> 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.
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.