4 ms·
As 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 peop
by teraflop 4y ago
As 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.