11 ms·

Nope, that is not the law. I’ve seen more than a few of these things and had a partner in HR. You’re confused. Employees can be terminated with 0 notice. (Whi

Nope, that is not the law. I’ve seen more than a few of these things and had a partner in HR. You’re confused. Employees can be terminated with 0 notice. (Which is how it should be). You’re probably thinking about some payroll law. Termination is different.

notacoward 4y ago
You can be terminated for cause without notice. Layoffs are different, and different again in each jurisdiction. Both the federal government and California, where Twitter is headquartered, have specific laws for this exact situation, and Musk et al are in clear violation of those laws plus the agreement under which he acquired the company. Either your partner in HR (notably not legal) is misinformed, or you misunderstood what they told you. Regardless, you're the one who's confused - and that's trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.
- i_like_apis 4y ago
  Nope. Not in California. Employment contracts with a CA entity are “at will” / can be terminated with no cause and no notice. Which is how it should be IMO. Anyway just google “ca at will employment” and you can learn about how you are wrong here. Here’s an article that explains it in paragraph 2 https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employment-at-will-in-california.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/... I have been close to the counsel and HR during execution of several CA layoffs, within blocks of Twitter HQ :)
  - notacoward 4y ago
    Again, you're confused. Individual actions and mass actions are not the same. https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN There's also the issue of the agreement Musk signed in buying the company. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522152250/d283119dprem14a.htm#toc283119_11 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522... Even your own source provides this important caveat. <<<It does not mean that an employer may not be sued ... for terminations that violate public policies set forth in statutes or regulations.>>> You idolize Musk, we get it, but please stop spreading misinformation.
    - i_like_apis 4y ago
      CA is an “at will” employment state. Employees or employers may terminate with no cause and zero notice. Simultaneous terminations are not exempt. That’s a fact, friend.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        Stop spreading misinformation. The WARN act is a federal US law.
        i_like_apis 4y ago
        Typically in a tech layoff you revoke all access, 2 months paid salary, and effectively say “your project is complete, termination date 2 months from now”. That’s compliant and it happens all the time in CA. You’re making the claim they are not compliant and you have none of the info needed to make that claim. (You’re the disinfo, bub)
        roflyear 4y ago
        If they are giving 60 day notice, they aren't breaking the law.
        i_like_apis 4y ago
        Right. That’s why 2 months paid salary is standard. With any severance on top. I've had this done a few times and I've witnessed it a few times. You guys were going around essentially saying "THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!!" it's a no notice layoff!!! And obviously there is no evidence for that. They are basically about to do the layoff "notice", which will also involve telling these people to stop working immediately and turn in their assets. Telling them to stop working is totally in compliance. I'll admit that I am not in HR. But, to be clear workers are still legally revoked all access and told to cease producing with no notice and that's fine. Layoffs exactly like this take place all the time.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Correct, the person you are conversing with is not aware of the WARN act, or they are aware of it and trying to spread misinformation.
  - i_like_apis 4y ago
    60 days paid salary, (and usually additional severance, which is not relevant) makes them compliant. Happens all the time.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      60 days pay counts as giving notice. Some have said they have been let go without notice. That's a different claim. I'm not trying to imply they are not giving notice, but if they don't give 60 days, they are breaking the law.
      - i_like_apis 4y ago
        Right. Yeah the people claiming law breaking seems to come from a few (5) employees who started a lawsuit on the day of (may even be a coincidence). NYT and others blindly parroted the info that a suit as been filed (of course, in NYT's language, it's like: "laid off employees sue Twitter for breaking employment law!") The only claim someone might have is if they individually fully terminated in the past ~30 days. Then there is question about whether they were "part of" the layoff or not and therefor required more days of payroll / benefits. This is why in a medium+ company, if you are fired even individually, they often pay the 60 days salary + benefits, with any severance on top. It leaves them the option of being able to fire other people in the same time period without exposing them to a BS lawsuit where the plaintiff/s may claim they were part of a layoff and weren't given 60 days.
roflyear 4y ago
No, US law states that companies with <100 employees must give 60 days notice for mass layoffs. I can only imagine this qualifies as mass layoffs. WARN act.
- i_like_apis 4y ago
  Yeah that’s about payroll, effectively. You revoke all access, and tell the employees their project is over. Pay salary until a termination date 60 days in the future. The termination is still “no cause”. At least in CA. And all duties are typically over on the day of the layoff notice. Turn in your badge, take your stuff off the premises, etc.

notacoward 4y ago

You can be terminated for cause without notice. Layoffs are different, and different again in each jurisdiction. Both the federal government and California, where Twitter is headquartered, have specific laws for this exact situation, and Musk et al are in clear violation of those laws plus the agreement under which he acquired the company. Either your partner in HR (notably not legal) is misinformed, or you misunderstood what they told you. Regardless, you're the one who's confused - and that's trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.

i_like_apis 4y ago
Nope. Not in California. Employment contracts with a CA entity are “at will” / can be terminated with no cause and no notice. Which is how it should be IMO. Anyway just google “ca at will employment” and you can learn about how you are wrong here. Here’s an article that explains it in paragraph 2 https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employment-at-will-in-california.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/... I have been close to the counsel and HR during execution of several CA layoffs, within blocks of Twitter HQ :)
- notacoward 4y ago
  Again, you're confused. Individual actions and mass actions are not the same. https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN There's also the issue of the agreement Musk signed in buying the company. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522152250/d283119dprem14a.htm#toc283119_11 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522... Even your own source provides this important caveat. <<<It does not mean that an employer may not be sued ... for terminations that violate public policies set forth in statutes or regulations.>>> You idolize Musk, we get it, but please stop spreading misinformation.
  - i_like_apis 4y ago
    CA is an “at will” employment state. Employees or employers may terminate with no cause and zero notice. Simultaneous terminations are not exempt. That’s a fact, friend.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      Stop spreading misinformation. The WARN act is a federal US law.
      - i_like_apis 4y ago
        Typically in a tech layoff you revoke all access, 2 months paid salary, and effectively say “your project is complete, termination date 2 months from now”. That’s compliant and it happens all the time in CA. You’re making the claim they are not compliant and you have none of the info needed to make that claim. (You’re the disinfo, bub)
        roflyear 4y ago
        If they are giving 60 day notice, they aren't breaking the law.
        i_like_apis 4y ago
        Right. That’s why 2 months paid salary is standard. With any severance on top. I've had this done a few times and I've witnessed it a few times. You guys were going around essentially saying "THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!!" it's a no notice layoff!!! And obviously there is no evidence for that. They are basically about to do the layoff "notice", which will also involve telling these people to stop working immediately and turn in their assets. Telling them to stop working is totally in compliance. I'll admit that I am not in HR. But, to be clear workers are still legally revoked all access and told to cease producing with no notice and that's fine. Layoffs exactly like this take place all the time.
roflyear 4y ago
Correct, the person you are conversing with is not aware of the WARN act, or they are aware of it and trying to spread misinformation.
- i_like_apis 4y ago
  60 days paid salary, (and usually additional severance, which is not relevant) makes them compliant. Happens all the time.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    60 days pay counts as giving notice. Some have said they have been let go without notice. That's a different claim. I'm not trying to imply they are not giving notice, but if they don't give 60 days, they are breaking the law.
    - i_like_apis 4y ago
      Right. Yeah the people claiming law breaking seems to come from a few (5) employees who started a lawsuit on the day of (may even be a coincidence). NYT and others blindly parroted the info that a suit as been filed (of course, in NYT's language, it's like: "laid off employees sue Twitter for breaking employment law!") The only claim someone might have is if they individually fully terminated in the past ~30 days. Then there is question about whether they were "part of" the layoff or not and therefor required more days of payroll / benefits. This is why in a medium+ company, if you are fired even individually, they often pay the 60 days salary + benefits, with any severance on top. It leaves them the option of being able to fire other people in the same time period without exposing them to a BS lawsuit where the plaintiff/s may claim they were part of a layoff and weren't given 60 days.

roflyear 4y ago

No, US law states that companies with <100 employees must give 60 days notice for mass layoffs. I can only imagine this qualifies as mass layoffs. WARN act.

i_like_apis 4y ago
Yeah that’s about payroll, effectively. You revoke all access, and tell the employees their project is over. Pay salary until a termination date 60 days in the future. The termination is still “no cause”. At least in CA. And all duties are typically over on the day of the layoff notice. Turn in your badge, take your stuff off the premises, etc.