7 ms·

This post should be flagged off HN. Everything in the tweet is factually incorrect. - Companies aren't required to pay severance when doing layoffs. - There

by harryh 4y ago

This post should be flagged off HN. Everything in the tweet is factually incorrect. - Companies aren't required to pay severance when doing layoffs. - There is no evidence that Stripe isn't paying severance when firing for performance (I'd be shocked if they aren't) - Employees fired for performance are absolutely eligible for state unemployment benefits.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
your comment ought to be flagged off hn as factually incorrect - they are required in canada, where stripe also operates an office
- harryh 4y ago
  Fair point about Canadian law being different than US law. For the < 5% of Stripe employees there, that does appear to be true. Though I would again point to my 2nd bullet point: - There is no evidence that Stripe isn't paying severance when firing for performance (I'd be shocked if they aren't)
- Kranar 4y ago
  Stripe operates a single office in Toronto, Canada. No one would be qualified for severance since severance is only eligible after 5 years of employment and Stripe's office has only been open for 2 years.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    stripe has acquihired in canada
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
likpok 4y ago
> - Companies aren't required to pay severance when doing layoffs. The WARN act requires advance notice of 60 days. I think most companies prefer to pay severance, but it's pretty much equivalent. California has more strict rules (mostly excluding a bunch of excuses to skip complying). So yes, Stripe would technically not be required to give severance in the case of a layoff. But they'd be required to keep the people employed for 60 days after telling them they're going to be laid off. I'm not sure there's much of a distinction?
- harryh 4y ago
  The WARN act only applies for "mass layoff affecting 50 or more employees at a single site of employment." I'm honestly not sure how this would apply for a remote workforce. Consult your friendly HR or legal team counterpart. :)
  - likpok 4y ago
    I'd be surprised if they did a meaningful staff reduction without hitting 50 employees at their main office in south SF. A 5% reduction (alleged in the tweet) is something like 400 people for Stripe. Furthermore, the DOL has already described what this means for employees without a clear single site: > a home base from which work is assigned > a home base to which workers report Which arguably will make it worse for a remote team, because all the remote workers may count towards the main hub. This is all vague though, I think there are colorable arguments either way.
dirtyfrenchman 4y ago
As a manager who was forced to participate in this, it is all factually correct.

by harryh 4y ago

wahnfrieden 4y ago

your comment ought to be flagged off hn as factually incorrect - they are required in canada, where stripe also operates an office

harryh 4y ago
Fair point about Canadian law being different than US law. For the < 5% of Stripe employees there, that does appear to be true. Though I would again point to my 2nd bullet point: - There is no evidence that Stripe isn't paying severance when firing for performance (I'd be shocked if they aren't)
Kranar 4y ago
Stripe operates a single office in Toronto, Canada. No one would be qualified for severance since severance is only eligible after 5 years of employment and Stripe's office has only been open for 2 years.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  stripe has acquihired in canada
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

likpok 4y ago

> - Companies aren't required to pay severance when doing layoffs. The WARN act requires advance notice of 60 days. I think most companies prefer to pay severance, but it's pretty much equivalent. California has more strict rules (mostly excluding a bunch of excuses to skip complying). So yes, Stripe would technically not be required to give severance in the case of a layoff. But they'd be required to keep the people employed for 60 days after telling them they're going to be laid off. I'm not sure there's much of a distinction?

harryh 4y ago
The WARN act only applies for "mass layoff affecting 50 or more employees at a single site of employment." I'm honestly not sure how this would apply for a remote workforce. Consult your friendly HR or legal team counterpart. :)
- likpok 4y ago
  I'd be surprised if they did a meaningful staff reduction without hitting 50 employees at their main office in south SF. A 5% reduction (alleged in the tweet) is something like 400 people for Stripe. Furthermore, the DOL has already described what this means for employees without a clear single site: > a home base from which work is assigned > a home base to which workers report Which arguably will make it worse for a remote team, because all the remote workers may count towards the main hub. This is all vague though, I think there are colorable arguments either way.

dirtyfrenchman 4y ago

As a manager who was forced to participate in this, it is all factually correct.