Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

motherjones.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 139 posts

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#61

Post by prepend »

MattGaiser wrote: post #40
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25

When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that force billionaires to pay when they think the rules just don't apply to them - it's clear they often feel that the sheer expense of the legal system is often a deterrent for poorer folks to get what they are owed. I hope all these folks get their severance, and ho…

In general, there should be prompt payment legislation. My family used to be in food processing. The grocers (except Walmart, which is one of the reasons they can get lower prices), will straight up just not pay by the date specified in the contract and will make you hound them.

This is just contract law. When I managed vendor contracts I had to specify the terms of payment (net30, etc) and penalty for late (2%, etc).

So there’s already legislation that enforces contracts. I’m not sure how you would make a law that was helpful to force prompt payment clauses specifically.

It’s important to only accept terms that you want. And if your customers keep paying late, then collect your penalty charges and negotiate for higher penalties next time.

Most vendors will pay on the absolute last day possible so if the terms are net30, they will pay on the 30th day.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#64

Post by threeseed »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25

When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that force billionaires to pay when they think the rules just don't apply to them - it's clear they often feel that the sheer expense of the legal system is often a deterrent for poorer folks to get what they are owed. I hope all these folks get their severance, and ho…

There needs to be criminal consequences for company officeholders.

If you are wilfully withholding pay then it should be mandatory jail time.

Legislation is underway here in Australia for such an approach after 7/11 et al systemically withheld pay knowing that the financial consequences weren't going to personally affect them.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#66

Post by lost_tourist »

threeseed wrote: post #64
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25

When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that force billionaires to pay when they think the rules just don't apply to them - it's clear they often feel that the sheer expense of the legal system is often a deterrent for poorer folks to get what they are owed. I hope all these folks get their severance, and ho…

There needs to be criminal consequences for company officeholders. If you are wilfully withholding pay then it should be mandatory jail time. Legislation is underway here in Australia for such an approach after 7/11 et al systemically withheld pay knowing that the financial consequences weren't going to personally affect them.

We don't have debtors prisons. While there are specific cases like this where some jail time would seem just, overall it's a negative for society. It's a civil matter for a reason. I do think such cases should rip the corporate veil to shreds though, and the billionaires would have to pay up.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#67

Post by wmf »

batguano wrote: post #38
wmf wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who do you think that clause would benefit and how?

Many employees stock options plans vest the options on change of control. All the ones I’ve had did.

What does that have to do with severance?

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#68

Post by wmf »

tayo42 wrote: post #35

Somehow people are still trusting musk run companies? Especially with major public infrastructure stuff and government subsidies. What is the logic. He's backing out of all the promises and shown him self to be unreliable and vindictive but surely that won't happen to us?

The former employees who are suing for unpaid severance certainly aren't trusting anyone; that's why they're suing.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#69

Post by lost_tourist »

andsoitis wrote: post #36
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25

When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that force billionaires to pay when they think the rules just don't apply to them - it's clear they often feel that the sheer expense of the legal system is often a deterrent for poorer folks to get what they are owed. I hope all these folks get their severance, and ho…

> I hope all these folks get their severance, and hopefully with interest, legal fees and penalties. I wonder what percentage the legal team will take. I doubt this is happening pro bono.

I'm guessing that lawyers are perhaps the one group that Musk pays on time, so he doesn't have to pay up elsewhere.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#70

Post by dragonwriter »

vlovich123 wrote: post #2

Is severance something that’s legally required?

> Is severance something that’s legally required?

(1) In some jurisdictions, some amount of severance is legally required in some circumstances, but the count at issue here is all in US jurisdictions where I don’t think that applies (to severance narrowly; there’s been some conflation of pay during a no-duty employment period that was used to comply with state and/or federal WARN Act notice requirements as “severance”, and while full pay and benefits for that time is legally required, its not severance in the strict sense),

(2) In most US jurisdictions, there is no general legal mandate for severance, but severance that is embodied as a term in the employment contract or otherwise part of a legally binding commitment or promise is required, and these cases involve specific allegations of such contracted or otherwise bindingly-committed-to severance.

Post reply on HN