4 ms·

Firings for performance do not entitle an employee to severance, This keeps getting repeated on this thread but its not true. U.S. WARN laws require severance

Firings for performance do not entitle an employee to severance, This keeps getting repeated on this thread but its not true. U.S. WARN laws require severance or 60 days notice for mass layoffs (which would definitely include 5% of a company as large as GM). Only terminations for cause are exempted, and performance is only grounds for cause in a very small handful of "right to work" states.

mystified5016 2y ago
The point is that this move isn't a mass layoff. It's not a layoff at all, it's firing "under-performing" employees. QED no entitlement.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  No, my point is that it's irrelevant whether they're underperforming or not; what matters for WARN purposes is the amount of workers being laid off. Only for-cause terminations are excluded the WARN Act, and for-cause in this context means specifically behavior that violates the law, or the employee handbook setting forth company rules (which are binding on both the company and employee, which is why companies make you read them every year). Also note that companies can't make poor performance a violation of company rules; this has been tried before and smacked down pretty harshly even in right-to-work states. Thus, those 5% laid off due to stack ranking are entitled to 60 days of severance, or 60 days notice of an impending termination.
  - throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
    You're missing the part where 5% isn't let go at once triggering WARN. Think of this is as a continuous process of evaluation -> pip -> fire. This means no WARN and no severance.
    - gamblor956 2y ago
      You're missing the part where the WARN Act doesn't require the employees to be let go all at once. And the part where rolling layoffs at a company the size of GM will all involve multiple layoffs exceeding the WARN threshold. And the part where no general counsel will let their company knowingly subject itself to a $500 daily fine per employee, in addition to full back pay for the mandated period. And the part where GM satisfies its WARN obligations by paying the mandated severance (or more) in lieu of providing advance notice...which is what most companies do...
eadler 2y ago
"Right to work" is an anti union provision and has nothing to with being fired for cause or not.

mystified5016 2y ago

The point is that this move isn't a mass layoff. It's not a layoff at all, it's firing "under-performing" employees. QED no entitlement.

gamblor956 2y ago
No, my point is that it's irrelevant whether they're underperforming or not; what matters for WARN purposes is the amount of workers being laid off. Only for-cause terminations are excluded the WARN Act, and for-cause in this context means specifically behavior that violates the law, or the employee handbook setting forth company rules (which are binding on both the company and employee, which is why companies make you read them every year). Also note that companies can't make poor performance a violation of company rules; this has been tried before and smacked down pretty harshly even in right-to-work states. Thus, those 5% laid off due to stack ranking are entitled to 60 days of severance, or 60 days notice of an impending termination.
- throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
  You're missing the part where 5% isn't let go at once triggering WARN. Think of this is as a continuous process of evaluation -> pip -> fire. This means no WARN and no severance.
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    You're missing the part where the WARN Act doesn't require the employees to be let go all at once. And the part where rolling layoffs at a company the size of GM will all involve multiple layoffs exceeding the WARN threshold. And the part where no general counsel will let their company knowingly subject itself to a $500 daily fine per employee, in addition to full back pay for the mandated period. And the part where GM satisfies its WARN obligations by paying the mandated severance (or more) in lieu of providing advance notice...which is what most companies do...

eadler 2y ago

"Right to work" is an anti union provision and has nothing to with being fired for cause or not.