6 ms·

There's probably some legal loophole by which _technically_ the employees have a contract with a new company after the merge, since their old employer no longer

There's probably some legal loophole by which _technically_ the employees have a contract with a new company after the merge, since their old employer no longer exists on paper. This means employees get let go with legal bare minimum compensation and have little (if any) legal position to fight back. Immoral but not illegal.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> This means employees get let go with legal bare minimum compensation and have little (if any) legal position to fight back. I don't know what country you're posting this from, but in the US none of this matters, and it does not apply. When someone is let go there is no "legal bare minimum compensation." There are some notice requirements (e.g. the WARN act), and many companies will pay out compensation in lieu of notice if the WARN act applies, but an acquisition makes no difference to these notice requirements.
- comprev 3y ago
  In the UK we do have some protections depending on length of time with the company. There is some framework for redundancy payments. The US culture of "at will employment" (i.e fire you on the spot for little reason) gives me anxiety and I don't even live there!
  - bluGill 3y ago
    There are pros and cons. The ability to lay someone off quickly means someone in the US can risk hiring a bunch of people on a risky bet - if/when they give up on the project they can let the people go and cut their losses. Some of those risky bets pay off though and the people are not laid off. Note that I said lay off not fire above. There is an important legal difference.
    - Isthatablackgsd 3y ago
      There are both side of the coin when it comes to at-will employments with layoff. They can use it to get rid of high paying employees to hire lowest quality of employee for little pay that will affects the quality of their product. And they don't care because it looks good on their balance sheet. And there is no recourse for high paying employee against the company (unless they have a signed contracts that have a clause to prevent this). My former job laidoff few people because of high paying salary. They got high salary because positions required a specialized and niche knowledge for their jobs. They are good at what they do which earned their justification for high paying. It took the company a year to hire a barely qualified person because they don't want to increase the pay after declined job offers from multiple potential candidates.
    - chii 3y ago
      > an important legal difference. so what is the difference? a layoff is due to business "loss" or changes? How is that really any different to a firing?
      - bluGill 3y ago
        Fire is for cause and that means they will tell others when asked. This also means more paperwork to prove you are bad. That is they want someone doing the job you are supposed to do,but for whatever reason not you. Laid off just means they don't need the job done anymore, and has nothing to do with how good or bad you are.
        dataflow 3y ago
        > Laid off just means they don't need the job done anymore, and has nothing to do with how good or bad you are. Eh, in theory maybe. Not really in practice. When layoffs happen, companies often prioritize laying off lower performers. And they often still need the jobs done, just fewer people. Of course none of these are legal differences. The legal difference I know of is that being fired for cause affects whether you are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
  - brianwawok 3y ago
    Sure is nice when you hire a bad employee
    - olliej 3y ago
      sure is nice when you have a bad employer
      - nxm 3y ago
        Then find an alternate employer?
        olliej 3y ago
        The whole problem is employers abusing employees by firing without any reason, and using the threat of firing employees if they complain. That is used to force employees to accept unsafe and illegal working conditions, because if you're an employee who's choice is "report workplace problems" or "pay rent" you're kind of forced into accepting unsafe or unreasonable work places.[1] Because it turns out that is what employers do. That's why most countries have have laws preventing employers from arbitrarily dismissing employees unless you have an actual reason. If you have a bad employee, you can fire them. You don't need at will employment for that. Unless you mean "I don't like this employee, who is doing their job properly" in which case you don't have a bad employee, you're an asshole. [1] If you're ever fired and your employer claims they're allowed to do so because "at will" employer, note that "at will" only covers "legal" reasons. Retaliation, bias, anti-pregnancy, anti-child, anti-religion, etc are all illegal reasons. Always ensure that everything you communicate with your employer is in writing. As @nxm is demonstrating your only safe option is to assume that your employer is your enemy.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      In Germany, we have a 6 month "probationary period" during which either side can terminate the employment contract. That's more than enough time to check if you got a dud.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    Especially notable in an easy to fire environment when health insurance is tied to employment. Everything feels higher stakes when there is minimal social safety net.
    - sgerenser 3y ago
      Ever since the ACA passed, you can jump right onto a marketplace plan with very little out of pocket (based on your income, which is $0 if you’re unemployed!). And they can’t exclude preexisting conditions anymore. Would be even better if employer-based health insurance went away completely, but at least it’s better than the old status quo.
  - comprev 3y ago
    To clarify my earlier comment I know "to fire" and "to let go" are quite different - the former implies you broke contract, be it illegal means or poor performance reasons. "to let go" means redundancy. It appears some countries see little difference between the two and others have a clear distinction and legal process.
Turbots 3y ago
[dead]
late2part 3y ago
Why is it immoral to fire employees that the owner thinks are not needed?
School-Cotton 3y ago
In the U.S. (where VMware is based), virtually all jobs can fire you for no reason at will. Contractually guaranteed jobs are rare.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> This means employees get let go with legal bare minimum compensation and have little (if any) legal position to fight back. I don't know what country you're posting this from, but in the US none of this matters, and it does not apply. When someone is let go there is no "legal bare minimum compensation." There are some notice requirements (e.g. the WARN act), and many companies will pay out compensation in lieu of notice if the WARN act applies, but an acquisition makes no difference to these notice requirements.

comprev 3y ago
In the UK we do have some protections depending on length of time with the company. There is some framework for redundancy payments. The US culture of "at will employment" (i.e fire you on the spot for little reason) gives me anxiety and I don't even live there!
- bluGill 3y ago
  There are pros and cons. The ability to lay someone off quickly means someone in the US can risk hiring a bunch of people on a risky bet - if/when they give up on the project they can let the people go and cut their losses. Some of those risky bets pay off though and the people are not laid off. Note that I said lay off not fire above. There is an important legal difference.
  - Isthatablackgsd 3y ago
    There are both side of the coin when it comes to at-will employments with layoff. They can use it to get rid of high paying employees to hire lowest quality of employee for little pay that will affects the quality of their product. And they don't care because it looks good on their balance sheet. And there is no recourse for high paying employee against the company (unless they have a signed contracts that have a clause to prevent this). My former job laidoff few people because of high paying salary. They got high salary because positions required a specialized and niche knowledge for their jobs. They are good at what they do which earned their justification for high paying. It took the company a year to hire a barely qualified person because they don't want to increase the pay after declined job offers from multiple potential candidates.
  - chii 3y ago
    > an important legal difference. so what is the difference? a layoff is due to business "loss" or changes? How is that really any different to a firing?
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Fire is for cause and that means they will tell others when asked. This also means more paperwork to prove you are bad. That is they want someone doing the job you are supposed to do,but for whatever reason not you. Laid off just means they don't need the job done anymore, and has nothing to do with how good or bad you are.
      - dataflow 3y ago
        > Laid off just means they don't need the job done anymore, and has nothing to do with how good or bad you are. Eh, in theory maybe. Not really in practice. When layoffs happen, companies often prioritize laying off lower performers. And they often still need the jobs done, just fewer people. Of course none of these are legal differences. The legal difference I know of is that being fired for cause affects whether you are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
- brianwawok 3y ago
  Sure is nice when you hire a bad employee
  - olliej 3y ago
    sure is nice when you have a bad employer
    - nxm 3y ago
      Then find an alternate employer?
      - olliej 3y ago
        The whole problem is employers abusing employees by firing without any reason, and using the threat of firing employees if they complain. That is used to force employees to accept unsafe and illegal working conditions, because if you're an employee who's choice is "report workplace problems" or "pay rent" you're kind of forced into accepting unsafe or unreasonable work places.[1] Because it turns out that is what employers do. That's why most countries have have laws preventing employers from arbitrarily dismissing employees unless you have an actual reason. If you have a bad employee, you can fire them. You don't need at will employment for that. Unless you mean "I don't like this employee, who is doing their job properly" in which case you don't have a bad employee, you're an asshole. [1] If you're ever fired and your employer claims they're allowed to do so because "at will" employer, note that "at will" only covers "legal" reasons. Retaliation, bias, anti-pregnancy, anti-child, anti-religion, etc are all illegal reasons. Always ensure that everything you communicate with your employer is in writing. As @nxm is demonstrating your only safe option is to assume that your employer is your enemy.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    In Germany, we have a 6 month "probationary period" during which either side can terminate the employment contract. That's more than enough time to check if you got a dud.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  Especially notable in an easy to fire environment when health insurance is tied to employment. Everything feels higher stakes when there is minimal social safety net.
  - sgerenser 3y ago
    Ever since the ACA passed, you can jump right onto a marketplace plan with very little out of pocket (based on your income, which is $0 if you’re unemployed!). And they can’t exclude preexisting conditions anymore. Would be even better if employer-based health insurance went away completely, but at least it’s better than the old status quo.
- comprev 3y ago
  To clarify my earlier comment I know "to fire" and "to let go" are quite different - the former implies you broke contract, be it illegal means or poor performance reasons. "to let go" means redundancy. It appears some countries see little difference between the two and others have a clear distinction and legal process.

Turbots 3y ago

[dead]

late2part 3y ago

Why is it immoral to fire employees that the owner thinks are not needed?

School-Cotton 3y ago

In the U.S. (where VMware is based), virtually all jobs can fire you for no reason at will. Contractually guaranteed jobs are rare.