Hacker News Reader

Comment by anaisbetts | Hacker News Reader

Whatever decision you make, don't quit voluntarily - this is a way to get them out of paying unemployment or other benefits; Tesla is trying to do layoffs without satisfying the legal obligations of layoffs by tricking people into voluntarily quitting.

As others have also suggested, talking to an employment lawyer who can do a close reading of your contract would be Useful in this case too.

View on HN

I'm curious how the email about "not showing up to the office would be interpreted as a resignation" plays into the layoff scenario. Is there any grounds that could realistically be considered a notice of resignation or is it just a blow-hard email?

Presumably, the original-poster here should keep working responsibly.

He won't show up to the office in August, but promises to do so by January. Until then, he keeps programming as he always has. If they want to fire him, that's fine, let them fire him so that he gets the full severance package (unemployment benefits, etc. etc.)

My contract specify how a resignation is to be done before it is binding (in writing). It that not normal in the states?

No it's not. You can be fired for not going to work or doing your job. Your company can change your job roles and responsibilities

Yes ofc you can be fired. That not the question. It is if your employer can tell you what they will take as an resignation. For me only a written notice will count. Any employer can tell me that they fire me if I don't show up, they would still have to write me an official firing when I don't show. Being fired is not resigning tho. Non of this has anything nothing to do with at-will or not.

I think in this case I it is a difference without a distinction. " take as an resignation" means the company initiates your resignation paperwork.

The employee will often need to sign a statement of resignation (Termination by mutual agreement), but the employer can absolutely initiate and send them the paperwork.

If you refuse, the resignation paperwork goes away and is replaced with firing paperwork, which you are not required to sign.

Here is some additional info: https://swartz-legal.com/what-are-the-different-types-of-sep...

most employment in the US is "at will" and has no real contractual obligations. you can quit at any time (and be fired at any time), for any reason. severance is essentially a benefit, completely optional, although it is required by law in some mass layoff situations regardless of at-will employment.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm writing about an employer telling employees that an specific action (not showing up) will count as a resignation. It seems so weird to me that this isn't in the contract.

Doesn't seem weird to me.

If you were my employee and I said you had a shift at say 8am and you never showed up then I'd just fire you _with cause_. There's no need for it to count as a resignation.

The point is that being terminated, as opposed to resigning, has implications for unemployment and other benefits. It therefore matters if an employer is free to simply interpret an arbitrary action or non-action as resignation.

A better interpretation of unemployment insurance is you are no longer able to work through no fault of your own. That varies a little between states, but most places you are able to quit for cause and collect UI. A few examples is if your pay significantly drops, or your job duties change significantly, or your place of employment moves to an unreasonable commute. The flip is also true, you may be ineligible for UI if you're fired for cause. Quitting vs resigning isn't a direct correlation to collecting UI, though they often rhyme for general cases.

I don't think UI really cares about resigned vs quit.

Looking at Texas's site [1], they explicitly say if your employer asks for a resignation it counts as being fired. There are also a bunch of ways for quitting to be eligible (i.e. "Significant changes in hiring agreement").

[1]: https://www.twc.texas.gov/jobseekers/eligibility-benefit-amo...

UI cares whether you resign voluntarily, vs your employer demands that you no longer work there. Tesla is trying to get employees to say "I quit", meaning they forfeit their rights. OP needs to get Tesla to say "You are no longer employed".

I don't remember ever seeing a policy specifically requiring a writing resignation. But I just assumed it was better for all involved to have an official email after an in-person discussion just to formalize it

deleted

You are eligible for unemployment in California if your employer significantly changes the terms of work, that includes changing locations to an unreasonable commute.

In most places, moving your place of employment such that it requires relocation would be considered constructive dismissal and therefore effectively termination.

Isn't the point of their tactic that they are going to consider it you quitting if you don't show up to work in person? So it will be voluntarily quitting whether you voluntarily quit or not. Still, probably better to force them to pay you as long as it takes them to figure things out.

They can "consider" it whatever they want, but it doesn't matter. We have established labor law about what is considered voluntarily resignation vs constructive dismissal / being fired / being laid off.

> Whatever decision you make, don't quit voluntarily - this is a way to get them out of paying unemployment or other benefits; Tesla is trying to do layoffs without satisfying the legal obligations of layoffs by tricking people into voluntarily quitting.

This, at worst you can claim UI while you look for a new role if they terminate your contract and lay you off; I think Elon just revealed his hand to anyone who thinks he is some sort of benevolent environmentalist playing the VC game--he is a tech oligarch and just like all of them will use whatever talking point to serve and ensure he achieves his end. I'm sure there are reasons that are not clear to those of us outside of Tesla Execs for why they are enforcing this, my guess is real estate losses are starting to take a toll as the stock price keeps dropping, but from what I'm hearing is that they are still busing people in from Woodland Park to Fremont because of the lack of parking spots in Fremont which has been a problem since Model 3 deployment, what exactly are they trying to achieve here?

Not just that, but just the unnecessary use of fossil fuels to ensure people commute into the E. Bay is so absurd especially for a company who's very mission statement is to transition out of it. And if they really felt this was a mission critical thing then offer significant employee discounts on used/old Tesla inventory and offer free super charger access to offset the energy impacts that this will incur.

I've always said and commended that Elon is more PT Barnum than he is Edison or Telsa, and it's clear that this move is a strategic one just like when they laid of ~14% of the entire work force during the disastrous Model 3 launch. This is also why I think that unionizing Tesla was a mistake during Model 3 but I have come to the realization that after the horrid safety record and intimidation tactics that have been in practice ever since for those who have been trying to unionize that it likely will have to happen.

It's crazy because in Giga-Shanghai, during the lockdowns no less, he was able to get people to show up and work 12 hour shifts 6 days a week [0].

I fear his megalomania has really gotten the best of him and he thinks that he can do this in California, too. Texas will probably let him and I fully anticipate that Giga Austin will probably be the new HQ where they will replicate the assembly lines of S/X/3/Y they built in Fremont which will likely be eventually phased out of vehicle production as a result of favourable legislation in TX because he can define what 'just cause' terminations are since it's an at-will State and Abbot is a total political-whore: see NRA stance.

I was onboard with Tesla's mission during COVID and supported Fremont remaining open during all that drama, but something went really wrong when Giga Shanghai started to set the new benchmark and US standards on labour were now somehow supposed to reflect what is essentially slave labour based working conditions.

0: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-giga-shanghai-housing-second...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com