5 ms·

This appears to be a way to avoid paying severance. I'd expect any decent employer would offer employees the choice to leave with appropriate severance if they

This appears to be a way to avoid paying severance. I'd expect any decent employer would offer employees the choice to leave with appropriate severance if they were going to do this to them.

toss1 3y ago
Not only severance but unemployment compensation (which can significantly affect mandatory unemployment insurance costs to the company) can also be avoided by companies if their people quit instead of being laid off. That is why there is the concept of "Constructive Dismissal" (or other similar terms). If the company is significantly degrading your work conditions, hours, requirements, interactions, responsibilities, etc., for the reason of getting you to quit instead of firing you, there may be an issue. If you have immediate better employment options, take them without doing your old company any favors. But if you do not, start making detailed contemporaneous logs of what is happening to you (and what happened before) and talk to an attorney specializing in your state's employment law. Do not take it lying down, especially if you don't have immediate better options.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > If you have immediate better employment options, take them without doing your old company any favors. Not sure about the US but here in Europe that's a very bad idea. If you change jobs willingly you give up your "seniority" meaning if your next job lays you off you will get no severance and also lower unemployment benefits. So caving in you would give up a huge chunk of social security. If you have a mortgage in particular I wouldn't risk it. I have 15 years seniority right now. Meaning I'd get full pay for more than a year after being laid off. No way would I quit voluntarily. But this coercion is pretty rare here because unions are strong. They won't put up with that shit. On an individual level it's probably best to play the same game. They screw you just within the lines, you screw them back just within the lines. But again luckily this skullduggery is rare here.
  - toss1 3y ago
    Indeed!! - I was speaking only in the US context and I am not a lawyer; not legal advice). Same sort of applies here but usually only if you are a union employee, but then you have your union management who can resolve such issues.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Wow that's really terrible advice. If you see a good opportunity then jump on it and don't look back. Otherwise your career will stagnate and you'll eventually get stuck somewhere with no growth potential. As for paying your mortgage, anyone working in a volatile field such as tech should prioritize saving up several months of living expenses. You have to assume that on any given day your employer might get destroyed by an upstart competitor and lay everyone off.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      That's a very US centric view IMO. Here the companies stick around longer. We don't do that survival of the fittest mindset here. And with the ridiculous house prices and crap wages even in tech it's not really possible to save anymore. I'd take social security over anything. My accrued benefits are something I am entitled to and I worked hard for and I wouldn't drop them without a fight.
      - Detrytus 3y ago
        > We don't do that survival of the fittest mindset here. Which is why the gap between US and Europe is widening - 20 years ago EU GDP was on par with US, now it is 2/3rds of it (and that's after adding UK, to make things comparable after Brexit).
        wkat4242 3y ago
        I don't really care though. I don't always want more more more. I have enough. The only thing that's really crazy expensive is housing but that follows GDP anyway, the real issue is shortage. I even took a pay cut to move to a lower-wage country with higher quality of life. Slower pace, better weather, better infrastructure and social services. I don't even need a car now because public transport is amazing where I live and I really enjoy not having to worry about one. But what I want from my job is stability and security. Not golden mountains in the distance if I work myself down to the bone.
- frumper 3y ago
  At least in California, if your employer substantially changes your work duties or schedule, then you can very likely collect UI. Your advice to take better employment options is still the best advice though.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
Unless there is a contract with the employee, such as a collective bargaining agreement with a union, there is no legal reason a business has to pay an employee severance in the US. A business might pay an employee severance for morale purposes, good PR, and/or to entice the employee to sign agreements that reduce the business's future liabilities. If an employee agrees to quit their job in exchange for severance money, this would result in lower unemployment insurance premiums (i.e. tax liability) for the business because the employee would not be eligible for unemployment benefits from the government. The more unemployment benefits former employees receive, the higher the unemployment insurance premiums for the business.
- tpankaj 3y ago
  There's a difference between legal reasons and decency
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Sure, but note that anyone who does not work for government or big or well funded businesses is not going to get severance when they are laid off or terminated. Which is probably half of the US or maybe even more. All the franchised restaurants/hotels, most retail, smaller construction contractors, etc. It is mostly a benefit for those earning more than median incomes.
- gustavus 3y ago
  My understanding, which could be wrong, is that in a lot of cases severance is offered on condition you won't fight the termination or take legal action. So it is in part a CYA from the companies side.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Yes, that is what I meant in: > and/or to entice the employee to sign agreements that reduce the business's future liabilities.
- mvdtnz 3y ago

This appears to be a way to avoid paying severance. I'd expect any decent employer would offer employees the choice to leave with appropriate severance if they were going to do this to them.

toss1 3y ago

Not only severance but unemployment compensation (which can significantly affect mandatory unemployment insurance costs to the company) can also be avoided by companies if their people quit instead of being laid off. That is why there is the concept of "Constructive Dismissal" (or other similar terms). If the company is significantly degrading your work conditions, hours, requirements, interactions, responsibilities, etc., for the reason of getting you to quit instead of firing you, there may be an issue. If you have immediate better employment options, take them without doing your old company any favors. But if you do not, start making detailed contemporaneous logs of what is happening to you (and what happened before) and talk to an attorney specializing in your state's employment law. Do not take it lying down, especially if you don't have immediate better options.

wkat4242 3y ago
> If you have immediate better employment options, take them without doing your old company any favors. Not sure about the US but here in Europe that's a very bad idea. If you change jobs willingly you give up your "seniority" meaning if your next job lays you off you will get no severance and also lower unemployment benefits. So caving in you would give up a huge chunk of social security. If you have a mortgage in particular I wouldn't risk it. I have 15 years seniority right now. Meaning I'd get full pay for more than a year after being laid off. No way would I quit voluntarily. But this coercion is pretty rare here because unions are strong. They won't put up with that shit. On an individual level it's probably best to play the same game. They screw you just within the lines, you screw them back just within the lines. But again luckily this skullduggery is rare here.
- toss1 3y ago
  Indeed!! - I was speaking only in the US context and I am not a lawyer; not legal advice). Same sort of applies here but usually only if you are a union employee, but then you have your union management who can resolve such issues.
- nradov 3y ago
  Wow that's really terrible advice. If you see a good opportunity then jump on it and don't look back. Otherwise your career will stagnate and you'll eventually get stuck somewhere with no growth potential. As for paying your mortgage, anyone working in a volatile field such as tech should prioritize saving up several months of living expenses. You have to assume that on any given day your employer might get destroyed by an upstart competitor and lay everyone off.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    That's a very US centric view IMO. Here the companies stick around longer. We don't do that survival of the fittest mindset here. And with the ridiculous house prices and crap wages even in tech it's not really possible to save anymore. I'd take social security over anything. My accrued benefits are something I am entitled to and I worked hard for and I wouldn't drop them without a fight.
    - Detrytus 3y ago
      > We don't do that survival of the fittest mindset here. Which is why the gap between US and Europe is widening - 20 years ago EU GDP was on par with US, now it is 2/3rds of it (and that's after adding UK, to make things comparable after Brexit).
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        I don't really care though. I don't always want more more more. I have enough. The only thing that's really crazy expensive is housing but that follows GDP anyway, the real issue is shortage. I even took a pay cut to move to a lower-wage country with higher quality of life. Slower pace, better weather, better infrastructure and social services. I don't even need a car now because public transport is amazing where I live and I really enjoy not having to worry about one. But what I want from my job is stability and security. Not golden mountains in the distance if I work myself down to the bone.
frumper 3y ago
At least in California, if your employer substantially changes your work duties or schedule, then you can very likely collect UI. Your advice to take better employment options is still the best advice though.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Unless there is a contract with the employee, such as a collective bargaining agreement with a union, there is no legal reason a business has to pay an employee severance in the US. A business might pay an employee severance for morale purposes, good PR, and/or to entice the employee to sign agreements that reduce the business's future liabilities. If an employee agrees to quit their job in exchange for severance money, this would result in lower unemployment insurance premiums (i.e. tax liability) for the business because the employee would not be eligible for unemployment benefits from the government. The more unemployment benefits former employees receive, the higher the unemployment insurance premiums for the business.

tpankaj 3y ago
There's a difference between legal reasons and decency
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Sure, but note that anyone who does not work for government or big or well funded businesses is not going to get severance when they are laid off or terminated. Which is probably half of the US or maybe even more. All the franchised restaurants/hotels, most retail, smaller construction contractors, etc. It is mostly a benefit for those earning more than median incomes.
gustavus 3y ago
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that in a lot of cases severance is offered on condition you won't fight the termination or take legal action. So it is in part a CYA from the companies side.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Yes, that is what I meant in: > and/or to entice the employee to sign agreements that reduce the business's future liabilities.
mvdtnz 3y ago