Hacker News Reader

Comment by metaphor | Hacker News Reader

> I know someone who just got fired in this round at Tesla. ... They offered only 2 weeks of severance.

Fired or layed off? I've never experienced either, but I always thought severance pay was exclusive to the latter.

If you're fired for doing something bad, then you become ineligible for unemployment compensation (which is something you earned) and some other benefits. This creates a perverse incentive to claim a cause for termination. On the other hand, it also creates an incentive for the fired employee to sue, especially if they think that the employer didn't have an utterly bulletproof paper trail and discipline procedures.

For this reason, it's sometimes more practical for a company to terminate someone without cause, and just pay out the benefits as a cost of doing business. They can wait for a slow season, when they would normally shed some workers, and terminate the lowest performers.

Companies avoid the term "layoff" because it has connotations, such as eligibility to be re-hired when conditions improve. So they use "reduction in force" instead. The people who are fired are "impacted," and so forth.

The terminology used doesn't mean anything... what matters is whether someone was terminated "with cause" or not.

It varies by state, but you can collect unemployment a lot of the time if you have been fired.

In California, unemployment is a maximum of $450 a week for 26 weeks. Still helpful, but ~$11/hour is a pretty big drop for most of them.

Indeed, it's not a lot, but I figure, you earned it so you might as well collect it.

I thing the difference you are thinking of is when someone is being made redundant versus being fired. Being fired implies the employee failed in some way. Being made redundant implies the company changed in such a way that the employee is no longer needed.

Being made redundant tends to be the situation that attracts a severance package of any significance. Depending entirely on the country and state of course.

At least in my state (MA) a while ago being fired with cause means not eligible for unemployment[1]. I knew this from someone (last century) being fired for being overheard quoting "office space" the movie on the phone, and therefor suspected of being dangerous. He was not given a chance to defend himself, but hated the job anyway.

"PETER Boy. I tell ya, one of these days... One of these days it's gonna be like

He mimics a machine gun. Brian, a waiter, does it too, in Peter's face."

He went to hearing to get his unemployment, and won because the layer from bigco, sent to the hearing from out of state literally wouldn't answer any questions.

http://www.masslegalhelp.org/employment-unemployment/ui-if-f...

I am not sure of the difference between firing and laying off. Manager basically said that today is last day, bring in your equipment etc

Typically you’re fired when you do something bad. I wouldn’t consider what Tesla did as firing anyone.

Poor performance isn’t typically a “bad thing” in this sense. For instance, if someone went and pissed in the coffee pot, they would be fired. If a big group of people were simply told to not come in anymore it’s laid off. Tesla specifically said this wasn’t laying people off so I’m not sure how that works.

I don’t know if there’s any legal or contractual grounds for one or the other but I’d guess it would matter what state you’re in.

I know for a lot of states collecting unemployment benefits does require some sort of reason for termination that is related to the above distinction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com