5 ms·

> it’s seeking a range of relief, including compensatory damages (including wages owed), as well as declaratory relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, plus o

by awb 4y ago

> it’s seeking a range of relief, including compensatory damages (including wages owed), as well as declaratory relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, plus other attorneys’ fees and costs. So, the penalty is paying workers the wages they would have been paid anyway under proper notice, plus interest? So for basically ~5-8% more Musk gets to terminate everyone today instead of in 60 days.

e40 4y ago
The stunning thing is that he didn't consult a proper lawyer that would have told him how to avoid the lawsuit.
- klooney 4y ago
  Tesla got hit for the same thing recently- probably he knew and just didn't care.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  I imagine his lawyers are much the same as Trump's - desperately going "Look, you just can't do that!", making sure their objections are written down just in case, and knowing full well he's going to do whatever anyway.
- keneda7 4y ago
  I think he did in this case. From a comment by Emedchill near the top of the comments: According to a leak to Business Insider[0], they are still "employed" but are not allowed to work. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twitter-staff-jobs-axed-layoffs-2022-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi... So it seems they are still being paid and get their benefits until Feb 2th
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  Or maybe he did, and decided that getting them out the door now was worth the potential costs from the lawsuit? If, as some others have said, he's actually paying them for the 60 days, I don't think a judge or jury is going to be very sympathetic. "So, your boss basically told you to take 60 days off with pay?"
- nomel 4y ago
  > he didn't consult a proper lawyer Do you have any evidence for this?
  - e40 4y ago
    I run an HR department, albeit not for one as large as twitter. I have done layoffs. I always consulted a lawyer and it never triggered lawsuits. There are layoffs all the time at large companies that don't trigger lawsuits. Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all.
    - nomel 4y ago
      The existence of a lawsuit can't be used to judge the legality of the layoffs. Only the ruling can. It's possible (although a bit more unlikely) that the person filing the lawsuit is a terrible lawyer. Making factual statements/judgements seems misguided, at this point, in my IANAL opinion.
      - Tangurena2 4y ago
        The lawyers filing this lawsuit were the same lawyers in the previous lawsuit over WARN Act violations. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900
    - Tangurena2 4y ago
      > Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all. I disagree. He got bit by lawsuits over a previous mass layoff at Tesla. The lawyers who filed this lawsuit were the same lawyers involved in the previous one. Links pointing to the previous case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900 I think that Musk learned from that, and reading the email employees received today, I think the lawsuit will be thrown out. https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twitter-staff-jobs-axed-layoffs-2022-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi... On first sight, the mass layoffs appear to violate both California & Federal WARN Act notifications. After reading the email, it appears that they are getting 3 months of "gardening leave" instead paychecks getting cut off at end of day. > An employer who violates WARN provisions is liable to each employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini... Europe has different labor laws. I know enough about them to know that I don't know enough to have an opinion on what might happen over there.
MBCook 4y ago
No. There are also fines to the state/federal government. I saw one number (CA?) of $500/person/day. Don’t know if that was it or minimum or what.
- awb 4y ago
  3,700 employees @ $500/day would be $1.85M / day. Ouch.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    Musk is worth $220 billion. At $1.85 million/day, he'd go broke in only 325 years. I don't think it's a major worry for him.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - scarecrowbob 4y ago
      I have seen a lot of sentiment wonder "why some people do not like Elmo Musk". This fact is probably something close to why I personally don't like the guy: he comes across as a personified avatar of the fact that laws don't really apply to folks with those kinds of resources, and that us peons have literally no recourse when faced with a rich person who wants to do whatever they feel like doing.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        This is why you should hate your society and its values, not Musk.
        scarecrowbob 4y ago
        While I don't disagree that I should hate this society and its values, that does not mean I shouldn't have some disdain for folks like musk: "hate the player, not the game" doesn't apply to folks who own the referees.

by awb 4y ago

e40 4y ago

The stunning thing is that he didn't consult a proper lawyer that would have told him how to avoid the lawsuit.

klooney 4y ago
Tesla got hit for the same thing recently- probably he knew and just didn't care.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zimpenfish 4y ago
I imagine his lawyers are much the same as Trump's - desperately going "Look, you just can't do that!", making sure their objections are written down just in case, and knowing full well he's going to do whatever anyway.
keneda7 4y ago
I think he did in this case. From a comment by Emedchill near the top of the comments: According to a leak to Business Insider[0], they are still "employed" but are not allowed to work. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twitter-staff-jobs-axed-layoffs-2022-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi... So it seems they are still being paid and get their benefits until Feb 2th
Turing_Machine 4y ago
Or maybe he did, and decided that getting them out the door now was worth the potential costs from the lawsuit? If, as some others have said, he's actually paying them for the 60 days, I don't think a judge or jury is going to be very sympathetic. "So, your boss basically told you to take 60 days off with pay?"
nomel 4y ago
> he didn't consult a proper lawyer Do you have any evidence for this?
- e40 4y ago
  I run an HR department, albeit not for one as large as twitter. I have done layoffs. I always consulted a lawyer and it never triggered lawsuits. There are layoffs all the time at large companies that don't trigger lawsuits. Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all.
  - nomel 4y ago
    The existence of a lawsuit can't be used to judge the legality of the layoffs. Only the ruling can. It's possible (although a bit more unlikely) that the person filing the lawsuit is a terrible lawyer. Making factual statements/judgements seems misguided, at this point, in my IANAL opinion.
    - Tangurena2 4y ago
      The lawyers filing this lawsuit were the same lawyers in the previous lawsuit over WARN Act violations. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900
  - Tangurena2 4y ago
    > Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all. I disagree. He got bit by lawsuits over a previous mass layoff at Tesla. The lawyers who filed this lawsuit were the same lawyers involved in the previous one. Links pointing to the previous case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900 I think that Musk learned from that, and reading the email employees received today, I think the lawsuit will be thrown out. https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twitter-staff-jobs-axed-layoffs-2022-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi... On first sight, the mass layoffs appear to violate both California & Federal WARN Act notifications. After reading the email, it appears that they are getting 3 months of "gardening leave" instead paychecks getting cut off at end of day. > An employer who violates WARN provisions is liable to each employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini... Europe has different labor laws. I know enough about them to know that I don't know enough to have an opinion on what might happen over there.

MBCook 4y ago

No. There are also fines to the state/federal government. I saw one number (CA?) of $500/person/day. Don’t know if that was it or minimum or what.

awb 4y ago
3,700 employees @ $500/day would be $1.85M / day. Ouch.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  Musk is worth $220 billion. At $1.85 million/day, he'd go broke in only 325 years. I don't think it's a major worry for him.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - scarecrowbob 4y ago
    I have seen a lot of sentiment wonder "why some people do not like Elmo Musk". This fact is probably something close to why I personally don't like the guy: he comes across as a personified avatar of the fact that laws don't really apply to folks with those kinds of resources, and that us peons have literally no recourse when faced with a rich person who wants to do whatever they feel like doing.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      This is why you should hate your society and its values, not Musk.
      - scarecrowbob 4y ago
        While I don't disagree that I should hate this society and its values, that does not mean I shouldn't have some disdain for folks like musk: "hate the player, not the game" doesn't apply to folks who own the referees.