5 ms·
And here come the lawsuits... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-04/twitter-sued-for-mass-layoffs-by-musk-without-enough-notice https://www.bloombe
by jfk13 4y ago
And here come the lawsuits... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-04/twitter-sued-for-mass-layoffs-by-musk-without-enough-notice https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-04/twitter-s...
- randyrand 4y agogood luck.... Twitter is at-will. Companies usually fire people on Friday, and show you the door the same moment.
- teraflop 4y agoAs the first paragraph of that article points out, advance notice is required by federal law, if the company is sufficiently large and if sufficiently many people are being laid off at the same time. At-will employment is not relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...
- randyrand 4y agoI don't see how you could give legitimate advance notice before you are in control of the company.
- swores 4y agoBy paying them for the 60 days notice period from the day you notify them, that's how.
- jfk13 4y agoThat probably works in the US but in some jurisdictions (e.g. parts of Europe) -- where I presume Twitter has [or had!] employees -- there are requirements for an actual consultation process before substantial layoffs.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- alkonaut 4y agoYou can give them notice when the decision is yours to make. And the then the termination can be legal at X days beyond that, if the legal requirement is X days notice. I don't see how "I Just bought it" matters?
- raverbashing 4y agoI don't see how you decide how and who to fire before you are in control of the company, but that's just me
- hcurtiss 4y agoYeah, the Warn Act doesn’t require you let them work for 60 days. If it’s triggered, it just means you have to pay them for 60 days. It is very common to not let them work, particularly when concerned about sabotage.
- teraflop 4y agoSure. I haven't seen the actual legal complaint, so I don't know if it's just a publicity stunt, or if they actually have evidence that Musk is planning to not pay out the extra wages that he's (presumably) required to.
- Wowfunhappy 4y agoThe NY Times makes it sound like there might be a legal case for a different reason: > While federal and California laws require companies to provide advance notice of mass layoffs, it was not clear whether Mr. Musk had done so. A spokesman for California’s Employment Development Department said on Thursday evening that it had received no such notices from Twitter, which is based in San Francisco and is expected to report mass layoffs to the agency. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/technology/twitter-layoffs-elon-musk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/technology/twitter-layoff...
- choult 4y agoThey're suing under Californian law, which requires 60 days' notice for mass layoffs AFAIK.
- hcurtiss 4y agoI just don’t understand that. It is very common to give the layoff notice on the date of termination and to then pay them for 60 days. That complies with the Warn Act. I’m not a California lawyer, it that must be true there too. There’s no way they’d make you bring in hostile workers.
- jayess 4y agoJust reason number 4893 that my company will never hire anyone residing in CA.