391–400 of 852 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stories like this make like the employee protection I enjoy even more.
/cries in an at-will state/
If your colleagues gets fired for some bs reason you and your other colleagues can stand for each other by striking.
Pardon me, but isn't this the standard operating procedure for leveraged buyouts of "inefficient" businesses? Cut expenses to the bone, resulting in a higher profit margin on the same revenue, coast on that revenue while dismembering the business for anything valuable, and then load any transferable debt to the carcass and declare bankruptcy?
Well yeah, except he's talking about bringing back Vine, which is incongruous with the typical LBO strat. Before reels or tiktok or stories or shorts, there was vine and people loved it. But it didn't make any money.
Twitter is already improved IMHO: The "sign in or sign up" nag screen is gone for me!
Doesnt work for me
What’s with the contempt for twitter employees in this thread? I really hope Musk doesn’t come for your job next
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it legal to demand people work on weekends? How is it legal to (even threaten) firing if a new assigned task that takes a long time is not done on time?
For salaried, at-will employment, the employer can demand whatever they want and fire you for whatever reason they want. There are exceptions for, like, sexual harassment and racial discrimination, but not for "I disagree with the boss about what is a realistic project timeline".
All of these relationships are two way. If they make a demand to change the expectations of working hours and work time, you say no, I won't do that. They can fire you if they don't like the relationship, but even in the US you're likely to win at least unemployment benefits.
> Another person familiar with the deal who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters last week said the total number of layoffs is likely to be closer to 50 percent. Unless I’m missing something, the only sources for this article are a mix of speculation and anonymous sources who can’t even agree with each other about the layoff.
This is how high quality journalism works. There's actually quite an involved skill to reading and fully understanding this kind of writing - and it's infuriatingly difficult to pick up that skill (I've been developing it by spending time talking to professional journalists, but I'm still not there yet). When you read "another person familiar with the deal who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive…
> Another person familiar with the deal who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters last week said the total number of layoffs is likely to be closer to 50 percent. Unless I’m missing something, the only sources for this article are a mix of speculation and anonymous sources who can’t even agree with each other about the layoff.
This is how high quality journalism works. There's actually quite an involved skill to reading and fully understanding this kind of writing - and it's infuriatingly difficult to pick up that skill (I've been developing it by spending time talking to professional journalists, but I'm still not there yet). When you read "another person familiar with the deal who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not providing severance pay at all is perfectly legal. In most cases, an employer will want at least something in return for providing severance pay.
Why do they provide it then? Out of goodwill?
These kinds of things are not always about the strict minimum cost actions. In general, it is a better world with some degree of human consideration being part of things.
I am quite sure many of the cases I had involvement in could have been done cheaper. However, I am also quite sure the people involved had what they need to get through to their next gig with few worries too.
That is worth a lot and these days one can never know who may be working for or with who.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only an NDA - many companies also require you to sign anti-disparagement clauses, meaning you can have severance clawed back if you speak negatively of the company.
Something like that would never hold up in court, in fact it might even make the whole firing illegal in the first place. Unless, of course, so NDA's would also prevent the employer from speaking negatively about the employee, but those are extremely rare.
If the employee doesn’t like the terms, they’ll just get the statutory minimum.
It’s pretty rare anyone takes that option though!