3 ms·

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 examp

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.

Timon3 3y ago
The part you're missing is that the WARN act doesn't specify payment of just a normal severance package, it makes the employer liable for back pay: > An employer who violates the 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, but no more than half the number of days the employee was employed by the employer. That means it doesn't count as severance, and the severance that was promised has to be paid in full. Imagine an employer physically assaulting an employee, and being forced to pay both for the assault as well as severance. The employer cannot argue that the damages for assault represent part of the severance, because they themselves aren't severance.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  I guess we will see 1. If that claim is actually made in court, I doubt it 2. if the courts support your assertion or back mine... I am willing to bet my understanding of how the courts will look at it is correct, but there is little point it continuing to go back and forth on it. the idea of WARN and severance packages is to provide employees with a limited amount of pay to assist in transition to a new job, traditionally it is one or the other not both. Plenty of legal cases support my position, and the fact that the political narrative and bias against Elon on this site has clouded the objective truth here People want, need to see twitter fail because that bad man owns it, and nothing else matters at this point
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > Plenty of legal cases support my position I didn't know there were already cases where employers were allowed to join their promised severance with the liability for WARN. That would definitely convince me that there is a basis to your statements. Care to share those cases?
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    indeed, I guess we will see if your novel legal theory holds true, it doesn't seem like plenty of legal cases support your position after all (which I guess is why you couldn't cite any cases) > the idea of WARN and severance packages is to provide employees with a limited amount of pay to assist in transition to a new job, traditionally it is one or the other not both the idea that these 2 legal rights "traditionally" cancelled each other out when workers were legally entitled to both seems ridiculous and entirely made up (which I guess is why you couldn't cite any cases) > [random off-topic elmu fanboy conspiracy theories] it certainly seems like the objective truth has been clouded for someone, and statistically speaking, it's unlikely to be "everyone but you". Maybe leave elmu out of it if you're trying to make the case that other people are the ones obsessed with him? :)
  - Timon3 3y ago
    How about one single case? That would be enough to convince me.

Timon3 3y ago

The part you're missing is that the WARN act doesn't specify payment of just a normal severance package, it makes the employer liable for back pay: > An employer who violates the 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, but no more than half the number of days the employee was employed by the employer. That means it doesn't count as severance, and the severance that was promised has to be paid in full. Imagine an employer physically assaulting an employee, and being forced to pay both for the assault as well as severance. The employer cannot argue that the damages for assault represent part of the severance, because they themselves aren't severance.

phpisthebest 3y ago
I guess we will see 1. If that claim is actually made in court, I doubt it 2. if the courts support your assertion or back mine... I am willing to bet my understanding of how the courts will look at it is correct, but there is little point it continuing to go back and forth on it. the idea of WARN and severance packages is to provide employees with a limited amount of pay to assist in transition to a new job, traditionally it is one or the other not both. Plenty of legal cases support my position, and the fact that the political narrative and bias against Elon on this site has clouded the objective truth here People want, need to see twitter fail because that bad man owns it, and nothing else matters at this point
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Plenty of legal cases support my position I didn't know there were already cases where employers were allowed to join their promised severance with the liability for WARN. That would definitely convince me that there is a basis to your statements. Care to share those cases?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  indeed, I guess we will see if your novel legal theory holds true, it doesn't seem like plenty of legal cases support your position after all (which I guess is why you couldn't cite any cases) > the idea of WARN and severance packages is to provide employees with a limited amount of pay to assist in transition to a new job, traditionally it is one or the other not both the idea that these 2 legal rights "traditionally" cancelled each other out when workers were legally entitled to both seems ridiculous and entirely made up (which I guess is why you couldn't cite any cases) > [random off-topic elmu fanboy conspiracy theories] it certainly seems like the objective truth has been clouded for someone, and statistically speaking, it's unlikely to be "everyone but you". Maybe leave elmu out of it if you're trying to make the case that other people are the ones obsessed with him? :)
- Timon3 3y ago
  How about one single case? That would be enough to convince me.