3 ms·

Meta's mass layoff severance agreements illegal, says judge

55 points by rntn 2y ago

tester756 2y ago
I don't know what were the conditions But severance packages can be REALLY attractive e.g more than a year of pay
- bankcust08385 2y ago
  It depends. I got 18 weeks. They didn't say, but I was laid off because I was new and remote. They're all about RTO because ironically they interviewed me again for SWE roles relatively recently under the condition of RTO as an absolute requirement. Whatever, I'm not playing this stupid game anymore.
  - grepfru_it 2y ago
    Bait and switch. This happened to me, the day before I accept their offer they tell me it’s changing to hybrid. To make up for it they offer me relocation compensation. An entire $5k! Mind you that doesn’t even cover my mortgage and, maybe more insulting, this position was the equivalent of an L9 role at google. Anyway I happily accept because money. I never had plans to go to the office but I did make a few trips on my own dime to meet the team. The entire time “it’s so hard to find candidates like you”. After 3 months I left for a job that pays double. Play stupid games, lose exceptional candidates.
- alberth 2y ago
  This is highly country specific. Luxembourg Being one of the more favorable. Germany can be 0. https://www.tarmack.com/blog/severance-regulations-across-countries https://www.tarmack.com/blog/severance-regulations-across-co... https://www.cnbc.com/2010/12/03/The-Worlds-Best-Places-To-Get-Laid-Off.html https://www.cnbc.com/2010/12/03/The-Worlds-Best-Places-To-Ge...
legitster 2y ago
On one hand, it's probably better for everyone that employees can dish on their employers. On the other hand, if you already signed an optional agreement not to badmouth Meta for a ton of money - would Meta be in their right to ask for all of that money back?
- Spivak 2y ago
  Maybe ethically but legally no. When the language is stricken the rest of the contract stands as agreed. What I would give for a law that makes it a punishable offense to put illegal terms in your contracts. I see it all the damn time when dealing with employers hoping that people don't know half the contract won't stand if challenged.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I don’t see why it would be ethical to give back the money either. This isn’t an uninformed person making a mistake on contract terms, this is one of the most qualified legal teams betting that they can get something by breaking the law, and losing the bet.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  Meta is morally in the wrong for putting terms in their contracts they are well equipped to determine would be legally unenforceable. Individual engineers agreeing to contracts deserve some deference, while a multinational corporation deserves stricter scrutiny.
- soganess 2y ago
  Wouldn't that just mean the contract is upheld? Like it probably says (pardon my legalese): We give dollhairs and you say only nice things[*]! [*]: If you say mean things, your dolls get a haircut. So if Meta gets its money back, the contract is upheld... It is not like they(Meta) are going to be asking for money "back" from folks that followed the terms of the agreement, just from folks who didn't.
guywithahat 2y ago
> zuckercorp Unrelated but I hate when journalists squeeze in these insults. The judge was part of the NLRB, and this can (and probably will) be appealed to a federal court, where it sounds like precedent doesn’t agree with the NLRB. The NLRB is a joke, and they love to issue rulings against politically unpopular people, even if the ruling is clearly wrong. It could be that this is upheld in federal court, but we should wait and see before claiming anything is happening
- etc-hosts 2y ago
  > and they love to issue rulings against politically unpopular people, even if the ruling is clearly wrong Please give an example.
- atlas_hugged 2y ago
  Wild accusations without evidence? Shill much?
  - guywithahat 2y ago
    Why don't you just read the article above?
- kurikuri 2y ago
  > The NLRB is a joke, and they love to issue rulings against politically unpopular people, even if the ruling is clearly wrong. You’ll need evidence your claim here… and are you implying that their ruling was wrong in this instance? In what way? The NLRB’s decision was linked and everything seemed sound while I was reading it.

55 points by rntn 2y ago

tester756 2y ago

I don't know what were the conditions But severance packages can be REALLY attractive e.g more than a year of pay

bankcust08385 2y ago
It depends. I got 18 weeks. They didn't say, but I was laid off because I was new and remote. They're all about RTO because ironically they interviewed me again for SWE roles relatively recently under the condition of RTO as an absolute requirement. Whatever, I'm not playing this stupid game anymore.
- grepfru_it 2y ago
  Bait and switch. This happened to me, the day before I accept their offer they tell me it’s changing to hybrid. To make up for it they offer me relocation compensation. An entire $5k! Mind you that doesn’t even cover my mortgage and, maybe more insulting, this position was the equivalent of an L9 role at google. Anyway I happily accept because money. I never had plans to go to the office but I did make a few trips on my own dime to meet the team. The entire time “it’s so hard to find candidates like you”. After 3 months I left for a job that pays double. Play stupid games, lose exceptional candidates.
alberth 2y ago
This is highly country specific. Luxembourg Being one of the more favorable. Germany can be 0. https://www.tarmack.com/blog/severance-regulations-across-countries https://www.tarmack.com/blog/severance-regulations-across-co... https://www.cnbc.com/2010/12/03/The-Worlds-Best-Places-To-Get-Laid-Off.html https://www.cnbc.com/2010/12/03/The-Worlds-Best-Places-To-Ge...

legitster 2y ago

On one hand, it's probably better for everyone that employees can dish on their employers. On the other hand, if you already signed an optional agreement not to badmouth Meta for a ton of money - would Meta be in their right to ask for all of that money back?

Spivak 2y ago
Maybe ethically but legally no. When the language is stricken the rest of the contract stands as agreed. What I would give for a law that makes it a punishable offense to put illegal terms in your contracts. I see it all the damn time when dealing with employers hoping that people don't know half the contract won't stand if challenged.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I don’t see why it would be ethical to give back the money either. This isn’t an uninformed person making a mistake on contract terms, this is one of the most qualified legal teams betting that they can get something by breaking the law, and losing the bet.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
TaylorAlexander 2y ago
Meta is morally in the wrong for putting terms in their contracts they are well equipped to determine would be legally unenforceable. Individual engineers agreeing to contracts deserve some deference, while a multinational corporation deserves stricter scrutiny.
soganess 2y ago
Wouldn't that just mean the contract is upheld? Like it probably says (pardon my legalese): We give dollhairs and you say only nice things[*]! [*]: If you say mean things, your dolls get a haircut. So if Meta gets its money back, the contract is upheld... It is not like they(Meta) are going to be asking for money "back" from folks that followed the terms of the agreement, just from folks who didn't.

guywithahat 2y ago

> zuckercorp Unrelated but I hate when journalists squeeze in these insults. The judge was part of the NLRB, and this can (and probably will) be appealed to a federal court, where it sounds like precedent doesn’t agree with the NLRB. The NLRB is a joke, and they love to issue rulings against politically unpopular people, even if the ruling is clearly wrong. It could be that this is upheld in federal court, but we should wait and see before claiming anything is happening

etc-hosts 2y ago
> and they love to issue rulings against politically unpopular people, even if the ruling is clearly wrong Please give an example.
atlas_hugged 2y ago
Wild accusations without evidence? Shill much?
- guywithahat 2y ago
  Why don't you just read the article above?
kurikuri 2y ago
> The NLRB is a joke, and they love to issue rulings against politically unpopular people, even if the ruling is clearly wrong. You’ll need evidence your claim here… and are you implying that their ruling was wrong in this instance? In what way? The NLRB’s decision was linked and everything seemed sound while I was reading it.