9 ms·

Tears, blunders and chaos: inside Elon Musk’s Twitter

8 points by sandebert 4y ago

pinewurst 4y ago
https://archive.ph/PO1cn https://archive.ph/PO1cn
- fargle 4y ago
  "Musk agreed to at least match the company’s existing severance package, which offered two months’ pay as well as other valuable benefits. Instead, he laid off employees with the minimum notice required by federal and state law and refused to pay out certain awards" can anyone explain this? the "minimum notice required" is 60 days so it's equivalent to the the "two months" pay. This sounds like clever wording to paint twitter in a negative light while saying nothing except "instead of grey as promised, elon produced only a mixture of half-white/half-black". Also what "valuable benefits" and "certain awards"? To whom? There's been a lot of noise of late chastising company A and lauding company B for how they "handled" the layoffs. Everybody got essentially the same deal (that sucked), but some people had an email that was more polite about it. I don't see the distinction.
  - beardyw 4y ago
    I have been laid off several times in my long career. Every time it hurt, but in some cases just an extra bit of care, which cost little, made a lot of difference. Companies who lay people off clumsily are hurting themselves unnecessarily.
    - fargle 4y ago
      Absolutely and I totally agree. Sorry you had to go through that. My comments are not to minimize this clumsiness of twitter, but picking at when it's incorrect (if it's incorrect). It's pretty poor journalism for one thing.
  - Zigurd 4y ago
    Part of the purchase agreement specified conditions of employment, and terms for separation. It appears that he has failed to meet those obligations.
    - fargle 4y ago
      yes but in what way? the article says twitter reneged on severance but contradicts itself. it talks about "valuable benefits" but does not say what they were.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > the "minimum notice required" is 60 days so it's equivalent to the the "two months" pay Pay for time you are an employee with notice of pending termination is not severance. Choosing not to assign ang duties during the notice period does not change the legal status. And its not just a technicality, as they were still employees, workers were covered by Twitter’s during-employment noncompete policy (which is valid even in California), and were subject to recall (and some had their notice canceled and were recalled) at Twitter’s discretion.
    - fargle 4y ago
      As far as the Warn act goes, notice of impending layoff and staying technically as an employee for 60 days is the equivalent of a "penalty" of two months wages. What twitter did there is normal business practice. You raise a point about severance. I think you are right that it is not technically "severance" pay, but it is alternative. I would be willing to bet that either "severance" is either defined very carefully in any employee contract or it's not a guarantee, but merely semantics. Either way the employees got their Warn act, they got their two months salary, what does it matter? You raise an interesting technicality - they are still "employees". But I disagree about CA - I believe that basically ALL non-competes are unenforceable in CA. And this is a theoretical concern anyhow - there's no way twitter is binding the employees they just let go or holding them to this or going after them so there is no cause of action unless they did. https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in-california/ https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in... https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-reminds-employers-and-workers-noncompete-agreements-are https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont... What about the workers outside CA? Are you saying it would have been any different if they laid the worker off immediately and payed two months of severance vs. paying two months salary and then laying them off without severance? It's hard to see what the difference is other than semantics. What they promised was never 2 months notices and then two months severance. It's not magically 4 months. So seems mostly semantics at that point. If people that got laid off got 2 months salary, what's the beef about what it's called? Yes - it could have be done more compassionately. But I don't think there's a actionable lawsuit here.
      - 4y ago

8 points by sandebert 4y ago

pinewurst 4y ago

https://archive.ph/PO1cn https://archive.ph/PO1cn

fargle 4y ago
"Musk agreed to at least match the company’s existing severance package, which offered two months’ pay as well as other valuable benefits. Instead, he laid off employees with the minimum notice required by federal and state law and refused to pay out certain awards" can anyone explain this? the "minimum notice required" is 60 days so it's equivalent to the the "two months" pay. This sounds like clever wording to paint twitter in a negative light while saying nothing except "instead of grey as promised, elon produced only a mixture of half-white/half-black". Also what "valuable benefits" and "certain awards"? To whom? There's been a lot of noise of late chastising company A and lauding company B for how they "handled" the layoffs. Everybody got essentially the same deal (that sucked), but some people had an email that was more polite about it. I don't see the distinction.
- beardyw 4y ago
  I have been laid off several times in my long career. Every time it hurt, but in some cases just an extra bit of care, which cost little, made a lot of difference. Companies who lay people off clumsily are hurting themselves unnecessarily.
  - fargle 4y ago
    Absolutely and I totally agree. Sorry you had to go through that. My comments are not to minimize this clumsiness of twitter, but picking at when it's incorrect (if it's incorrect). It's pretty poor journalism for one thing.
- Zigurd 4y ago
  Part of the purchase agreement specified conditions of employment, and terms for separation. It appears that he has failed to meet those obligations.
  - fargle 4y ago
    yes but in what way? the article says twitter reneged on severance but contradicts itself. it talks about "valuable benefits" but does not say what they were.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > the "minimum notice required" is 60 days so it's equivalent to the the "two months" pay Pay for time you are an employee with notice of pending termination is not severance. Choosing not to assign ang duties during the notice period does not change the legal status. And its not just a technicality, as they were still employees, workers were covered by Twitter’s during-employment noncompete policy (which is valid even in California), and were subject to recall (and some had their notice canceled and were recalled) at Twitter’s discretion.
  - fargle 4y ago
    As far as the Warn act goes, notice of impending layoff and staying technically as an employee for 60 days is the equivalent of a "penalty" of two months wages. What twitter did there is normal business practice. You raise a point about severance. I think you are right that it is not technically "severance" pay, but it is alternative. I would be willing to bet that either "severance" is either defined very carefully in any employee contract or it's not a guarantee, but merely semantics. Either way the employees got their Warn act, they got their two months salary, what does it matter? You raise an interesting technicality - they are still "employees". But I disagree about CA - I believe that basically ALL non-competes are unenforceable in CA. And this is a theoretical concern anyhow - there's no way twitter is binding the employees they just let go or holding them to this or going after them so there is no cause of action unless they did. https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in-california/ https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in... https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-reminds-employers-and-workers-noncompete-agreements-are https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont... What about the workers outside CA? Are you saying it would have been any different if they laid the worker off immediately and payed two months of severance vs. paying two months salary and then laying them off without severance? It's hard to see what the difference is other than semantics. What they promised was never 2 months notices and then two months severance. It's not magically 4 months. So seems mostly semantics at that point. If people that got laid off got 2 months salary, what's the beef about what it's called? Yes - it could have be done more compassionately. But I don't think there's a actionable lawsuit here.
    - 4y ago