4 ms·

For not providing severance payments as contractually agreed. It's explained in the article and the articles it links.

by detaro 3y ago

phpisthebest 3y ago
That is not what the article says. The article is attempting to say the 2 Mo's of legally required WARN severance should not run concurrent with the 3mos of contracted severance, there is no legal basis for that. basically Twitter was obligated to provide 3mos of severance under the employment agreement, and separately WAN requires 2mos, So the employees claim the 3+2 = 5mos is what they are "entitled to" Sorry that is not how any of this works.
- dangus 3y ago
  Read it again. The article says that Twitter has to provide severance payments and benefits equivalent to or better than those it had been offering prior to the acquisition. The article even bolded it for you. > Parent shall provide, or shall cause the Surviving Corporation or any of their Affiliates to provide severance payments and benefits to each Continuing Employee whose employment is terminated during such period that are no less favorable than those applicable to the Continuing Employee immediately prior to the Effective Time under the Company Benefit Plans.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    Might want to continue reading to the very next paragraph... I also find it illuminating the statements Mike (TechDirt) choose to provide sources for, and statements he just declares as gospel and hopes no one notices. The Gawker lawsuit (and then the 2016 election) really broke TechDirt's ideological position of impartial reporting. Any "reporting" involves Musk or Thiel on TechDirt I instantly have my BS Detector on full throttle.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      the next paragraph: > Musk, who verbally promised three months severance (which was below what the company had previously offered, and really only one month, since the first two months were required by the WARN Act, and were actually just continuing salary, since he had to give 60 days of notice for a layoff) seems pretty clear-cut to me. There doesn't seem to be any precedent or logical reason why elmu shouldn't pay for failing to give the 2 months warning he was required to, or for the 3 months severance he was separately required to. Indeed, the idea that these two separate obligations cancel each other out is, frankly, not how any of this works had elmu not violated the contracts, the workers would have received 2 months of pay while working (during which they could have looked for new jobs) and 3 months of pay severance (again, to cushion the impact while they find new jobs) why should elmu be allowed to deprive workers of those two rights to which they're entitled by law? After all, he's the one who chose for the workers to be gone during those 2 months he was legally obliged to employ and pay them, instead of working during them
      - phpisthebest 3y ago
        The way laws and contracts work normally is a separate contract would override the minimum allowed by law, but can not go below legal requirements So for example, if the law says I must get 2mos of pay but I have a contract that says I get 3mos of pay then the contract wins, however if I have a contract that says 1mo of pay but the law says 2 mos then the law wins.. Unless clearly spelled out in the contract that the severance was to be 3mos "on top of any legally required " then it would not be an addition problem it would be a substitution, the contract for the law An Employee terminated Jan 1 under the law would have to paid to March 1, under the contract it would be April 1, in no circumstance would it be June 1... Which is what TechDirt is trying to claim Note that is not what I have seen the lawyers claim, the lawyers are claiming Twitter did not pay the 3mos, did not vest the RSU's and did not contribute to healthcare as required under the contract.
        3y ago

For not providing severance payments as contractually agreed. It's explained in the article and the articles it links.

by detaro 3y ago

For not providing severance payments as contractually agreed. It's explained in the article and the articles it links.

That is not what the article says. The article is attempting to say the 2 Mo's of legally required WARN severance should not run concurrent with the 3mos of contracted severance, there is no legal basis for that. basically Twitter was obligated to provide 3mos of severance under the employment agreement, and separately WAN requires 2mos, So the employees claim the 3+2 = 5mos is what they are "entitled to" Sorry that is not how any of this works.

dangus 3y ago
Read it again. The article says that Twitter has to provide severance payments and benefits equivalent to or better than those it had been offering prior to the acquisition. The article even bolded it for you. > Parent shall provide, or shall cause the Surviving Corporation or any of their Affiliates to provide severance payments and benefits to each Continuing Employee whose employment is terminated during such period that are no less favorable than those applicable to the Continuing Employee immediately prior to the Effective Time under the Company Benefit Plans.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  Might want to continue reading to the very next paragraph... I also find it illuminating the statements Mike (TechDirt) choose to provide sources for, and statements he just declares as gospel and hopes no one notices. The Gawker lawsuit (and then the 2016 election) really broke TechDirt's ideological position of impartial reporting. Any "reporting" involves Musk or Thiel on TechDirt I instantly have my BS Detector on full throttle.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    the next paragraph: > Musk, who verbally promised three months severance (which was below what the company had previously offered, and really only one month, since the first two months were required by the WARN Act, and were actually just continuing salary, since he had to give 60 days of notice for a layoff) seems pretty clear-cut to me. There doesn't seem to be any precedent or logical reason why elmu shouldn't pay for failing to give the 2 months warning he was required to, or for the 3 months severance he was separately required to. Indeed, the idea that these two separate obligations cancel each other out is, frankly, not how any of this works had elmu not violated the contracts, the workers would have received 2 months of pay while working (during which they could have looked for new jobs) and 3 months of pay severance (again, to cushion the impact while they find new jobs) why should elmu be allowed to deprive workers of those two rights to which they're entitled by law? After all, he's the one who chose for the workers to be gone during those 2 months he was legally obliged to employ and pay them, instead of working during them
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      The way laws and contracts work normally is a separate contract would override the minimum allowed by law, but can not go below legal requirements So for example, if the law says I must get 2mos of pay but I have a contract that says I get 3mos of pay then the contract wins, however if I have a contract that says 1mo of pay but the law says 2 mos then the law wins.. Unless clearly spelled out in the contract that the severance was to be 3mos "on top of any legally required " then it would not be an addition problem it would be a substitution, the contract for the law An Employee terminated Jan 1 under the law would have to paid to March 1, under the contract it would be April 1, in no circumstance would it be June 1... Which is what TechDirt is trying to claim Note that is not what I have seen the lawyers claim, the lawyers are claiming Twitter did not pay the 3mos, did not vest the RSU's and did not contribute to healthcare as required under the contract.
      - 3y ago