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

71–80 of 139 posts

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

#71

Post by ritebut »

lost_tourist wrote: post #66
threeseed wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

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

#73

Post by Uvix »

DonHopkins wrote: post #60
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the parent comment was referring to. Senior execs had golden parachutes they were due if they were terminated.

Why don't the people who actually do the work get golden parachutes?

Because they don’t negotiate for it.

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

#74

Post by dragonwriter »

lucasyvas wrote: post #49
dragonwriter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When do they start straight up garnishing X’s bank accounts? Well, they have to lose the cases before people can start enforcing judgements.

X is not paying their bills either from the sounds of it. Musk should be on the streets already.

Well, yeah, both the Connecticut case that is the primary reason for this article and the generally similar (but somewhat broader in terms of the kinds of wrongs raised) San Francisco case are not just about the initial violations by Twitter, but Twitter’s alleged failure to pay the arbitration fees required by the arbitrator they have required people to use in place of going to court, which is claimed to have stalled all the arbitration cases (and which is the basis for bringing the dispute to court, despite the binding arbitration agreement which would normally foreclose that.)

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

#75

Post by ritebut »

lost_tourist wrote: post #66
threeseed wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

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

#76

Post by dangero »

prepend wrote: post #61
MattGaiser wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 char…

Power imbalances still exist. The problem is, if I have a contract with Google that is 80% of my small business revenue and they pay me late, what recourse do I have? It's a constant negotiation of who has the willingness to walk away. If they pay me late, I'll likely not complain because the money is big for me. I don't want to rock the boat.

Now if the gov told Google they could receive a massive fine for paying late, they would stop doing it.

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

#77

Post by toomuchtodo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #74
lucasyvas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X is not paying their bills either from the sounds of it. Musk should be on the streets already.

Well, yeah, both the Connecticut case that is the primary reason for this article and the generally similar (but somewhat broader in terms of the kinds of wrongs raised) San Francisco case are not just about the initial violations by Twitter, but Twitter’s alleged failure to pay the arbitration fees required by the arbitrator they have required people to use in place of going to court, which is claimed to have stalle…

Is it possible for someone else to fund the arbitration fees so they can proceed without Twitter’s participation? Similar to how Peter Thiel financed the destruction of Gawker via Bollea v. Gawker. Ideally, you get to a judgement as quickly as possible (by any means necessary) before Twitter’s insolvency, even if someone else has to front whatever Twitter was in the hook for to proceed with arbitration.

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

#78

Post by [deleted] »

epistasis wrote: post #53
andsoitis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And it certainly should not be pro bono. It is a serious amount of work to take people to work, requiring years of education and a ton of skill. Particularly when the opposition has pockets as deep as X/Twitter/Musk. Hopefully there are large damages that go to those who have been wronged in addition to restitution and repayment of the legal fees I can not understand why some body like Musk who has such as easy abili…

[deleted]

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

#79

Post by tinycombinator »

romusha wrote: post #59

Anybody who still uses X (formerly Twitter) is supporting their behavior

Using X/Twitter to catch up and interact with the numerous friends, artists, and other communities there doesn't mean you support wage theft and withholding severance. It's hard to break away from such a populated platform, especially if most of the people you care about go to different platforms or don't share the same motivation to move.

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

#80

Post by mlyle »

lost_tourist wrote: post #66
threeseed wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We don't have debtors prisons.

No one's suggesting such.

We have plenty of disputed behavior and harms that are within the purview of civil courts, and then more egregious versions that are crimes. IMO, withholding significant pay that you have the ability to pay and is unambiguously contractually owed causes pretty serious harm, and society has strong reasons to criminalize this conduct.

Accepting services from someone while having no intent to honor the contract, hoping that disproportionate resources will prevent them from enforcing the contract "feels" like fraud: so let's codify it.

Post reply on HN