8 ms·
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?
by 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 agoUS "at will" employment laws.
- myspy 4y agoMusk is a narcistic asshole, he commands at will and sadly a large group of people stay behind him and defend every step.
- jdm2212 4y agoFor 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 agoThe 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 agoWho’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 agoIt 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 agoSymmetry 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 agoDepends 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 agoI'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.
- josho 4y agoAs an example to further illustrate your point, it is possible for a business to purchase key employee insurance. As an employee we do not have the same privilege.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoIt's just a nitpick and it doesn't impact GP's point all that much, but: surely employees in the US have some sort of job loss insurance - if not standalone, then attached to a mortgage or life insurance?
- bombcar 4y agoIt's usually unemployment insurance and it's provided by the state (literally, it'll be the state the employee resides in - here's California's: https://edd.ca.gov https://edd.ca.gov ). There ARE "insurance" products that will "defer your credit/mortgage payments in case of a job loss" - they are almost all universally some form of scam (or at least a very bad "insurance").
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- prepend 4y agoI’ve worked in many positions where I had unique knowledge. If the company fired me without notice, I’d have a new job within a few days. If I quit without notice, high revenue systems could fail or not launch. I kind of like software because of this. An individual has great value. Of course, I wouldn’t want to work for a company that fires people Willy nilly. But for software at-will can definitely be asymmetric benefiting the employee. Software developers aren’t replaceable cogs.
- UncleMeat 4y agoThis 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 agoCorrect. 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 agoGood for you.
- lucozade 4y agoWell yes. Yes it is.
- bpodgursky 4y agoYou probably don't work in a country with a 3.5% unemployment rate.
- xnorswap 4y agoActually I do, precisely 3.5% in fact: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotin...
- nebula8804 4y agoThat 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 agoAre you telling me there are no housing affordability problems in the US? Fascinating.
- jdm2212 4y ago
- grumple 4y agoThis 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 agoThat 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 agoI 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 agoThey 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 agoIf 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 agoRSUs 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 agoI 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 agoSure but good luck proving that.
- atkailash 4y ago
- m00x 4y agoIt'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 agoOf FAANG I think only Google does that.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI 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 agoI mean that would be begging for the "pantsless on the desk" method of quitting, but I get the point.
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoThere'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 agoIn 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 agoI see a ton of signs saying help wanted in frot of businesses.
- falcolas 4y agoAnecdotally, 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 agoThere are full time jobs, but I agree that they likely won't match a Twitter salary.
- bombcar 4y agoI'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 agoEven 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 agoFor 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 agoThat these questions are being asked makes me think software engineers are very detached from the other 95% of humanity.
- sokoloff 4y ago5% 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 agoThese 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 agoMurica!!!