So basically BuzzFeed could just do the math on the ten weeks of severance by subtracting each employee's PTO, calling the remainder 'severance.' I don't think they are obligated by law to pay any severance, though I could be wrong about that.
The former doesn't imply the latter; all (not almost all) US states have at-will employment, but that just means good cause is, by default (i.e., absent specific contract terms), not needed to sever an employment relationship; some states, and the federal government, nevertheless require notice or payment in lieu of notice and for some states additional post-layoff benefits (e.g., paying continued health benefits for a certain period) for certain large layoffs.
The only reason I came in at all is so that they'd transfer my clearance to my new employer. If they wanted me to write some bullshit resignation letter, they had best be prepared to deal with the consequences of me not having been laid off, which is to say the salary I hadn't been paid while "benched". But with the small numbers involved, they only needed a handful of people to say they actually resigned, or that they got laid off at a different time, so it wasn't really worth fighting.
And here I am, technically working for them again, after they got bought by a company with better cash flow. They certainly had an opportunity to read that letter in the old HR file before rehiring me.
You can't count on the labor laws to protect you. Keep a 6-month savings buffer, update your resume every year, and try to make sure that it would hurt a little, but not too much, if you suddenly disappeared without wrapping up loose ends. The company should be able to survive if you got hit by a bus (or otherwise separated on zero notice), but it should also have to cry a little. And ask for more money than you think you're worth, to account for the chance that they'll screw you over without any warning.
Even if that was a real "contractually promised benefit package," as in an actual contract was signed, unless you have a union, the contract is only good until the employer feels like it. If they want to change the benefits they'd just draft up another contract that doesn't have any severance and they'll make all employees sign it. Don't want to sign it? Then you're fired. Since you're fired you don't get severance, because severance is for employees who are laid off, not those who are fired for disagreeing with changes in company policies.
In America absent a solid union contract (that's a REAL contract, not the form an employer gives you to sign) or laws specifying otherwise, benefits are at the sole discretion of the employer.
Anyone whose been at a company more than a few years has seen significant changes to benefits packages. I worked at a company that, when I had been there for years, sent a short email saying "We will no longer be matching 401(k) contributions." That was it, thousands of dollars in salary cut just like that, with a few keystrokes and ZERO dialog. I also worked at a different company who was acquired by a major multinational corporation. The new corporation make us all sign a "no side projects" agreement. Some people grumbled a bit about this but one person said she wasn't willing to sign it, so the new corporate overlords fired her.
This is not true. They are still required to honor the previous contract through its term. Forcing someone to sign a contract that essentially voids the previous one before its original term has expired, upon threat of termination, is literally a textbook case study in law school.
> In America absent a solid union contract (that's a REAL contract, not the form an employer gives you to sign) or laws specifying otherwise, benefits are at the sole discretion of the employer. Anyone whose been at a company more than a few years has seen significant changes to benefits packages. I worked at a company that, when I had been there for years, sent a short email saying "We will no longer be matching 401(k) contributions." That was it, thousands of dollars in salary cut just like that, with a few keystrokes and ZERO dialog. I also worked at a different company who was acquired by a major multinational corporation. The new corporation make us all sign a "no side projects" agreement. Some people grumbled a bit about this but one person said she wasn't willing to sign it, so the new corporate overlords fired her.
You're confusing two completely different things (contract vs. at will, and unionized vs. non-unionized) and ascribing power to unions that they don't have. A contract with a fixed term may prevent this situation, and that's something that can happen with or without a union. For entirely at-will employment, benefit changes can still happen with no notice (whether or not the labor force is unionized) and employees have the choice of continuing their employment or not. (The equivalent email to the one you received would read something like "The new contract agreed upon with the union no longer includes 401(k) contributions". At that point, employees still have two choices: accept the new terms or quit.
Assuming benefits are actually written in a contract (and they aren't, not that I've seen anyways), if you're "at will" then they can terminate you for not signing a new employment contract with the new benefits when they feel like changing the benefits. Therefore, in practice, they have complete unilateral control over benefits.
But they aren't going to write your benefits in a binding contract, because that's just not standard practice and there's no upside for them to do so and just creates more paperwork.
When unions are involved, however, there's real contracts. However, unions are very uncommon in the US.
Of course, this means you're getting your PTO paid out while simultaneously being laid off, but I never said the situation was perfect, just that they can't arbitrarily ignore their own employment contract.
>But they aren't going to write your benefits in a binding contract, because that's just not standard practice
Every professional job I can remember absolutely did come with written policies about things like vacation and PTO, and this stuff was written right into the offer letter. The offer letter is absolutely legally binding. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
I happen to have a job acceptance letter sitting on my desk right now. Reading through it, as far as benefits it says that the position is eligible for benefits, gives the benefits in very, very generic terms "PTO, retirement, health, dental" and they are "subject to terms conditions and limitations outlined in the plan documents and policies." Well "plan documents and policies" are under complete control of the employer, so the translation is "we decide the benefits and dictate them to you."
What they could do is have severance for all employees be N days, where N = 10 weeks - (avg # PTO days), and then also pay out PTO individually per employee. The company ends up paying out the same amount overall, but employees who had more PTO days stored up than average get paid out more and vice-versa for those with fewer. In that sense it is more fair, and this whole brouhaha started because the existing policy isn't perceived as being fair.
Edit: I assume of course that the proposed severance is at least as big as the PTO.