4 ms·

For any HR folks kicking around HN: When thinking about lay-off at this scale of business, how do y'all go about navigating the WARN act? Do you just mitigate i

by neom 3y ago

For any HR folks kicking around HN: When thinking about lay-off at this scale of business, how do y'all go about navigating the WARN act? Do you just mitigate it with longer than 60-day layoff compensation?

bluetidepro 3y ago
Have been wondering this, too.
grumple 3y ago
Not an HR folk, but from what I've seen they often just offer at least 60 days of severance and benefits.
codingdave 3y ago
There are quite a few exceptions that can be used. They are listed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini... IANAL, nor am I HR, but I have to imagine that if a company wanted to avoid the WARN act, those exceptions would give them creative ways to structure the layoffs to avoid it.
- mikeryan 3y ago
  Unless you legitimately fall under those exceptions it’s generally viewed as best not try to skirt the WARN act you’ll end up with a bunch of lawsuits to defend and pretty harsh penalties if you lose (back pay up to the time of the award plus the severance and legal fees)
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
If necessary, nearly all companies will give at least 60 days severance in lieu of notice. More to the point, though, in this particular example I'm not even sure federal WARN notice requirements apply here - there are lots of loopholes people don't often understand. See https://www.schneiderwallace.com/practice-areas/employment/warn-act-mass-layoff-closure/ https://www.schneiderwallace.com/practice-areas/employment/w... - looking at those bullets: * "Layoffs of 500 or more workers at a single site or location." - doesn't apply, was only 170 employees * "Layoffs of 50 or more workers when those layoffs comprise 33% of the total full-time workers at the location" - my guess is that doesn't apply either, as the 170 workers were spread throughout the company * "Layoffs of 50 or more workers when closing a building or facility, or the layoffs include the discontinuation of an entire operating unit" - Again, I believe these discord layoffs were broad-based and not the result of entirely closing a single business unit.
- eli 3y ago
  California has its own WARN Act with less lenient rules
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  > If necessary, nearly all companies will give at least 60 days severance in lieu of notice. They don't call it severance - it's just regular pay for 60 days. Technically they're still employed by the company. At the end of that 60 day period when the employment is terminated, that's when severance (if there is any) is paid.
  - whstl 3y ago
    This is often called "garden leave".
UncleOxidant 3y ago
My wife was working for a bank until August of last year. One day in late August they called a meeting and told the whole department that while they were still employees for the next 60 days they could no longer come into the office and actually work. That's how they got around the WARN act - they didn't have to file the WARN report until that 60 days was up. I guess that kind of makes sense for a bank: if you give people a 60 days heads up that layoffs are coming that could result in potential mayhem.
- rqtwteye 3y ago
  "if you give people a 60 days heads up that layoffs are coming that could result in potential mayhem." Does this mayhem actually ever happen or is it paranoia? I have seen several layoffs where people got advance warning of a few weeks up to almost a year. I have never seen people do anything bad once they got told they would be laid off.
  - paxys 3y ago
    Of course it happens. If you tell people they are going to be fired in 60 days, in the best case they will stop putting in any effort, in the worst case they will actively sabotage others or steal company data and property. Just making them stay at home is always the correct decision.
  - UncleOxidant 3y ago
    Even if it doesn't happen very often, for a bank the risks are just too high.
  - bityard 3y ago
    To be blunt, it doesn't matter if it actually happens or not. It's about risk management. It is absolutely the norm in most companies to remove an employee's access to company resources if the termination was not the employee's idea. Other than general goodwill, there is no incentive to give an employee a heads-up that they are being laid off. And lots of downside if the employee happens to be disgruntled and do something evil. Goodwill does not show up on balance sheets. But theft and sabotage do. I'm not saying I like it, but I understand it.
fragmede 3y ago
in this case, Facebook is navigating this by giving 5 months of severance, in excess of what the WARN act requires.

by neom 3y ago

bluetidepro 3y ago

Have been wondering this, too.

grumple 3y ago

Not an HR folk, but from what I've seen they often just offer at least 60 days of severance and benefits.

codingdave 3y ago

There are quite a few exceptions that can be used. They are listed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini... IANAL, nor am I HR, but I have to imagine that if a company wanted to avoid the WARN act, those exceptions would give them creative ways to structure the layoffs to avoid it.

mikeryan 3y ago
Unless you legitimately fall under those exceptions it’s generally viewed as best not try to skirt the WARN act you’ll end up with a bunch of lawsuits to defend and pretty harsh penalties if you lose (back pay up to the time of the award plus the severance and legal fees)

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

If necessary, nearly all companies will give at least 60 days severance in lieu of notice. More to the point, though, in this particular example I'm not even sure federal WARN notice requirements apply here - there are lots of loopholes people don't often understand. See https://www.schneiderwallace.com/practice-areas/employment/warn-act-mass-layoff-closure/ https://www.schneiderwallace.com/practice-areas/employment/w... - looking at those bullets: * "Layoffs of 500 or more workers at a single site or location." - doesn't apply, was only 170 employees * "Layoffs of 50 or more workers when those layoffs comprise 33% of the total full-time workers at the location" - my guess is that doesn't apply either, as the 170 workers were spread throughout the company * "Layoffs of 50 or more workers when closing a building or facility, or the layoffs include the discontinuation of an entire operating unit" - Again, I believe these discord layoffs were broad-based and not the result of entirely closing a single business unit.

eli 3y ago
California has its own WARN Act with less lenient rules
UncleOxidant 3y ago
> If necessary, nearly all companies will give at least 60 days severance in lieu of notice. They don't call it severance - it's just regular pay for 60 days. Technically they're still employed by the company. At the end of that 60 day period when the employment is terminated, that's when severance (if there is any) is paid.
- whstl 3y ago
  This is often called "garden leave".

UncleOxidant 3y ago

My wife was working for a bank until August of last year. One day in late August they called a meeting and told the whole department that while they were still employees for the next 60 days they could no longer come into the office and actually work. That's how they got around the WARN act - they didn't have to file the WARN report until that 60 days was up. I guess that kind of makes sense for a bank: if you give people a 60 days heads up that layoffs are coming that could result in potential mayhem.

rqtwteye 3y ago
"if you give people a 60 days heads up that layoffs are coming that could result in potential mayhem." Does this mayhem actually ever happen or is it paranoia? I have seen several layoffs where people got advance warning of a few weeks up to almost a year. I have never seen people do anything bad once they got told they would be laid off.
- paxys 3y ago
  Of course it happens. If you tell people they are going to be fired in 60 days, in the best case they will stop putting in any effort, in the worst case they will actively sabotage others or steal company data and property. Just making them stay at home is always the correct decision.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  Even if it doesn't happen very often, for a bank the risks are just too high.
- bityard 3y ago
  To be blunt, it doesn't matter if it actually happens or not. It's about risk management. It is absolutely the norm in most companies to remove an employee's access to company resources if the termination was not the employee's idea. Other than general goodwill, there is no incentive to give an employee a heads-up that they are being laid off. And lots of downside if the employee happens to be disgruntled and do something evil. Goodwill does not show up on balance sheets. But theft and sabotage do. I'm not saying I like it, but I understand it.

fragmede 3y ago

in this case, Facebook is navigating this by giving 5 months of severance, in excess of what the WARN act requires.