen anyways), if you're "at will" then they can terminate you for not signing a new employment contract with the new benefits when they feel like changing the benefits. Therefore, in practice, they have complete unilateral control over benefits. But they aren't going to write your benefits in a binding contract, because that's just not standard practice and there's no upside for them to do so and just creates more paperwork. When unions are involved, however, there's real contracts. However, unions are very uncommon in the US.
        magduf 8y ago
        What are you talking about? Yes, in "at will" states (which is 49 of them), they can fire you if you refuse to accept the new contract. However, this does not mean they can just ignore the old one: they still have to follow its terms, and if that means paying out your PTO when they fire you, that's what they have to do, or else you have a slam-dunk case for unlawful dismissal. Of course, this means you're getting your PTO paid out while simultaneously being laid off, but I never said the situation was perfect, just that they can't arbitrarily ignore their own employment contract. >But they aren't going to write your benefits in a binding contract, because that's just not standard practice Every professional job I can remember absolutely did come with written policies about things like vacation and PTO, and this stuff was written right into the offer letter. The offer letter is absolutely legally binding. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
        astura 8y ago
        Every job I've ever had the only thing I've ever signed was a letter saying my starting salary, I'm full time, and I'm at will, that's it. Nothing like "we agree on five weeks PTO a year accrued weekly and a 401(k) plan administrated by Vanguard with X,Y,Z investment options and a 6% match and a health insurance plan offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield with a $300/month premium" or whatever. Everything's really short and generic and leaves room for the company to come up with all the policies and dictate everything. I happen to have a job acceptance letter sitting on my desk right now. Reading through it, as far as benefits it says that the position is eligible for benefits, gives the benefits in very, very generic terms "PTO, retirement, health, dental" and they are "subject to terms conditions and limitations outlined in the plan documents and policies." Well "plan documents and policies" are under complete control of the employer, so the translation is "we decide the benefits and dictate them to you."
  - astura 8y ago
    If I was your employer and I wanted to do some mass layoffs without paying PTO or a severance and I was located in a jurisdiction where that was permitted, I'd just have HR change the severance policy a week before the layoffs assuming that the company has unilateral control over HR policies (which has been the norm in my experience). The vast majority of employers give themselves the ability to control benefits unilaterally. Even if that was a real "contractually promised benefit package," as in an actual contract was signed, unless you have a union, the contract is only good until the employer feels like it. If they want to change the benefits they'd just draft up another contract that doesn't have any severance and they'll make all employees sign it. Don't want to sign it? Then you're fired. Since you're fired you don't get severance, because severance is for employees who are laid off, not those who are fired for disagreeing with changes in company policies. In America absent a solid union contract (that's a REAL contract, not the form an employer gives you to sign) or laws specifying otherwise, benefits are at the sole discretion of the employer. Anyone whose been at a company more than a few years has seen significant changes to benefits packages. I worked at a company that, when I had been there for years, sent a short email saying "We will no longer be matching 401(k) contributions." That was it, thousands of dollars in salary cut just like that, with a few keystrokes and ZERO dialog. I also worked at a different company who was acquired by a major multinational corporation. The new corporation make us all sign a "no side projects" agreement. Some people grumbled a bit about this but one person said she wasn't willing to sign it, so the new corporate overlords fired her.
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > Even if that was a real "contractually promised benefit package," as in an actual contract was signed, unless you have a union, the contract is only good until the employer feels like it. If they want to change the benefits they'd just draft up another contract that doesn't have any severance and they'll make all employees sign it. Don't want to sign it? Then you're fired. Since you're fired you don't get severance, because severance is for employees who are laid off, not those who are fired for disagreeing with changes in company policies. This is not true. They are still required to honor the previous contract through its term. Forcing someone to sign a contract that essentially voids the previous one before its original term has expired, upon threat of termination, is literally a textbook case study in law school. > In America absent a solid union contract (that's a REAL contract, not the form an employer gives you to sign) or laws specifying otherwise, benefits are at the sole discretion of the employer. Anyone whose been at a company more than a few years has seen significant changes to benefits packages. I worked at a company that, when I had been there for years, sent a short email saying "We will no longer be matching 401(k) contributions." That was it, thousands of dollars in salary cut just like that, with a few keystrokes and ZERO dialog. I also worked at a different company who was acquired by a major multinational corporation. The new corporation make us all sign a "no side projects" agreement. Some people grumbled a bit about this but one person said she wasn't willing to sign it, so the new corporate overlords fired her. You're confusing two completely different things (contract vs. at will, and unionized vs. non-unionized) and ascribing power to unions that they don't have. A contract with a fixed term may prevent this situation, and that's something that can happen with or without a union. For entirely at-will employment, benefit changes can still happen with no notice (whether or not the labor force is unionized) and employees have the choice of continuing their employment or not. (The equivalent email to the one you received would read something like "The new contract agreed upon with the union no longer includes 401(k) contributions". At that point, employees still have two choices: accept the new terms or quit.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  The WARN act applies to most companies with 100+ employees and legally mandates 60 days notice.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    I had an employer flout the WARN act. We all had 3 days notice. When I got another job about 2 weeks later, they wanted me to give them a written statement saying that I resigned. As politely as possible under the circumstances, I instead wrote a statement saying that the company laid me off on the day they stopped paying me, collected all my badges, and told me not to report for work unless someone called me to say where. I most emphatically did not resign, and if the company wanted to resume the working relationship that they unilaterally interrupted, all they had to do was start paying me again. The only reason I came in at all is so that they'd transfer my clearance to my new employer. If they wanted me to write some bullshit resignation letter, they had best be prepared to deal with the consequences of me not having been laid off, which is to say the salary I hadn't been paid while "benched". But with the small numbers involved, they only needed a handful of people to say they actually resigned, or that they got laid off at a different time, so it wasn't really worth fighting. And here I am, technically working for them again, after they got bought by a company with better cash flow. They certainly had an opportunity to read that letter in the old HR file before rehiring me. You can't count on the labor laws to protect you. Keep a 6-month savings buffer, update your resume every year, and try to make sure that it would hurt a little, but not too much, if you suddenly disappeared without wrapping up loose ends. The company should be able to survive if you got hit by a bus (or otherwise separated on zero notice), but it should also have to cry a little. And ask for more money than you think you're worth, to account for the chance that they'll screw you over without any warning.

CydeWeys 8y ago

Severance is the same for all laid-off employees. You wouldn't individually calculate it per employee like that. What they could do is have severance for all employees be N days, where N = 10 weeks - (avg # PTO days), and then also pay out PTO individually per employee. The company ends up paying out the same amount overall, but employees who had more PTO days stored up than average get paid out more and vice-versa for those with fewer. In that sense it is more fair, and this whole brouhaha started because the existing policy isn't perceived as being fair.

nostrebored 8y ago
How is it more fair that people who had days which they were not compensated for are paid the same amount as people who took days off which they were compensate for?
- dpark 8y ago
  The parent comment specifically addressed that concern. Everyone gets the same severance (reduced by average accrued PTO) plus whatever their individual accrued PTO is. In this scheme no one gets uncompensated PTO.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  The comment I replied to suggested doing that. I corrected it and proposed the opposite in my comment. Hopefully it wasn't too unclear.
- muro 8y ago
  That's Matthew 20:1-16. :) Edit: I assume of course that the proposed severance is at least as big as the PTO.

notjesse 8y ago

Almost all states are at-will. So severance isn’t required. But it’s usually for the employer’s peace of mind, it can prevent class-action lawsuits as well as former employees speaking negatively about them. Given they are a media company, a lot of the people laid off would be fairly good at getting lots of eyes on anything they say about Buzzfeed. It definitely makes sense for them to offer reasonable terms in the agreement to shut everyone up.

Consultant32452 8y ago
If your employer is large, greater than 100 full time employees, you are probably protected by the WARN act which guarantees 60 days notice. BuzzFeed employees probably qualify.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Almost all states are at-will. So severance isn’t required. The former doesn't imply the latter; all (not almost all) US states have at-will employment, but that just means good cause is, by default (i.e., absent specific contract terms), not needed to sever an employment relationship; some states, and the federal government, nevertheless require notice or payment in lieu of notice and for some states additional post-layoff benefits (e.g., paying continued health benefits for a certain period) for certain large layoffs.

mywittyname 8y ago

Severance is intended to offset unemployment costs. Companies don't want to pay increased unemployment insurance premiums due to layoffs, so they give employees some token amount of cash that should cover them for just long enough to find another position.