28 ms·

Evidently Musk had Tweeps work all weekend on the new Verified feature lest they get fired, and some were fired "for cause" anyway. https://twitter.com/GergelyO

by swozey 4y ago

Evidently Musk had Tweeps work all weekend on the new Verified feature lest they get fired, and some were fired "for cause" anyway. https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1587029446061686784 https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1587029446061686784

yboris 4y ago
How is it legal to demand people work on weekends? How is it legal to (even threaten) firing if a new assigned task that takes a long time is not done on time?
- tyingq 4y ago
  US "at will" employment laws.
- myspy 4y ago
  Musk is a narcistic asshole, he commands at will and sadly a large group of people stay behind him and defend every step.
- jdm2212 4y ago
  For salaried, at-will employment, the employer can demand whatever they want and fire you for whatever reason they want. There are exceptions for, like, sexual harassment and racial discrimination, but not for "I disagree with the boss about what is a realistic project timeline".
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    The nice thing is that this goes both ways. If you are an at-will employee you can send an email that says "I resign effective immediately" and walk away and never speak to anyone at that company ever again.
    - robin_reala 4y ago
      Who’s hurt more: the company whose employee leaves on the spot, or the employee whose company fires them on the spot? At-will is asymmetric.
      - gitfan86 4y ago
        It is the definition of symmetrical. Both parties can cut ties at any time without any warning. In general employers are able to benefit from this symmetrical relationship more often though since they are only losing a small percentage of their workers while the employee is losing 100% of the income they were getting from that employeer.
        Volundr 4y ago
        Symmetry can exist on one axis but not another. Sure it's symmetrical on the "actions an entity can take axis", but when people refer to the employee/employer relationship being asymmetrical they are discussing the risk or impact axis.
        SantalBlush 4y ago
        >It is the definition of symmetrical. GP was clearly talking about the assymetry of consequences, not the action itself. You intentionally misinterpreted them.
      - TeMPOraL 4y ago
        Depends on the role, the company, and the timing. A single worker in an important position leaving on the spot, dropping some critical work half-way done and taking all the context and specific knowledge with them, could easily torpedo a million dollar deal. Or, a single employee leaving could trigger a cascade, and soon you're short a whole project team. In general, I'd say at-will still favors employers, who are in a better position to structurally mitigate the threat of a critical employee leaving, even though they often don't do so.
        Volundr 4y ago
        I'll note that a company that depends on a single employee like this has failed to plan and is already in trouble. No matter how well you treat them, your critical employees will leave. You might be able to pay them well enough to limit the risk on them taking another job (though few employers do) but even with that sooner or later they'll win the lottery, get hit by a bus, or just retire. A business can and must hedge against critical employees leaving. It's much harder as an employee to hedge against your employer giving you the boot.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      This causes minimal hard to a business and zero harm to Musk's ability to afford yachts. But a very large number of employees have jobs because they need to pay rent and buy food. Losing that job is a significant change to their lives. Software engineers are more likely to have large savings that make it easier for them to say "fuck you" to their boss and leave but in general this system of at will employment is not actually balanced.
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    Correct. In the US, all working people serve and exist under authoritarian regimes as a matter of life or death.
  - xnorswap 4y ago
    > the employer can demand whatever they want and fire you for whatever reason they want In the US. I'm glad I work in a country where workers actually have rights.
    - drstewart 4y ago
      Good for you.
      - lucozade 4y ago
        Well yes. Yes it is.
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
      You probably don't work in a country with a 3.5% unemployment rate.
      - xnorswap 4y ago
        Actually I do, precisely 3.5% in fact: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotin...
      - nebula8804 4y ago
        That unemployment rate is nonsense. If you want a job that does not pay you enough to even afford a studio apartment in many locales then yes there are multiple jobs ready to take you. Hell they'll even provide you some free (candy\pens\fast food\a pat on the back) to further tempt the deal. For everyone else that unemployment rate is a mirage.
        LightG 4y ago
        Are you telling me there are no housing affordability problems in the US? Fascinating.
    - jdm2212 4y ago
  - grumple 4y ago
    This is not true. I don't know who told you this. All of these relationships are two way. If they make a demand to change the expectations of working hours and work time, you say no, I won't do that. They can fire you if they don't like the relationship, but even in the US you're likely to win at least unemployment benefits.
  - monksy 4y ago
    That is not true in the least. Keeping corps honest about that requires legal action. https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/electronic-arts-faces-overtime-lawsuit/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/electronic-arts-faces-overt... There are legal, labor, consequences for cultures that expect more than 40 hours on average.
- itg 4y ago
  I had a manager like this once. They won’t explicitly ask you to work on the weekends, but the deadline in combination with the workload made it obvious you would be working on the weekend and late nights. So glad I left that toxic place.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  They are all exempt employees so they aren't covered by a lot of labor law, such as getting paid "overtime", etc. This is how professional, salaried employment works. Exempt employees tend to be paid very well and have great benefits though. You can fire an employee for no reason at all since employment is "at will". Musk probably assumes a good deal of the workforce is lazy and/or incompetent and he doesn't want to pay them. So he's figuring out who to fire.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway1851 4y ago
    If the terminations are happening for the purpose of depriving employees of stock-related compensation they are about to earn, that may be an illegal reason. For example, you cannot let a salesperson snag a huge deal and then fire him or her to avoid paying the commission - it’s not an “at will” issue.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      RSUs only vest if you are an employee the day they vest. If a salesperson wins a deal and you fire them before paying their commission that’s different since they closed the deal first. It’s very common for companies to let individuals go before bonuses vest.
      - throwaway1851 4y ago
        I would certainly recommend any employee in this situation to get legal counsel. Terminating an employee for the purpose of preventing them from satisfying conditions precedent to a payment is a bad-faith move that some courts will set aside.
        nemo44x 4y ago
        Sure but good luck proving that.
- atkailash 4y ago
- m00x 4y ago
  It's always been legal to ask tech workers to work unpaid OT. Only places like FAANG, and a few others, pay extra for on-call. Usually your contracts doesn't specify time worked per week, only that you finish your work.
  - weeznerps 4y ago
    Of FAANG I think only Google does that.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I the US your manager can demand the moon be sitting on his desk by Monday morning, or you are fired. I think this is a reality check and a power play by Musk to remind employees of the fact.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    I mean that would be begging for the "pantsless on the desk" method of quitting, but I get the point.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  There's no legal framework for weekends. They were originally created due to massive labor advocacy and strikes. I imagine since such advocacy has been undermined for decades it makes sense the victories the advocacy fought for are also being clawed back.
- sneak 4y ago
  In the US, there is a fair amount of respect (in business at least) for the idea of “consent to continue the interaction can be revoked with or without cause at any time”. I personally can’t see a good reason why it should be illegal outside the rare edge case where there is only a single employer in a geographical region, and even that unfortunate situation should probably be remediated with a different type of government intervention. Employers should be able to be unreasonable and shoot their business in the foot, no?
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > Employers should be able to be unreasonable and shoot their business in the foot, no? No. Not when they hold an employees ability to meet basic human needs and their access to Healthcare over their employee's heads. At-will employment is ideologically built on the equal splitting of the power between an employer and employee. The reality is as far from equal as can be.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I see a ton of signs saying help wanted in frot of businesses.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        Anecdotally, any business with a sign in their front window is not a business which can replace a full time job, let alone employment by Twitter.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        There are full time jobs, but I agree that they likely won't match a Twitter salary.
        bombcar 4y ago
        I've seen signs for commercial truck drivers around town in front windows, starting $80k and "local deliveries only". For certain types of jobs it's still the most effective method out there.
- sp332 4y ago
  Even if the firing is legal - and California does have restrictions when a company fires a large number of people at once - arguing that it's "for cause" to withhold severance packages is going to be a lot more difficult.
  - User23 4y ago
    For the rank and file layoffs yes, you need to have a notice period and those people will probably get severance at least equal to that much pay. But C suite executives are another matter. It’s very likely that Elon Musk received access to information after taking control that supports a for cause dismissal.
- kbelder 4y ago
  That these questions are being asked makes me think software engineers are very detached from the other 95% of humanity.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    5% seemed high by a lot. It's high, but not by as much as I'd have guessed. It seems about 2.5% of the US workforce is in software development.
  - malermeister 4y ago
    These things would be illegal in the EU, which alone is ~10% of humanity. Don't frame not wanting to take abuse as being entitled.
- LightG 4y ago
  Murica!!!
rjzzleep 4y ago
I'm all for the European don't work unpaid overtime, but what I don't get is the sense of entitlement these people had, when they were threatening to leave in advance and then decided they'd rather just stay in their cushy jobs in the hopes that Musk would change his mind. "WE WILL SHOW YOU ELON" - Show what exactly? That billing and other completely standard cookiecutter SaaS features can't be implemented by other engineers for what is ultimately a near real-time messaging platform with marketing hooks. Everything in this story is a complete mess. The acquirer, his attitude towards workers, the entitlement and complete delusion of the workers and even more than that the misleading of the public AND the workers of the previous arguably failed management, along with their belief that they are the ultimate gatekeepers of truth in this world. I'm not sure what deeper societal lesson this whole thing entails, but it definitely in part shows two societies, both of which are completely detached from the normal hardships an average human on this planet has to go through.
- luckylion 4y ago
  > The acquirer, his attitude towards workers "Workers" is strange to me when talking about people who make 5-10x the national average (i.e. make more than many average executives in other industries). They're employees, but "workers" implies blue collar in my opinion. I'm fine with including staff in retail, restaurants etc, but someone making $500k+ a year doesn't fit into that category.
  - fknorangesite 4y ago
    > They're employees, but "workers" implies blue collar in my opinion. You are (understandably) conflating "worker" with "working class", but these are different contexts. A worker is anyone who must, well, work for a living as opposed to their income coming from property/capital.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Wouldn't you differentiate between workers and executives? Is the CEO a worker if he doesn't own the company? Tying it to the salary makes sense to me. If you get paid minimum wage, asking you to work overtime without additional pay is unjust. You get paid a minimum wage worker's life-time-earnings per year? It's perfectly fine to ask you to come in this weekend for an urgent project.
dave78 4y ago
Most of the national/international media has been scrutinizing Twitter all weekend, specifically looking for signs of layoffs. It seems odd that this person would have scooped them all on that? Not saying it's impossible or anything, but it does make me a little suspicious.
- swozey 4y ago
  Not that I'd say use them as the only source but they've been a source for other layoffs for a long time and he's usually correct if not always. He's the author of a few Engineering books (The Pragmatic Engineer, etc.) so he gets a lot of inside information from current and past SWEs.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Yesterday it was "lay of 25% of workforce today to avoid paying some bonus thingie that kicks in Nov 1". Well, there's still couple of hours in which this may become true, but I don't expect it, and meanwhile I see the bonus angle has been silently dropped.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
It's not a good idea to conflate layoffs of the rank-and-file with the 3 execs that were fired "for cause". At the exec level, it's a whole different ballgame. All of these execs are multi, multi millionaires. I'd honestly be pretty shocked if they don't sue, and at least from what I know now I'd be shocked if they don't win. In exec contracts with golden parachutes, "for cause" clauses are almost always very specific and normally entail breaking the law or company policy. That is, unless these execs were sexually harassing people or stealing money, "We think you did a bad job" won't cross the "for cause" threshold.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  I would fire the key execs also, if it appears they conspired to hide evidence from the court, frustrate discovery, and used fraudulent metrics. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586885887341645824 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586885887341645824 I have a hard time believing there was not complicity between the 3 key execs, and Yoel Roth, according to that image.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Lol, so Musk tweets out one semi-vague private message (one that includes the word "lol"). I wouldn't take that as evidence of shit until it is discussed in court.
nvarsj 4y ago
Not sure I trust this source. He seems to relay rumours based on second hand sources. At least from Blind, it seems like all reports of employees being fired so far is fake. Not even sure the weekend work story is true.

by swozey 4y ago

yboris 4y ago

How is it legal to demand people work on weekends? How is it legal to (even threaten) firing if a new assigned task that takes a long time is not done on time?

tyingq 4y ago
US "at will" employment laws.
myspy 4y ago
Musk is a narcistic asshole, he commands at will and sadly a large group of people stay behind him and defend every step.
jdm2212 4y ago
For salaried, at-will employment, the employer can demand whatever they want and fire you for whatever reason they want. There are exceptions for, like, sexual harassment and racial discrimination, but not for "I disagree with the boss about what is a realistic project timeline".
- gitfan86 4y ago
  The nice thing is that this goes both ways. If you are an at-will employee you can send an email that says "I resign effective immediately" and walk away and never speak to anyone at that company ever again.
  - robin_reala 4y ago
    Who’s hurt more: the company whose employee leaves on the spot, or the employee whose company fires them on the spot? At-will is asymmetric.
    - gitfan86 4y ago
      It is the definition of symmetrical. Both parties can cut ties at any time without any warning. In general employers are able to benefit from this symmetrical relationship more often though since they are only losing a small percentage of their workers while the employee is losing 100% of the income they were getting from that employeer.
      - Volundr 4y ago
        Symmetry can exist on one axis but not another. Sure it's symmetrical on the "actions an entity can take axis", but when people refer to the employee/employer relationship being asymmetrical they are discussing the risk or impact axis.
      - SantalBlush 4y ago
        >It is the definition of symmetrical. GP was clearly talking about the assymetry of consequences, not the action itself. You intentionally misinterpreted them.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      Depends on the role, the company, and the timing. A single worker in an important position leaving on the spot, dropping some critical work half-way done and taking all the context and specific knowledge with them, could easily torpedo a million dollar deal. Or, a single employee leaving could trigger a cascade, and soon you're short a whole project team. In general, I'd say at-will still favors employers, who are in a better position to structurally mitigate the threat of a critical employee leaving, even though they often don't do so.
      - Volundr 4y ago
        I'll note that a company that depends on a single employee like this has failed to plan and is already in trouble. No matter how well you treat them, your critical employees will leave. You might be able to pay them well enough to limit the risk on them taking another job (though few employers do) but even with that sooner or later they'll win the lottery, get hit by a bus, or just retire. A business can and must hedge against critical employees leaving. It's much harder as an employee to hedge against your employer giving you the boot.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    This causes minimal hard to a business and zero harm to Musk's ability to afford yachts. But a very large number of employees have jobs because they need to pay rent and buy food. Losing that job is a significant change to their lives. Software engineers are more likely to have large savings that make it easier for them to say "fuck you" to their boss and leave but in general this system of at will employment is not actually balanced.
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  Correct. In the US, all working people serve and exist under authoritarian regimes as a matter of life or death.
- xnorswap 4y ago
  > the employer can demand whatever they want and fire you for whatever reason they want In the US. I'm glad I work in a country where workers actually have rights.
  - drstewart 4y ago
    Good for you.
    - lucozade 4y ago
      Well yes. Yes it is.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    You probably don't work in a country with a 3.5% unemployment rate.
    - xnorswap 4y ago
      Actually I do, precisely 3.5% in fact: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotin...
    - nebula8804 4y ago
      That unemployment rate is nonsense. If you want a job that does not pay you enough to even afford a studio apartment in many locales then yes there are multiple jobs ready to take you. Hell they'll even provide you some free (candy\pens\fast food\a pat on the back) to further tempt the deal. For everyone else that unemployment rate is a mirage.
      - LightG 4y ago
        Are you telling me there are no housing affordability problems in the US? Fascinating.
  - jdm2212 4y ago
- grumple 4y ago
  This is not true. I don't know who told you this. All of these relationships are two way. If they make a demand to change the expectations of working hours and work time, you say no, I won't do that. They can fire you if they don't like the relationship, but even in the US you're likely to win at least unemployment benefits.
- monksy 4y ago
  That is not true in the least. Keeping corps honest about that requires legal action. https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/electronic-arts-faces-overtime-lawsuit/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/electronic-arts-faces-overt... There are legal, labor, consequences for cultures that expect more than 40 hours on average.
itg 4y ago
I had a manager like this once. They won’t explicitly ask you to work on the weekends, but the deadline in combination with the workload made it obvious you would be working on the weekend and late nights. So glad I left that toxic place.
nemo44x 4y ago
They are all exempt employees so they aren't covered by a lot of labor law, such as getting paid "overtime", etc. This is how professional, salaried employment works. Exempt employees tend to be paid very well and have great benefits though. You can fire an employee for no reason at all since employment is "at will". Musk probably assumes a good deal of the workforce is lazy and/or incompetent and he doesn't want to pay them. So he's figuring out who to fire.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway1851 4y ago
  If the terminations are happening for the purpose of depriving employees of stock-related compensation they are about to earn, that may be an illegal reason. For example, you cannot let a salesperson snag a huge deal and then fire him or her to avoid paying the commission - it’s not an “at will” issue.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    RSUs only vest if you are an employee the day they vest. If a salesperson wins a deal and you fire them before paying their commission that’s different since they closed the deal first. It’s very common for companies to let individuals go before bonuses vest.
    - throwaway1851 4y ago
      I would certainly recommend any employee in this situation to get legal counsel. Terminating an employee for the purpose of preventing them from satisfying conditions precedent to a payment is a bad-faith move that some courts will set aside.
      - nemo44x 4y ago
        Sure but good luck proving that.
atkailash 4y ago
m00x 4y ago
It's always been legal to ask tech workers to work unpaid OT. Only places like FAANG, and a few others, pay extra for on-call. Usually your contracts doesn't specify time worked per week, only that you finish your work.
- weeznerps 4y ago
  Of FAANG I think only Google does that.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
I the US your manager can demand the moon be sitting on his desk by Monday morning, or you are fired. I think this is a reality check and a power play by Musk to remind employees of the fact.
- bombcar 4y ago
  I mean that would be begging for the "pantsless on the desk" method of quitting, but I get the point.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
There's no legal framework for weekends. They were originally created due to massive labor advocacy and strikes. I imagine since such advocacy has been undermined for decades it makes sense the victories the advocacy fought for are also being clawed back.
sneak 4y ago
In the US, there is a fair amount of respect (in business at least) for the idea of “consent to continue the interaction can be revoked with or without cause at any time”. I personally can’t see a good reason why it should be illegal outside the rare edge case where there is only a single employer in a geographical region, and even that unfortunate situation should probably be remediated with a different type of government intervention. Employers should be able to be unreasonable and shoot their business in the foot, no?
- falcolas 4y ago
  > Employers should be able to be unreasonable and shoot their business in the foot, no? No. Not when they hold an employees ability to meet basic human needs and their access to Healthcare over their employee's heads. At-will employment is ideologically built on the equal splitting of the power between an employer and employee. The reality is as far from equal as can be.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I see a ton of signs saying help wanted in frot of businesses.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Anecdotally, any business with a sign in their front window is not a business which can replace a full time job, let alone employment by Twitter.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        There are full time jobs, but I agree that they likely won't match a Twitter salary.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        I've seen signs for commercial truck drivers around town in front windows, starting $80k and "local deliveries only". For certain types of jobs it's still the most effective method out there.
sp332 4y ago
Even if the firing is legal - and California does have restrictions when a company fires a large number of people at once - arguing that it's "for cause" to withhold severance packages is going to be a lot more difficult.
- User23 4y ago
  For the rank and file layoffs yes, you need to have a notice period and those people will probably get severance at least equal to that much pay. But C suite executives are another matter. It’s very likely that Elon Musk received access to information after taking control that supports a for cause dismissal.
kbelder 4y ago
That these questions are being asked makes me think software engineers are very detached from the other 95% of humanity.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  5% seemed high by a lot. It's high, but not by as much as I'd have guessed. It seems about 2.5% of the US workforce is in software development.
- malermeister 4y ago
  These things would be illegal in the EU, which alone is ~10% of humanity. Don't frame not wanting to take abuse as being entitled.
LightG 4y ago
Murica!!!

rjzzleep 4y ago

I'm all for the European don't work unpaid overtime, but what I don't get is the sense of entitlement these people had, when they were threatening to leave in advance and then decided they'd rather just stay in their cushy jobs in the hopes that Musk would change his mind. "WE WILL SHOW YOU ELON" - Show what exactly? That billing and other completely standard cookiecutter SaaS features can't be implemented by other engineers for what is ultimately a near real-time messaging platform with marketing hooks. Everything in this story is a complete mess. The acquirer, his attitude towards workers, the entitlement and complete delusion of the workers and even more than that the misleading of the public AND the workers of the previous arguably failed management, along with their belief that they are the ultimate gatekeepers of truth in this world. I'm not sure what deeper societal lesson this whole thing entails, but it definitely in part shows two societies, both of which are completely detached from the normal hardships an average human on this planet has to go through.

luckylion 4y ago
> The acquirer, his attitude towards workers "Workers" is strange to me when talking about people who make 5-10x the national average (i.e. make more than many average executives in other industries). They're employees, but "workers" implies blue collar in my opinion. I'm fine with including staff in retail, restaurants etc, but someone making $500k+ a year doesn't fit into that category.
- fknorangesite 4y ago
  > They're employees, but "workers" implies blue collar in my opinion. You are (understandably) conflating "worker" with "working class", but these are different contexts. A worker is anyone who must, well, work for a living as opposed to their income coming from property/capital.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Wouldn't you differentiate between workers and executives? Is the CEO a worker if he doesn't own the company? Tying it to the salary makes sense to me. If you get paid minimum wage, asking you to work overtime without additional pay is unjust. You get paid a minimum wage worker's life-time-earnings per year? It's perfectly fine to ask you to come in this weekend for an urgent project.

dave78 4y ago

Most of the national/international media has been scrutinizing Twitter all weekend, specifically looking for signs of layoffs. It seems odd that this person would have scooped them all on that? Not saying it's impossible or anything, but it does make me a little suspicious.

swozey 4y ago
Not that I'd say use them as the only source but they've been a source for other layoffs for a long time and he's usually correct if not always. He's the author of a few Engineering books (The Pragmatic Engineer, etc.) so he gets a lot of inside information from current and past SWEs.
TeMPOraL 4y ago
Yesterday it was "lay of 25% of workforce today to avoid paying some bonus thingie that kicks in Nov 1". Well, there's still couple of hours in which this may become true, but I don't expect it, and meanwhile I see the bonus angle has been silently dropped.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

It's not a good idea to conflate layoffs of the rank-and-file with the 3 execs that were fired "for cause". At the exec level, it's a whole different ballgame. All of these execs are multi, multi millionaires. I'd honestly be pretty shocked if they don't sue, and at least from what I know now I'd be shocked if they don't win. In exec contracts with golden parachutes, "for cause" clauses are almost always very specific and normally entail breaking the law or company policy. That is, unless these execs were sexually harassing people or stealing money, "We think you did a bad job" won't cross the "for cause" threshold.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
I would fire the key execs also, if it appears they conspired to hide evidence from the court, frustrate discovery, and used fraudulent metrics. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586885887341645824 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586885887341645824 I have a hard time believing there was not complicity between the 3 key execs, and Yoel Roth, according to that image.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Lol, so Musk tweets out one semi-vague private message (one that includes the word "lol"). I wouldn't take that as evidence of shit until it is discussed in court.

nvarsj 4y ago

Not sure I trust this source. He seems to relay rumours based on second hand sources. At least from Blind, it seems like all reports of employees being fired so far is fake. Not even sure the weekend work story is true.