4 ms·

When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that forc

When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that force billionaires to pay when they think the rules just don't apply to them - it's clear they often feel that the sheer expense of the legal system is often a deterrent for poorer folks to get what they are owed. I hope all these folks get their severance, and hopefully with interest, legal fees and penalties.

andsoitis 3y ago
> I hope all these folks get their severance, and hopefully with interest, legal fees and penalties. I wonder what percentage the legal team will take. I doubt this is happening pro bono.
- saghm 3y ago
  Sounds like a good argument for Twitter/X to have to pay the legal fees; the laid off employees should get their full severance, and in order for that to happen, they shouldn't have to spend it on the lawyers
- epistasis 3y ago
  And it certainly should not be pro bono. It is a serious amount of work to take people to work, requiring years of education and a ton of skill. Particularly when the opposition has pockets as deep as X/Twitter/Musk. Hopefully there are large damages that go to those who have been wronged in addition to restitution and repayment of the legal fees I can not understand why some body like Musk who has such as easy ability to do the right thing would instead choose a far loser costly and damaging right. It's absolutely idiotic, absolutely damaging to the word as a whole, and fuck Musk. Only the worst sort of shit bag steals money at this level. If somebody steals baby formula out of desperation, they will feel far more drastic legal consequences than Musk will.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  I'm guessing that lawyers are perhaps the one group that Musk pays on time, so he doesn't have to pay up elsewhere.
  - IntelMiner 3y ago
    A certain former president has shown that you don't even need to do that!
- justin66 3y ago
  A judgment would include legal fees, and depending on the state, X might be on the hook for triple damages. Plenty of money to go around, they just need to win in court.
MattGaiser 3y ago
In general, there should be prompt payment legislation. My family used to be in food processing. The grocers (except Walmart, which is one of the reasons they can get lower prices), will straight up just not pay by the date specified in the contract and will make you hound them.
- prepend 3y ago
  This is just contract law. When I managed vendor contracts I had to specify the terms of payment (net30, etc) and penalty for late (2%, etc). So there’s already legislation that enforces contracts. I’m not sure how you would make a law that was helpful to force prompt payment clauses specifically. It’s important to only accept terms that you want. And if your customers keep paying late, then collect your penalty charges and negotiate for higher penalties next time. Most vendors will pay on the absolute last day possible so if the terms are net30, they will pay on the 30th day.
  - dangero 3y ago
    Power imbalances still exist. The problem is, if I have a contract with Google that is 80% of my small business revenue and they pay me late, what recourse do I have? It's a constant negotiation of who has the willingness to walk away. If they pay me late, I'll likely not complain because the money is big for me. I don't want to rock the boat. Now if the gov told Google they could receive a massive fine for paying late, they would stop doing it.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    My primary point is that there should be much, much quicker resolution of these cases, and when the facts aren't in doubt (e.g. contract says I delivered X, and if I did, I have the right to garnish wages/bank accounts/etc.) there should be a much faster pace to start requiring that the deadbeat pays up. Taking the Twitter case, a lot of these folks were laid off nearly a year ago. Why is this still going on? Is there anything that could be more cut-and-dry: they were promised severance, in writing, in their termination agreements, and they haven't received it. As far as I'm aware there are 0 facts that are actually in dispute (save some of the highest up execs that were basically fraudulently fired "for cause", but that's a different story). If Twitter wants to continue not paying them, they should have to file for bankruptcy, otherwise the laid off workers should get to take it straight from the Twitter bank accounts at this point.
ritebut 3y ago
Of course when the shoe is on the billionaires foot, the workers are immoral: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/05/16/elon-musk-work-from-home-morally-wrong-when-some-have-to-show-up.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/05/16/elon-musk-work-from-home... Our culture is joke, bleating about how free we are. Some freedom from a mathematical minority would be nice. We need term limits on all forms of social influence.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> When do they start straight up garnishing X’s bank accounts? Well, they have to lose the cases before people can start enforcing judgements.
- lucasyvas 3y ago
  X is not paying their bills either from the sounds of it. Musk should be on the streets already.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Well, yeah, both the Connecticut case that is the primary reason for this article and the generally similar (but somewhat broader in terms of the kinds of wrongs raised) San Francisco case are not just about the initial violations by Twitter, but Twitter’s alleged failure to pay the arbitration fees required by the arbitrator they have required people to use in place of going to court, which is claimed to have stalled all the arbitration cases (and which is the basis for bringing the dispute to court, despite the binding arbitration agreement which would normally foreclose that.)
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Is it possible for someone else to fund the arbitration fees so they can proceed without Twitter’s participation? Similar to how Peter Thiel financed the destruction of Gawker via Bollea v. Gawker. Ideally, you get to a judgement as quickly as possible (by any means necessary) before Twitter’s insolvency, even if someone else has to front whatever Twitter was in the hook for to proceed with arbitration.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        Arguably Twitter's refusal to honor the arbitration agreement should just invalidate the agreement and allow these to proceed as a class action.
        3y ago
labster 3y ago
Elon: I want X to be the next network people trust to transfer money Also Elon: Let’s not pay any of Twitter’s bills
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  When a large corporation or wealthy person doesn't pay bills on time it's called managing cashflow. When a peon does it he's a deadbeat.
threeseed 3y ago
There needs to be criminal consequences for company officeholders. If you are wilfully withholding pay then it should be mandatory jail time. Legislation is underway here in Australia for such an approach after 7/11 et al systemically withheld pay knowing that the financial consequences weren't going to personally affect them.
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  We don't have debtors prisons. While there are specific cases like this where some jail time would seem just, overall it's a negative for society. It's a civil matter for a reason. I do think such cases should rip the corporate veil to shreds though, and the billionaires would have to pay up.
  - ritebut 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - ritebut 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > We don't have debtors prisons. No one's suggesting such. We have plenty of disputed behavior and harms that are within the purview of civil courts, and then more egregious versions that are crimes. IMO, withholding significant pay that you have the ability to pay and is unambiguously contractually owed causes pretty serious harm, and society has strong reasons to criminalize this conduct. Accepting services from someone while having no intent to honor the contract, hoping that disproportionate resources will prevent them from enforcing the contract "feels" like fraud: so let's codify it.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      Exactly: we already have plenty of areas where a civil case can turn into a criminal one like fraud (just ask Elizabeth Holmes). Saying "we'll pay you severance" with 0 intention to do so sure sounds like fraud to me.

andsoitis 3y ago

> I hope all these folks get their severance, and hopefully with interest, legal fees and penalties. I wonder what percentage the legal team will take. I doubt this is happening pro bono.

saghm 3y ago
Sounds like a good argument for Twitter/X to have to pay the legal fees; the laid off employees should get their full severance, and in order for that to happen, they shouldn't have to spend it on the lawyers
epistasis 3y ago
And it certainly should not be pro bono. It is a serious amount of work to take people to work, requiring years of education and a ton of skill. Particularly when the opposition has pockets as deep as X/Twitter/Musk. Hopefully there are large damages that go to those who have been wronged in addition to restitution and repayment of the legal fees I can not understand why some body like Musk who has such as easy ability to do the right thing would instead choose a far loser costly and damaging right. It's absolutely idiotic, absolutely damaging to the word as a whole, and fuck Musk. Only the worst sort of shit bag steals money at this level. If somebody steals baby formula out of desperation, they will feel far more drastic legal consequences than Musk will.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
lost_tourist 3y ago
I'm guessing that lawyers are perhaps the one group that Musk pays on time, so he doesn't have to pay up elsewhere.
- IntelMiner 3y ago
  A certain former president has shown that you don't even need to do that!
justin66 3y ago
A judgment would include legal fees, and depending on the state, X might be on the hook for triple damages. Plenty of money to go around, they just need to win in court.

MattGaiser 3y ago

In general, there should be prompt payment legislation. My family used to be in food processing. The grocers (except Walmart, which is one of the reasons they can get lower prices), will straight up just not pay by the date specified in the contract and will make you hound them.

prepend 3y ago
This is just contract law. When I managed vendor contracts I had to specify the terms of payment (net30, etc) and penalty for late (2%, etc). So there’s already legislation that enforces contracts. I’m not sure how you would make a law that was helpful to force prompt payment clauses specifically. It’s important to only accept terms that you want. And if your customers keep paying late, then collect your penalty charges and negotiate for higher penalties next time. Most vendors will pay on the absolute last day possible so if the terms are net30, they will pay on the 30th day.
- dangero 3y ago
  Power imbalances still exist. The problem is, if I have a contract with Google that is 80% of my small business revenue and they pay me late, what recourse do I have? It's a constant negotiation of who has the willingness to walk away. If they pay me late, I'll likely not complain because the money is big for me. I don't want to rock the boat. Now if the gov told Google they could receive a massive fine for paying late, they would stop doing it.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  My primary point is that there should be much, much quicker resolution of these cases, and when the facts aren't in doubt (e.g. contract says I delivered X, and if I did, I have the right to garnish wages/bank accounts/etc.) there should be a much faster pace to start requiring that the deadbeat pays up. Taking the Twitter case, a lot of these folks were laid off nearly a year ago. Why is this still going on? Is there anything that could be more cut-and-dry: they were promised severance, in writing, in their termination agreements, and they haven't received it. As far as I'm aware there are 0 facts that are actually in dispute (save some of the highest up execs that were basically fraudulently fired "for cause", but that's a different story). If Twitter wants to continue not paying them, they should have to file for bankruptcy, otherwise the laid off workers should get to take it straight from the Twitter bank accounts at this point.

ritebut 3y ago

Of course when the shoe is on the billionaires foot, the workers are immoral: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/05/16/elon-musk-work-from-home-morally-wrong-when-some-have-to-show-up.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/05/16/elon-musk-work-from-home... Our culture is joke, bleating about how free we are. Some freedom from a mathematical minority would be nice. We need term limits on all forms of social influence.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> When do they start straight up garnishing X’s bank accounts? Well, they have to lose the cases before people can start enforcing judgements.

lucasyvas 3y ago
X is not paying their bills either from the sounds of it. Musk should be on the streets already.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Well, yeah, both the Connecticut case that is the primary reason for this article and the generally similar (but somewhat broader in terms of the kinds of wrongs raised) San Francisco case are not just about the initial violations by Twitter, but Twitter’s alleged failure to pay the arbitration fees required by the arbitrator they have required people to use in place of going to court, which is claimed to have stalled all the arbitration cases (and which is the basis for bringing the dispute to court, despite the binding arbitration agreement which would normally foreclose that.)
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Is it possible for someone else to fund the arbitration fees so they can proceed without Twitter’s participation? Similar to how Peter Thiel financed the destruction of Gawker via Bollea v. Gawker. Ideally, you get to a judgement as quickly as possible (by any means necessary) before Twitter’s insolvency, even if someone else has to front whatever Twitter was in the hook for to proceed with arbitration.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Arguably Twitter's refusal to honor the arbitration agreement should just invalidate the agreement and allow these to proceed as a class action.
      - 3y ago

labster 3y ago

Elon: I want X to be the next network people trust to transfer money Also Elon: Let’s not pay any of Twitter’s bills

Gibbon1 3y ago
When a large corporation or wealthy person doesn't pay bills on time it's called managing cashflow. When a peon does it he's a deadbeat.

threeseed 3y ago

There needs to be criminal consequences for company officeholders. If you are wilfully withholding pay then it should be mandatory jail time. Legislation is underway here in Australia for such an approach after 7/11 et al systemically withheld pay knowing that the financial consequences weren't going to personally affect them.

lost_tourist 3y ago
We don't have debtors prisons. While there are specific cases like this where some jail time would seem just, overall it's a negative for society. It's a civil matter for a reason. I do think such cases should rip the corporate veil to shreds though, and the billionaires would have to pay up.
- ritebut 3y ago
  [flagged]
- ritebut 3y ago
  [flagged]
- mlyle 3y ago
  > We don't have debtors prisons. No one's suggesting such. We have plenty of disputed behavior and harms that are within the purview of civil courts, and then more egregious versions that are crimes. IMO, withholding significant pay that you have the ability to pay and is unambiguously contractually owed causes pretty serious harm, and society has strong reasons to criminalize this conduct. Accepting services from someone while having no intent to honor the contract, hoping that disproportionate resources will prevent them from enforcing the contract "feels" like fraud: so let's codify it.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Exactly: we already have plenty of areas where a civil case can turn into a criminal one like fraud (just ask Elizabeth Holmes). Saying "we'll pay you severance" with 0 intention to do so sure sounds like fraud to me.