> Additional plaintiffs, Justine De Caires, Jessica Pan, and Grae Kindel said they were terminated on November 3 by being locked out of their accounts.
> Under Twitter’s takeover deal terms, Musk had agreed to keep employee compensation and benefits the same. That means the laid-off employees should receive 60 days of salary and the cash value of the stock they were to receive within three months of their last date at the company, per law.
Have they actually been "terminated?" When does "employment" actually, legally end? This might be closer to "suspended with pay," unless they're no longer being paid which would be hard to know as this literally happened hours ago last night. It could be he's just locking them out, continuing to pay them for 60 days, and then will announce layoffs. I think this lawsuit could be a bit premature if you set emotions aside.
This is exactly it. Terminated technically means, no longer receiving compensation or benefits.
If Musk is basically saying “stop working” and we will pay you for the next 60 days (and even beyond), then this is completely legal as long as they are not restricted from seeking other employment during this “notice period”
It's almost as if Elon is being sued to ensure that he follows through with his obligations, since he's so consistently doesn't. Strange. It's like there is a purpose to the lawsuit.
That's not how lawsuits work. You don't sue someone for something they might do with zero indication that they will. When you buy a company headquartered in California and elect to layoff half of it, you probably know your legal obligations.
The person suing got their termination notification on 11/1 so I imaging they know more about what their termination actually entails than you or I do.
Also Musk consistently pushes and oversteps the legal boundaries of what he can and can't do to get his way. Him being in charge of Twitter at all is because he was forced to execute a contract he willingly signed what makes you think he'll be more calmly compliant to laws?
pb7 is probably correct here, as they are in many things. Elon probably knows what he's doing, you don't get to that level of businessmen without making all the right decisions.
If I may white knight for one of the most powerful men in history for a moment: It's entirely possible that Bezos and his wife just drifted apart over the decades and separated amicably. And half of that fortune was always Mackenzie's from the start, that's how marriage works in the USA.
I mean we don't know anything about the internals of their relationship, and "hitting the news cycle is" I guess just some arbitrary hassle from their point of view. We could suppose that they grew distant, they basically separated, he started a new relationship/affair, and then they formalized the divorce.
Regardless, their money was realistically getting split anyway, so the decision of when to start the affair probably didn't cost him anything.
> Jeff Bezos's decisions about where to stick his weiner cost him tens of billions of dollars.
People are allowed to want to divorce without it being referred to as "where he sticks his weiner". I think what grosses me out is that revenge porn was laid thickly on top of this that people just actively ignored.
> People are allowed to want to divorce without it being referred to as "where he sticks his weiner".
No they're not. Getting a divorce doesn't give you the right to control how other people talk about your divorce.
> I think what grosses me out is that revenge porn was laid thickly on top of this that people just actively ignored.
People care about revenge porn because it hurts vulnerable people (i.e. the vast majority of us.) People don't give a shit about revenge porn about people who aren't vulnerable in any way.
Not a fan of Bezos by any means imaginable, but I think that the revenge porn thing that happened to him was the work of a state actor, more exactly of Saudi Arabia.
Not saying that that makes it better, quite the contrary, just that most probably it wasn’t something personal, just a raison d’etat thing.
People try and get out of deals all the time. It's a normal part of business.
Edit: I take it many of you haven't been a part of a company that gets an offer that falls apart later, tried to buy/sell property, etc etc. Deals fall apart constantly, trying to get out of a deal isn't indicative of anything meaningful in and of itself. The only really unusual thing that happened in the Twitter deal was Twitter forcing the consummation.
He waived his ability to do due diligence which is part of the normal business process that allows for backing out of a deal, because he was so confident in buying Twitter. Then he almost immediately tried backing out by claiming that things that would have been found out during the due diligence phase were a surprise to him(bots).
It was forced because he left himself open to the deal being forced which was the idiotic mistake
I think we can take it that you haven’t been part of many businesses that actually had to compete and operate with other businesses with equal leverage. The way a business negotiates when it’s getting bought out due to failing investor goals is a lot different than when the two opposing parties have equivalent leverage
He did not claim that bots were a surprise -- in fact, getting rid of bots was the premise of his offer in the first place. His issue with the bots was that he thought there was evidence that there were far more bots than claimed and Twitter was dodging his requests for info. There are some plausible arguments that even outside due diligence that bot problem would be meaningful, like that it's a materially adverse change.
But that's all beside the point. These kind of antics happen all the time in the business world. The buyer threatens to back out, the seller takes them to court, they settle. LVMH & Tiffany comes to mind as a very recent example: it wasn't a due diligence argument there, either.
This is insane. We don't live in a meritocracy. The idea that someone only gets to that level of wealth and business ownership because they make good decisions or understand the laws or requirements isn't something you can demonstrate with any consistency. Deciding to simply trust that he is correct because of his status is a dangerous game to play.
That is a dangerous Calvinist line of thinking. If someone lies/steals/cheats their way to the top, you’d never notice because you are ascribing virtue to the person solely by their success
It’s a branch of Protestantism, the specific belief of theirs I was referencing was one that can be reduced to believing that the rich are because they are good and god wanted them to be and the poor and destitute are such because they are bad and god is punishing them
Edit: the other poster here has a much better summary, with sources
Just the Protestant Work Ethic, which is pure Calvinism.
> Central to Calvinist belief was the Elect, those persons chosen by God to inherit eternal life. All other people were damned and nothing could change that since God was unchanging. While it was impossible to know for certain whether a person was one of the Elect, one could have a sense of it based on his own personal encounters with God. Outwardly the only evidence was in the person's daily life and deeds, and success in one's worldly endeavors was a sign of possible inclusion as one of the Elect. A person who was indifferent and displayed idleness was most certainly one of the damned, but a person who was active, austere, and hard-working gave evidence to himself and to others that he was one of God's chosen ones (Tilgher, 1930).
> Calvin taught that all men must work, even the rich, because to work was the will of God. It was the duty of men to serve as God's instruments here on earth, to reshape the world in the fashion of the Kingdom of God, and to become a part of the continuing process of His creation (Braude, 1975). Men were not to lust after wealth, possessions, or easy living, but were to reinvest the profits of their labor into financing further ventures. Earnings were thus to be reinvested over and over again, ad infinitum, or to the end of time (Lipset, 1990). Using profits to help others rise from a lessor level of subsistence violated God's will since persons could only demonstrate that they were among the Elect through their own labor (Lipset, 1990).
> Selection of an occupation and pursuing it to achieve the greatest profit possible was considered by Calvinists to be a religious duty. Not only condoning, but encouraging the pursuit of unlimited profit was a radical departure from the Christian beliefs of the middle ages. In addition, unlike Luther, Calvin considered it appropriate to seek an occupation which would provide the greatest earnings possible. If that meant abandoning the family trade or profession, the change was not only allowed, but it was considered to be one's religious duty (Tilgher, 1930).
This seems like a troll comment, given how disastrously Musk has handled the Twitter acquisition so far, and how many times he's been in trouble over mishandling things at Tesla and SpaceX.
In a drug-induced haze, Elon offered to buy Twitter at a price that was a weed meme and after sobering up, went on a full court press in the media to get out of his deal. It required a absolute shitpounding in the Delaware court of chancery for him to cop to the legal obligations he clearly wasn't aware of.
What on earth has this man done to make you think that he knows his legal obligations?
He doesn't have to know them, he probably has enough management and lawyers on retainer to warn him about stuff like that. It's highly unlikely they haven't warned him about this.
Of course he does. But he tends to just do shit and let his lawyers figure it out later. Speculating from his past behavior, he almost certainly just fired everybody and his lawyers were like "yeah, you can't just do that, you have to do x, y, and z as well". At least this time, it seems that he's going to actually listen to his lawyers and pay out the garden leave.
Ehh, I assume he does when it comes to money. I might have a very low opinion of him but I'm holding out a tiny shred of good faith in him not being an actual lunatic. However unlikely that seems as time goes on.
>In a drug-induced haze, Elon offered to buy Twitter at a price that was a weed meme and after sobering up, went on a full court press in the media to get out of his deal. It required a absolute shitpounding
There's no reason to take your comment seriously when you open like this. You clearly have a bias against the man and you're willing to run with assumptions as facts. Until there is evidence that Twitter was not going to pay for 60 days of employment as required by law, this is a frivolous suit filed out of spite. Otherwise, similar suits would be filed against Stripe, Opendoor, Lyft, and the many other companies that did layoffs recently which are virtually identical to this one.
It is entirely reasonable to exhibit bias against someone who has repeatedly demonstrated gross irresponsibility. If Musk wishes to be taken seriously, then at this point the burden is on him to demonstrate that he deserves to be taken seriously. We are no longer willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt.
It's not at all reasonable to accuse someone of being on drugs when making an offer to buy a billion dollar company just because you don't like them. Stick to facts and you'll have others' support (including mine).
Not to fall into a gossip-rag mess, but Elon Musk was allegedly on acid when he tweeted "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." so this isn't some sort of insane off the wall claim being made here.
He did something similar at Tesla with layoffs that violated the WARN Act. The lawyers filing this case were the lawyers on that case. They've seen this happen before.
I probably like him even less than the average person in this discussion. Believe it or not, it's possible to take a neutral unbiased stance based on facts instead of foaming at the mouth at every opportunity. Even serial killers have lawyers defending them. No one should take me any more or less seriously than anyone else here and just like everyone else here I am entitled to voice my opinion.
It is possible? Amusing coming from the guy that went into a fit over the mention clutches pearls... drugs. I'll take note. As if Musk isn't known for getting high on weed or taking other drugs.
Who said you couldn't voice your opinion? I was pointing out you haven't given anyone any reason to take your post more seriously than the one you insist shouldn't be taken seriously.
> It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute (subject to any appeal).
That is exactly how lawsuits work. They can be used to get a legal judgement to force a party to Cary out a contract when there is reason to think the other party wouldn’t otherwise comply.
Elon didn't even read the contract that bought the company. He spent the last 6 months in court trying to get out of the contract, not realizing it was ironclad.
He was trying to get out of it because it was a stupid deal at that price, not because he couldn't understand a contract. He was trying to limit the dumb consequences of his dumb impulse.
Failing at that, he might as well lean into it. He's got enough money to make billions of stupid mistakes, and this stupid mistake gave him ownership of his favorite thing. A favorite thing that incidentally gives him leverage against a US government desperate to control social media, a US government who is basically a business partner on every company he has.
He's likely to extract a load of profit out of twitter through that, anyway, we just won't see it because it will show up in his other businesses in the form of contracts, favorable regulation, and favorable legislation.
If a reasonable person can't figure out what has happened in a job contract they can treat the other side as at fault and any competent court sides with them.
Was this incorrect notification process or a lock out? Both are at odds with the job responsibilities and benefits.
This is proper advance notice as long as he pays for 60+ days of employment. There is no law that requires employers to let you do whatever you want with access to company resources for 60 days.
I’m not a lawyer. I’m literally just parroting the very first line of the article:
“Twitter is being sued for not giving employees advance notice of a mass layoff that began in earnest early Friday.”
I don’t think Elon is playing 5d chess. I think he’s being an enormous asshole about what is likely a justifiable thing to do at Twitter if you’re someone with purely capitalistic intentions.
I’m also saying that he’s not being sued for something he might do later as the poster I replied to suggested, he’s being sued for something he’s already done.
Consider: I'm going to sue you to make sure you don't steal my car. Makes sense right? You shouldn't be stealing cars so my lawsuit will be reasonable. I just want to make sure you follow through with what you should do
> If Musk is basically saying “stop working” and we will pay you for the next 60 days (and even beyond), then this is completely legal as long as they are not restricted from seeking other employment during this “notice period”
AFAICT, nobody was told to "stop working" today. They were all laid off, meaning terminated, no longer compensated, etc.
Yeah, it sounds like he's complying, which seems like the obvious thing to do. I get that emotions are understandably high, and people think he's some kind of super villain/buffoon simultaneously, but how would it make any sense for him to make that kind of obvious blunder?
I feel like he'd get a lot of pushback all the way up and down the chain of command on this particular blunder, though. It'd be like trying to throw your car into reverse on the highway.. just because you can try to issue the command doesn't mean it'll get carried out
According to the email reported by the BBC[1] they'll be paid until Feb 2nd, so that's more like 90 days. Other severance details not yet known, but as I understand it what's happening today is that they're being given notice, but their formal "employment" doesn't end until the notice period is over.
Not really. There are enough Privacy and Security best practices that would tell you that disgruntled employees are the most dangerous threat to a digital infra.
He’s actually complying with the spirit of the law while also doing what I’d prefer he did given the amount of user data that Twitter holds.
No employee with a 60-day payoff is going to win in court when the hourly rate of these people has approached infinity
Nitpick, but this kind of "paid but not working", also known as Garden Leave in the UK at least, often needs to be specified in the contract. Otherwise the employee could argue in some jurisdictions that this is demeaning behaviour etc.
No idea about the actual jurisdiction in question...
It is an interesting case. In France, the case was already judged and having your means of work (example: access to your professional email) cut off before the end of your contract (which include the required advance notice) is considered unlawful firing. The same goes if you are put in the "placard doré", meaning you are not given any work to do.
Of course, the laws in France favor the worker a lot more than the U.S so it will be interesting what the result of the lawsuit will be.
In the U.S. for security purposes - you definitely cut off email access before actual termination. Employee actions are unpredictable, and poses a legal & liability risk to the company.
Not a lawyer, but employees are only required email access for all if company policy say they must. Usually the policies say access can be removed at any time for any purpose the company management desires, because they are, after all, the managements systems to operate and provide.
It's done on the scale of whatever time frame the management think the risk exists. In this case, if management thinks that risk exists for months - still acceptable.
While unusual, if management needs to end the employment of staff but is precluded in doing so by law.... the only thing Twitter must do is provide normal compensation & benefits, nothing else. Under employment contracts, the employee must do whatever the employer deems acceptable (within legal limits, or leave under their own will.)
But those laws are about employers trying to force people to quit so they don't have to fire them. This case feels more equivalent to firing someone and putting them on paid leave during the mandatory notice period. Which seems like a common practice in some industries to prevent revenge acts from those who are let go.
Probably not, since it encourages companies to actually invest in people that they can't just fire at will. Society comes out on top, and business is kept accountable for how they treat human beings. The free market with at will employment is a race to the bottom. France's model is more of a steady march to the top.
> France's model is more of a steady march to the top
Eagerly awaiting for France to have their own equivalents (in terms of success and worldwide influence) of Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc. As well as for their devs to be paid even remotely close to what they can get paid in the US.
From what I am seeing, even "the year of Linux on desktop" is more likely to happen than that. Which doesn't inspire much confidence.
You seem to confuse "the top" with "having the highest paying jobs at companies that active make either the planet, society, or both, worse"? Drawing a seven figure salary while you're enabling some of the worst abuses of power and the centralisation of digital control on the planet really isn't doing it right. That's "fucking it up" and then going "buy my paycheque! More money means I'm better!" when someone calls that out. No, US, you're not a better person because your salary is higher, and your company is not better because it controls a bigger part of the world.
The French might ask why turning the like button into several different kinds of reaction is so much more "successful" than the baker who makes a perfect croissant.
Perhaps it's OK for a society to be... OK, instead of "the top", especially if top comes with a correspondingly distant bottom. Perhaps in 50 years we'll not see some of Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc. as quite so positive of achievements.
I fully agree thay it is absolutely OK for a society to be OK instead of "the top". That's a choice I can respect, as being at "the top" can come with its set of downsides that the society there might not want to accept. In fact, it might indeed be better to not be "at the top".
However, I was disputing it in the context of the claim that "France model is leading them steadily on the way to the top". To the top of what? To the top of being OK? That's a very questionable definition of "the top".
Meanwhile, sure, you can argue that some of "Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc." might end up not so positive of achievements in 50 years, but a lot of them quite are. Tesla, a non-european car brand, is one of the most registered new vehicles in quite a few european countries now, and I consider it a positive thing in comparison to ICE vehicles made in europe like bmw/audi/etc. SpaceX with its recent Falcon9-Heavy launch is quite positive. Which search engine do french people use? I bet it is Google. Which OS and office productivity suite does the majority of France currently run? I bet it is Windows with MS Office. Where are the majority of the websites and services that most people use are hosted? Most likely they are hosted at AWS.
Again, I dont subscribe to the notion that one has to be "at the top" in a bunch of arbitrary metrics to lead a great life, and it applies to both individuals and countries. However, I still disagree with the notion that France is anywhere on "the steady way to the top" when it comes to any of those metrics, as I see zero evidence to that.
It'll be interesting to see if any of them are bold enough to argue that their ability to exert influence over the public via their role at twitter was a material part of their compensation.
You apparently have a very negative view of people who work at Twitter. I worked there for 4.5 years and literally no one I worked with or knew of there would ever make such an argument. The only people who even really have a claim to such an argument got last week and we haven't heard a thing from them, although I'm anticipating some sort of lawsuit having to be filed to recover the real USD compensation owed to them for their summary firing "for cause."
The posted email, linked two posts up stated that "Today is your last working day at the company, however, you will remain employed by Twitter and will receive compensation and benefits through your separation date [90 days out]".
Unless they want to claim some side effect of working is part of the employee's compensation this lawsuit looks baseless enough to be an abuse of process.
There's usually at least one person who's willing to say the quiet part out loud in situations like this. Though, I imagine they'll complain about it on Twitter rather than trying to make a federal case out of it.
If that's the case, I bet the Twitter employees who still have a job, wish they got laid off. 60 days of pay is better than just resigning, which is what I'm sure I would do.
I said I probably would, which is why I would've rather been laid off. I don't work at Twitter though, so I'm not going to resign my current job because of Twitter though.
You asked what was stopping someone (who wasn't fired but who wanted to leave) from just quitting.
Now, kenjackson's statement is kind of generalizing from self a bit. He believes he'd want to leave in that situation and believes that most people share his ideals in this case.
And while it's probably not the case, it's also not the case that the number is zero.
There are valid reasons to stay in an undesirable situation until you can line up something better.
Good luck even showing actual damages then. Employment lawsuits from line employees really aren’t that scary to big companies. The case law in California at least is quite clear.
I’m not a lawyer, but the source for this information is a lawyer I conferred with. He said legally I had a solid case but he wasn’t interested in 30% of three months compensation.
Actual damages are practically capped around 3 months on the theory that you should be able to find a new job in that timeframe. And if you don’t, then that’s evidence you’re not actually qualified qualified and the termination wasn’t wrongful! And if Twitter is effectively paying 60 day’s severance then it’s even harder to show actual damages.
Now theoretically punitive damages are a possibility. I assume that’s what this lawsuit is hinging on, raising the however unlikely possibility that a jury might vote for punitive damages. That almost certainly won’t happen though absent gross malfeasance: think outright full blown macroaggression racism or sexism. Otherwise, well privileged tech nerds like tweeps just aren’t very likely to get a jury all riled.
From [https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/read-blunt-twitter-email-...], it says that the actual termination date is Feb 2 and they keep all compnand benefits until then. They just can't access company systems or violate the code of conduct. Seems like they're not actually laid off yet?
> An employer who violates WARN provisions is liable to each employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days.
It's also wrong. According to the email they received, they are getting paid until Feb 2023, plus one vest of their RSUs from what I heard. There is no legal basis for a lawsuit.
There's no realistic basis for a lawsuit. However that won't stop journalists from using language like "faces" lawsuit which means literally nothing has happened but we're going to speculate to generate clickbait.
I didn't ask for the original title, I asked that the title be fixed. As an example, removing "mass employee" gets under the limit and leaves a title that's a lot more clear than what's up there now. "Twitter faces lawsuit..." gets you there, several ways of shortening without losing much meaning.
HN guidelines ask that the original be used. But if original is too long, we should at least try to leave something that makes sense and doesn't incorrectly flip Boolean flags.
the leaked email to a Twitter employee (if true) says that they are not actually being terminated, but rather suspended with pay. So it seems that Musk is in fact staying within legal bounds (which means the lawsuit won't go anywhere).
> Today is your last working day at the company, however, you will remain employed by Twitter and will receive compensation and benefits through your separation date of February 2, 2023.
Musk is openly antagonistic to any kind of regulation and regulatory bodies. This is all a game to him. Any fines he faces are the price of having fun, to him. It's why whether Twitter succeeds or fails is a moot point. He doesn't actually care about Twitter. It's a toy. It's an RC plane he's flying around, right now, and it's just a matter of time before he intentionally aims it into the ground to see how big of an explosion he can make.
I considered this purchase a miscalculation on his part. After he bought 9% of twitter, he wanted to do some market manipulation like with Tesla. Only he got burned last time, so he attempted to do it legit with his "offer". He never expected them to actually accept. And why he tried so hard to back out.
However, now that it's done, I don't doubt his earnest or abilities to drive twitter forward. In any case it will be very interesting to watch.
If he wanted to manipulate market then just the rumor about the purchase would send stocks higher. In fact, after his announcement on April 14th, Twitter rose 7.5% on the next session (18th). No need to actually sign the deal to make few hundred millions of dollars.
On the other hand, how would he cash out his gamble? You cannot announce that you want to buy 100% of the company stocks, and then start selling off the 9% that you already have, that would be a dead giveaway that the offer is not serious.
wouldn't that damage his reputation as a credible CEO? Not sure if a billionaire would care, but still, he holds the office of the CEO in a few companies.
No. Because he's a multibillionaire. The scale of his wealth means he doesn't have to care what people think. He can maintain his lifestyle and continue to make various life and business choices despite losing $44b because, overall, it's not that much compared to his overall wealth.
Maybe no one will want to hire him as CEO, if that's what you're referring to. But he can just buy another company if he wants to be CEO of it.
He has not done this with his other large businesses. He has in fact done the opposite, raising them from nothing to hugely successful companies that are also great for humanity. I'm no fanboy - I just call them like I see them.
You'll probably mention a few side-projects of his that haven't done much - but he hasn't flown them into the ground either. They're just interesting experiments.
Those may be more passion projects for him. But he's also violated labor law, safety regulations, committed SEC violations, and so on.
But if you want history of using his money for extreme trolling, just look at the whole Hyperloop thing, where he admitted it was a troll.
He's had a lot of disdain for Twitter in the past. He's laughed at people he's kicked out already. The Twitter story is one giant troll. If, somehow, it manages to get any kind of success, he wins. If it fails, he writes it off and moves on to the next sociopathic experience.
All of my layoffs had post termination pay to satisfy federal and state law. HR stressed that we were on salary (without working) during the termination period and that leaving would negate benefits. Once this period ended, there were usual benefits like n weeks per year of employment. Blatantly ignoring the rules just invites lawsuits and weakens em’s position.
Sux how rules and established norms of behaviour restrict one’s actions.
WARN is Federal, but for you to see benefits, the layoff has to meet strict requirements. It’s things like closing an entire site, laying off 33% of employees, 500+ employees, etc.
Mass and Kansas. I can’t say whether the state required additional payments above what’s legally required (60 day notice) but they needed to give something to get people to sign things like termination agreements and non disclosures. Having just been laid off, they weren’t all that willing to be nice and all that.
If you want to be a jerk, that influences future hiring chances both ways. Most companies expect to need to hire at some point in the future.
It's also been 2 full days since one of the people in the suit received their termination information though so I would bet they know what Twitter's plan was for at least their termination. If not why didn't they have the info?
It makes no sense. Can we apply this to all the other layoffs and probably upcoming layoffs in the coming weeks from big tech? How is Twitter the only company guilty of this?
Most companies approach mass layoffs pretty carefully, announcing the terms up-front, as evidences by the Stripe and Lyft examples this week. Twitter is the only company doing mass layoffs that's owned by Musk, to answer your last question.
Honestly, what? Every job I have had in IT/programming/universities/heavy industry have been "at will". We can fire you at any time for any reason.
Is silicon valley not like this? What is this "advanced notice"?? No, really, I am not taking sides, but is this how it works at some places? I have been working for several decades, I have _never_ heard of this.
California is at-will. And it still requires 60 days notice for a mass-layoff, thorough a separate act, because it's a special case that's covered by a separate law.
> “an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order”
Instead of phrasing it that way, think of it has companies being required to give you 60 days notice, just like they want you to give them two weeks notice. Every time I've ever been at a company doing layoffs, they paid salaries (and benefits) for at least 60 days after the announcement, precisely because of laws like this.
Yes. They don't have to let you into the building, let you access their systems, etc., but they need to fulfil their contractual obligations in terms of pay and benefits for 60 days.
(EU laws apply more broadly, but the California one is only in the event of mass layoffs)
Not only tell the person being laid off, but also inform a government office of the planned mass layoff so they can prepare unemployment resources, job transition/retraining programs, and things like that.
You also have to remember that being "laid off" is different than "being fired," at least under the law. I'm not sure where the line is drawn for "mass layoff," but these people aren't being fired for cause, or being let go individually at the whim of the employer (which is kind of what "at will" means for the employer).
> (c) Mass layoff. (1) The term "mass layoff" means a reduction in force which first, is not the result of a plant closing, and second, results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for: (i) At least 33 percent of the active employees excluding part-time employees, and (ii) At least 50 employees, excluding part-time employees.
There is no difference of "for cause" or "not for cause" in the wording of the WARN act. There may be a difference in the contract (not removing a comic may be construed as "for cause") but if that employee was let go in the the frame of a reduction in force, they are likely covered by the WARN act too... of course, ask a lawyer.
In particular, employers with a bit more pragmatic/cautious legal department will avoid firing people for cause in the 30 day window where a layoff happens to avoid the possibility that the fired employee falls into the same category as those who are covered by the WARN act.
Pretty much, yes. It's an employee friendly policy, which is certainly not the norm. But given how long tech interviews can take, it's a good policy for tech employees.
Note, I don't benefit from this since I'm not in CA, but I still think it's a good idea.
not fire but lay off. There's a difference, you can still be fired at any time but laying people off is different. The company is terminating their employment through no fault of the employee. That's a contract violation basically and so the terms are different.
Federal and California WARN acts require advance notification for mass layoffs. It's still "at will", but more regulations come into play if a lot of people lose their jobs.
Federal WARN Act requires 60 days. States like CA and NY have additional constraints, but it’s typically more strict definitions of what constitutes a mass layoff (total count, number of employees at a single site) or who is covered. Haven’t checked in a while, but ISTR NY, for example, has a lower employer size threshold than Federal law.
When companies plan to make a portion of a company redundant they typically need to annouce their intentions in advance, depending on the country. As is the case of this lawsuit.
This is different to an employee being let go. This isn't a bunch of people being fired, this is retrenchment due to reorganization.
The intent of the law is to allow time to prepare for macro level effects in case of a mass layoff. This gives the government time to spin up unemployment resources and job transition programs, in theory.
It will be interesting to see how they approach these layoffs in countries like the UK or most of the EU, where you can't just fire people for no reason.
I have seen some reports of Twitter employees in the UK being told they've been laid off, but that's simply not legal in te UK.
For a company the size of Twitter, a process must be followed:
An office requirement because you think it helps the culture is one thing; an office requirement simply because you know the attrition it will cause so you "sharpen your blades"/salivate over the prospect is very different. Twitter encouraged employees to move out of state far away from offices, etc.
I don't think that's how constructive dismissal works (I am a former lawyer, but not an employment law specialist). I believe it is based on objective factors, not subjective intent or awareness of the likely outcome.
If an employer says "you have to come back into the office 2x weekly" that is different from "you have to commute to our new office, located 60 miles away". The latter would be constructive dismissal because it is new, unexpected, and a material challenge for many employees. Ditto if they removed half the bathrooms, didn't provide enough office space for the workers, cut the parking lot in half, etc.
But asking employees to resume doing something that they were willing to do when they first joined the company (assuming they joined pre-pandemic) would be difficult to characterize as constructive dismissal.
> But asking employees to resume doing something that they were willing to do when they first joined the company (assuming they joined pre-pandemic) would be difficult to characterize as constructive dismissal.
They encouraged people to move far away from the office, where ever they wanted, and then are doing this explicitly for the attrition side-effect, not because they need the people in the office.
How much severance did they pay to employees? The WARN act maximum penalty is 60 days salary and benefits [0]. So if you’re giving out severance packages of more than two months you can ignore the WARN act as you’re paying the same or more than the penalty. And I assume that any deference agreement would involve not suing due to WARN act violations.
Knowing the possible shitstorm it would cause, Twitter upper management sold the company anyway. Not that they care, they got fabulously wealthy off the deal.
Shareholders were being offered a very nice premium on the stock price, so Twitter upper management would have been awash in shareholder lawsuits if they'd rejected the deal.
Essentially, the Twitter board was snookered once Musk made a serious offer.
"A Saudi prince who is among Twitter’s major shareholders scoffed at Musk’s offer in a Thursday tweet. Al Waleed bin Talal said he would reject Musk’s overtures because he didn’t believe $43 billion “comes close to the intrinsic value of Twitter, given its growth prospects."
Not selling the at the price he offered would have been massively violating their fiduciary duty. Twitter stock would probably be worth like $20-30 given the current market versus the $54 offered.
"A Saudi prince who is among Twitter’s major shareholders scoffed at Musk’s offer in a Thursday tweet. Al Waleed bin Talal said he would reject Musk’s overtures because he didn’t believe $43 billion “comes close to the intrinsic value of Twitter, given its growth prospects."
Everyone is employed until February 2nd. They receive full pay + benefits but don’t have to work. This was in the termination email that fired employees received.
There is no WARN act violation if the employee receives 60 days of severance and some consideration for vesting. Is there any evidence that didn’t happen?
Is the lawsuit itself not evidence? Do you think employees are sitting there thinking "let's waste money and time on a lawsuit that will have no impact." There must have been some good faith believe that Musk had no intention of providing severance. Is that really so hard to believe from the outside?
The employees who lawyered up before seeing any official termination documentation are probably on the hook for any legal fees incurred so far. Now that it appears that an appropriate work suspension and notice of termination date (essentially severance) was granted, its likely that there wont be many offers from lawyers to act on contingency fees.
There is really no point arguing over beliefs, it's easier to settle things with facts/data. "humans are logical and act rationally" has never been a good apriori.
Among people I know at Twitter who got laid off, they have 60 days of notice during which they don't need to work but still get paid + severance commensurate with their tenure (30+ days). All of them think this whole process is an absolute fucking shitshow and the company is going to swirl the toilet bowl, but I don't think any feel as though their legal rights were violated.
This is not how the WARN act works. Companies do not need to give a 60 day warning to layoff employees. They can instead pay out 60 days of severance. Which is what everyone always does since letting employees hang out at the office for 2 months after a layoff would be super weird.
Lots of people saying "Why is this lawsuit needed? Musk / Twitter HR would obviously comply with the law". Bear in mind that Musk has a history of not complying with legal obligations unless forced to (e.g. honoring the agreement to purchase Twitter).
I wish I had learned earlier that when somebody makes an accusatory statement, it is wise to consider that they may be inadvertently projecting their self and their intentions onto the people around them.
It is very human to believe that most people think and feel in more or less the same way. So when we hear generalized statements about what people are like, or how they would likely react to a course of action, the sentiment will often be biased by how the speaker thinks, or would react.
Your friends, family members and neighbors typically aren’t going to have the power to fuck over thousands of former employees though. Great power comes great responsibility and all that.
> In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government, business, politician...
If you mean that in the sense that everyone, no matter how powerful, needs to be subject to oversight, I agree with you.
If instead you mean that in the schoolyard, "But Johnny was cussing too!" sense, well, if that's supposed to be a defense, it isn't. All I can suggest is be a smarter criminal.
Musk was openly antagonistic to an agreement he signed that waved all due diligence. In my business experience, most entities that sign a contract try to honor that contract. Musk does not. He tries to use his money and power to find every loophole in every business deal. It's shady, it's deceptive, and it's not conducive to long-term success.
It's so funny to see this like it's actually serious. There's a reason why whenever you see big layoffs you see that everyone impacted by it is granted severance of a few months pay, etc.
People act like Twitter is the first company to do layoffs. This is super common and has happened to numerous tech companies in the last month. But of course, Space Man Bad.
And it's especially common once somebody new takes over. And in this case, plenty of Twitter was openly hostile to Musk. That they're upset that they won't be retained to help him implement an agenda that they disapprove of is an entirely cynical ploy.
Sucks to lose your job because management changed to someone you can't live with, but it would also suck to work a job with management you can't live with.
> it’s seeking a range of relief, including compensatory damages (including wages owed), as well as declaratory relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, plus other attorneys’ fees and costs.
So, the penalty is paying workers the wages they would have been paid anyway under proper notice, plus interest? So for basically ~5-8% more Musk gets to terminate everyone today instead of in 60 days.
I have seen a lot of sentiment wonder "why some people do not like Elmo Musk".
This fact is probably something close to why I personally don't like the guy: he comes across as a personified avatar of the fact that laws don't really apply to folks with those kinds of resources, and that us peons have literally no recourse when faced with a rich person who wants to do whatever they feel like doing.
I'm not sure I'd rank "giving employees 60 days pay for sitting at home doing absolutely nothing" up there with "working in a Victorian coal mine", in terms of abusive employee relations.
What, in your opinion, would be fair, other than "paying them forever for doing absolutely nothing"?
The law apparently says he has to pay them for 60 days. He's doing that.
1 month is $55M in fines at that rate. 300k verified users paying $8/month is $2.4M.
If he's making a big deal about bringing in single digit millions per month to "pay the bills", you'd think he'd care about double-digit million fines, but who knows. He has more FU money than anyone else alive.
That is far from the only source of Twitter revenue.
Also, I'm about 99.999% sure that the $8/month thing is more about trolling the crap out of sanctimonious blue checks rather than actual revenue. They're basically Star-Bellied Sneetches who are going ballistic because the proles might also get "stars upon thars".
> That is far from the only source of Twitter revenue.
Yes, but he's claiming the $8/mo is to "keep paying the bills", so why focus on that small revenue stream and then pay a huge fine?
> Also, I'm about 99.999% sure that the $8/month thing is more about trolling the crap out of sanctimonious blue checks rather than actual revenue. They're basically Star-Bellied Sneetches who are going ballistic because the proles might also get "stars upon thars".
The revolution will be a subscription service, got it.
I run an HR department, albeit not for one as large as twitter. I have done layoffs. I always consulted a lawyer and it never triggered lawsuits. There are layoffs all the time at large companies that don't trigger lawsuits.
Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all.
> Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all.
I disagree.
He got bit by lawsuits over a previous mass layoff at Tesla. The lawyers who filed this lawsuit were the same lawyers involved in the previous one. Links pointing to the previous case:
On first sight, the mass layoffs appear to violate both California & Federal WARN Act notifications.
After reading the email, it appears that they are getting 3 months of "gardening leave" instead paychecks getting cut off at end of day.
> An employer who violates WARN provisions is liable to each employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days.
The existence of a lawsuit can't be used to judge the legality of the layoffs. Only the ruling can. It's possible (although a bit more unlikely) that the person filing the lawsuit is a terrible lawyer.
Making factual statements/judgements seems misguided, at this point, in my IANAL opinion.
I imagine his lawyers are much the same as Trump's - desperately going "Look, you just can't do that!", making sure their objections are written down just in case, and knowing full well he's going to do whatever anyway.
They didn't have enough advance notice? Didn't they have like 6 months of notice? Everyone knew that Elon was planning on doing mass layoffs after buying Twitter, a process which started many months ago.
Just like Trump can't declassify documents with his mind, there are proper procedures to be followed. Each individual needs to be given notice. Six months ago, he didn't have the ability to make that decision and it wasn't a sure thing and he spent much of the meantime trying to wriggle out of the deal.
> Under Twitter’s takeover deal terms, Musk had agreed to keep employee compensation and benefits the same. That means the laid-off employees should receive 60 days of salary and the cash value of the stock they were to receive within three months of their last date at the company, per law.
Have they actually been "terminated?" When does "employment" actually, legally end? This might be closer to "suspended with pay," unless they're no longer being paid which would be hard to know as this literally happened hours ago last night. It could be he's just locking them out, continuing to pay them for 60 days, and then will announce layoffs. I think this lawsuit could be a bit premature if you set emotions aside.