7 ms·

If I were asked back I'd take it (hopefully with an increase in salary) then I'd actively search for another job. Once I landed it I'd give zero day notice. F

by fm2606 4y ago

If I were asked back I'd take it (hopefully with an increase in salary) then I'd actively search for another job. Once I landed it I'd give zero day notice. Fuck them. I understand I could be potentially hurting coworkers by adding additional work to their plate but Twitter didn't give 2 shits about the people left behind and the work that they would have to take on. Why is it corporations can "layoff" without notice but as an employee you are expected to give 2 weeks notice? I guess one could argue that if the corp gives a severance pay then that makes up for sudden layoff. But it doesn't. Even if I have a savings for emergencies employee sponsored health insurance will eventually end. Then COBRA kicks in and there goes your emergency savings if you have a family. Of course the whole U.S. health insurance shit-show is for another discussion but when you have a family AND a serious health issues, health insurance is front and center on one's mind. If I never had to worry about health insurance and have the ability to go get the care I need/want would take a huge burden off of my shoulders and I'm sure I'm not alone. Sorry for the rant.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ianai 4y ago
The at will is both ways, legally. It’s the massive unequal market power that forces two weeks notice.
s1k3 4y ago
They were given 90 days severance… which is like 6 standard notice periods.
- seadan83 4y ago
  Not the original plan to do that, so there was a forcing function. Check further down for the comments noting that severance is there to cover the WARN period.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
boplicity 4y ago
The U.S. healthcare system traps people in companies, for fear of losing access to reliable healthcare. A system that was completely independent from employers would be much more beneficial to employees. Plus, it would save huge administrative costs for private companies. This would especially benefit small companies, but, really, it would make the job of running any company much easier.
- ianai 4y ago
  In that universe people might possibly work for lower wages. It’s an income effect. Plus the present value of future healthcare costs goes far down too (individually and in aggregate).
- imustbeevil 4y ago
  Healthcare.gov. We've had that system for 12 years. I've never had employer healthcare, it was way more expensive than private insurance in Hawaii, which anyone can get and you auto-qualify for enrollment if you change jobs or move. https://www.navapbc.com/insights/twelve-years-of-healthcare-dot-gov https://www.navapbc.com/insights/twelve-years-of-healthcare-...
  - TrueGeek 4y ago
    Are you saying you’ve declined your employer sponsored healthcare and just signed up at healthcare.gov and it ended up being cheaper?
    - imustbeevil 4y ago
      Yes. The plan my employer had in Hawaii was $700/mo for pretty average coverage. On Healthcare.gov the best possible plan I could get, $0 deductible, full coverage, etc, was $510/mo. I think the difficulty is that most people who have employer healthcare have never checked healthcare.gov because they didn't need to, but it's hard to keep seeing people perpetuate this idea that hasn't been true for over a decade.
      - 4y ago
thordenmark 4y ago
That is certainly a hot take. When a company is losing $4 million a day drastic measures are in order to save the company so the remaining employees still have a job. Having worked in tech for over 20 years and being on both sides of layoffs I can tell you how hard it is for the people making the decision of who to layoff is exceedingly difficult and heart breaking. It definitely looks like Twitter was a hot mess and needed an amputation to save the patient.
- spacedcowboy 4y ago
  Yeah, cry me a river for the poor heart-broken decision makers, who (in fact) aren't actually losing their job.
  - recuter 4y ago
    Would you prefer drawing straws like a marooned pirate?
- rtsil 4y ago
  AFAIK the company didn't lose $4M/day until the advertisers halted their ad buys because of the uncertainties brought by the new management.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    And the interests on the debt the company got from Musk.
- fm2606 4y ago
  I have no doubt that for most of the people making the decision of which person to lay off it would be hard. They are human. But, I wonder; are these the same people (managers) that were making decisions that allowed the company to loose $4 million a day? If so, then hard to have sympathy for them. If the decisions were being made above the managers, in the C-suite, then it is their asses (which we all know Elon sacked them as well). If I had to make an educated guess I would assume their severance pay is orders of magnitude greater than the 90 day severance that the regular Joe and Jane got. So let's say the decisions that cost the company $4M/day came from the top, not middle managers and not the end employee. The people who say "we have to lay off X amount of people, today, tomorrow, ASAP" are not the ones who are doing the actual telling individuals they are laid off. So in their mind this is "the price of doing business". Again, fuck 'em. Why should the individual who got laid off, rehired, found a new job then give the requisite 2 week notice? It's the price of doing business. In my mind either we are going to take out the human aspect or we aren't and both sides need to take the same approach. It can't be "it's business" on one side and "the human element" on the other. It can be, but I'm not going to play that game. In a couple of years (if that long) I'm going to be forgotten about and the business will probably keep on keepin' on.
gw98 4y ago
I would probably take the job and proceed to do fuck all until they fired me again. A company tried to get me to come back and do handover after terminating a contract in breach a few years back. Agreement was a month. I did nothing for the entire month because they didn’t specify a deliverable. Due to working through an agency that was larger than the company I got paid and they got told to piss off when they complained.
fknorangesite 4y ago
> Sorry for the rant. Don't be. These are things worth ranting about; and even moreso they are things worth acting upon. There are elections in the US this week, right?
orev 4y ago
> Why is it corporations can "layoff" without notice but as an employee you are expected to give 2 weeks notice? Both sides can equally give as much notice as they want. 2 weeks is only customary, but also seems to be rarely honored on both sides. If an employee gives 2 weeks, they’re often just walked out the door and stay on the payroll for 2 weeks (for any job more complex than menial tasks, no meaningful transition can be completed in 2 weeks, so it’s better to reduce any risks immediately). Companies often give severance packages longer than 2 weeks to avoid being sued, on condition of signing some paperwork to that effect.
dchftcs 4y ago
The company needs to bite the bullet to secure a short-term contract that stipulates certain things need to be done on a (expensive) fixed-cost basis. No reason to expect any of these employees to work the same way anymore, and they might even present some risk, so extra carrot is needed to keep them around for critical duties and hand-over.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> If I were asked back I'd take it Since the workers mostly aren't actually fired, but in a no-access, no-duties period between notice and dismissal while still employed and on payroll, its “resume duties, quit, or be fired for cause”.

by fm2606 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ianai 4y ago

The at will is both ways, legally. It’s the massive unequal market power that forces two weeks notice.

s1k3 4y ago

They were given 90 days severance… which is like 6 standard notice periods.

seadan83 4y ago
Not the original plan to do that, so there was a forcing function. Check further down for the comments noting that severance is there to cover the WARN period.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

boplicity 4y ago

The U.S. healthcare system traps people in companies, for fear of losing access to reliable healthcare. A system that was completely independent from employers would be much more beneficial to employees. Plus, it would save huge administrative costs for private companies. This would especially benefit small companies, but, really, it would make the job of running any company much easier.

ianai 4y ago
In that universe people might possibly work for lower wages. It’s an income effect. Plus the present value of future healthcare costs goes far down too (individually and in aggregate).
imustbeevil 4y ago
Healthcare.gov. We've had that system for 12 years. I've never had employer healthcare, it was way more expensive than private insurance in Hawaii, which anyone can get and you auto-qualify for enrollment if you change jobs or move. https://www.navapbc.com/insights/twelve-years-of-healthcare-dot-gov https://www.navapbc.com/insights/twelve-years-of-healthcare-...
- TrueGeek 4y ago
  Are you saying you’ve declined your employer sponsored healthcare and just signed up at healthcare.gov and it ended up being cheaper?
  - imustbeevil 4y ago
    Yes. The plan my employer had in Hawaii was $700/mo for pretty average coverage. On Healthcare.gov the best possible plan I could get, $0 deductible, full coverage, etc, was $510/mo. I think the difficulty is that most people who have employer healthcare have never checked healthcare.gov because they didn't need to, but it's hard to keep seeing people perpetuate this idea that hasn't been true for over a decade.
    - 4y ago

thordenmark 4y ago

That is certainly a hot take. When a company is losing $4 million a day drastic measures are in order to save the company so the remaining employees still have a job. Having worked in tech for over 20 years and being on both sides of layoffs I can tell you how hard it is for the people making the decision of who to layoff is exceedingly difficult and heart breaking. It definitely looks like Twitter was a hot mess and needed an amputation to save the patient.

spacedcowboy 4y ago
Yeah, cry me a river for the poor heart-broken decision makers, who (in fact) aren't actually losing their job.
- recuter 4y ago
  Would you prefer drawing straws like a marooned pirate?
rtsil 4y ago
AFAIK the company didn't lose $4M/day until the advertisers halted their ad buys because of the uncertainties brought by the new management.
- kergonath 4y ago
  And the interests on the debt the company got from Musk.
fm2606 4y ago
I have no doubt that for most of the people making the decision of which person to lay off it would be hard. They are human. But, I wonder; are these the same people (managers) that were making decisions that allowed the company to loose $4 million a day? If so, then hard to have sympathy for them. If the decisions were being made above the managers, in the C-suite, then it is their asses (which we all know Elon sacked them as well). If I had to make an educated guess I would assume their severance pay is orders of magnitude greater than the 90 day severance that the regular Joe and Jane got. So let's say the decisions that cost the company $4M/day came from the top, not middle managers and not the end employee. The people who say "we have to lay off X amount of people, today, tomorrow, ASAP" are not the ones who are doing the actual telling individuals they are laid off. So in their mind this is "the price of doing business". Again, fuck 'em. Why should the individual who got laid off, rehired, found a new job then give the requisite 2 week notice? It's the price of doing business. In my mind either we are going to take out the human aspect or we aren't and both sides need to take the same approach. It can't be "it's business" on one side and "the human element" on the other. It can be, but I'm not going to play that game. In a couple of years (if that long) I'm going to be forgotten about and the business will probably keep on keepin' on.

gw98 4y ago

I would probably take the job and proceed to do fuck all until they fired me again. A company tried to get me to come back and do handover after terminating a contract in breach a few years back. Agreement was a month. I did nothing for the entire month because they didn’t specify a deliverable. Due to working through an agency that was larger than the company I got paid and they got told to piss off when they complained.

fknorangesite 4y ago

> Sorry for the rant. Don't be. These are things worth ranting about; and even moreso they are things worth acting upon. There are elections in the US this week, right?

orev 4y ago

> Why is it corporations can "layoff" without notice but as an employee you are expected to give 2 weeks notice? Both sides can equally give as much notice as they want. 2 weeks is only customary, but also seems to be rarely honored on both sides. If an employee gives 2 weeks, they’re often just walked out the door and stay on the payroll for 2 weeks (for any job more complex than menial tasks, no meaningful transition can be completed in 2 weeks, so it’s better to reduce any risks immediately). Companies often give severance packages longer than 2 weeks to avoid being sued, on condition of signing some paperwork to that effect.

dchftcs 4y ago

The company needs to bite the bullet to secure a short-term contract that stipulates certain things need to be done on a (expensive) fixed-cost basis. No reason to expect any of these employees to work the same way anymore, and they might even present some risk, so extra carrot is needed to keep them around for critical duties and hand-over.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> If I were asked back I'd take it Since the workers mostly aren't actually fired, but in a no-access, no-duties period between notice and dismissal while still employed and on payroll, its “resume duties, quit, or be fired for cause”.