3 ms·

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'

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."
      - kaitai 8y ago
        You have very unusual experiences. Employment contracts are very rare in the US. Offer letters are not contracts. Under certain situations they may be construed as contracts, but most companies go to great lengths to avoid this situation. See https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/offer-letters.html https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/offer-letters.... for some guidance on how to avoid writing an offer letter that could be construed as a contract.
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.

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."
    - kaitai 8y ago
      You have very unusual experiences. Employment contracts are very rare in the US. Offer letters are not contracts. Under certain situations they may be construed as contracts, but most companies go to great lengths to avoid this situation. See https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/offer-letters.html https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/offer-letters.... for some guidance on how to avoid writing an offer letter that could be construed as a contract.

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.