Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
> Under Twitter’s takeover deal terms, Musk had agreed to keep employee compensation and benefits the same. That means the laid-off employees should receive 60 days of salary and the cash value of the stock they were to receive within three months of their last date at the company, per law.
Have they actually been "terminated?" When does "employment" actually, legally end? This might be closer to "suspended with pay," unless they're no longer being paid which would be hard to know as this literally happened hours ago last night. It could be he's just locking them out, continuing to pay them for 60 days, and then will announce layoffs. I think this lawsuit could be a bit premature if you set emotions aside.
This is so much noise over nothing.
If Musk is basically saying “stop working” and we will pay you for the next 60 days (and even beyond), then this is completely legal as long as they are not restricted from seeking other employment during this “notice period”
Edit: IANAL
Also Musk consistently pushes and oversteps the legal boundaries of what he can and can't do to get his way. Him being in charge of Twitter at all is because he was forced to execute a contract he willingly signed what makes you think he'll be more calmly compliant to laws?
C'mon; he literally just tried desperately to get out of the Twitter deal that's the direct cause of these layoffs.
Jeff Bezos's decisions about where to stick his weiner cost him tens of billions of dollars.
No one makes "all the right decisions".
Edit: I take it many of you haven't been a part of a company that gets an offer that falls apart later, tried to buy/sell property, etc etc. Deals fall apart constantly, trying to get out of a deal isn't indicative of anything meaningful in and of itself. The only really unusual thing that happened in the Twitter deal was Twitter forcing the consummation.
It was forced because he left himself open to the deal being forced which was the idiotic mistake
I think we can take it that you haven’t been part of many businesses that actually had to compete and operate with other businesses with equal leverage. The way a business negotiates when it’s getting bought out due to failing investor goals is a lot different than when the two opposing parties have equivalent leverage
But that's all beside the point. These kind of antics happen all the time in the business world. The buyer threatens to back out, the seller takes them to court, they settle. LVMH & Tiffany comes to mind as a very recent example: it wasn't a due diligence argument there, either.
Regardless, their money was realistically getting split anyway, so the decision of when to start the affair probably didn't cost him anything.
People are allowed to want to divorce without it being referred to as "where he sticks his weiner". I think what grosses me out is that revenge porn was laid thickly on top of this that people just actively ignored.
Not saying that that makes it better, quite the contrary, just that most probably it wasn’t something personal, just a raison d’etat thing.
No they're not. Getting a divorce doesn't give you the right to control how other people talk about your divorce.
> I think what grosses me out is that revenge porn was laid thickly on top of this that people just actively ignored.
People care about revenge porn because it hurts vulnerable people (i.e. the vast majority of us.) People don't give a shit about revenge porn about people who aren't vulnerable in any way.
Obviously the discussion here is in terms of civility and respecting people's privacy, not 'control'.
God how I wish we still lived in that world…
Do you believe that any belief is rendered safe solely by being under the umbrella of a religion?
> Central to Calvinist belief was the Elect, those persons chosen by God to inherit eternal life. All other people were damned and nothing could change that since God was unchanging. While it was impossible to know for certain whether a person was one of the Elect, one could have a sense of it based on his own personal encounters with God. Outwardly the only evidence was in the person's daily life and deeds, and success in one's worldly endeavors was a sign of possible inclusion as one of the Elect. A person who was indifferent and displayed idleness was most certainly one of the damned, but a person who was active, austere, and hard-working gave evidence to himself and to others that he was one of God's chosen ones (Tilgher, 1930).
> Calvin taught that all men must work, even the rich, because to work was the will of God. It was the duty of men to serve as God's instruments here on earth, to reshape the world in the fashion of the Kingdom of God, and to become a part of the continuing process of His creation (Braude, 1975). Men were not to lust after wealth, possessions, or easy living, but were to reinvest the profits of their labor into financing further ventures. Earnings were thus to be reinvested over and over again, ad infinitum, or to the end of time (Lipset, 1990). Using profits to help others rise from a lessor level of subsistence violated God's will since persons could only demonstrate that they were among the Elect through their own labor (Lipset, 1990).
> Selection of an occupation and pursuing it to achieve the greatest profit possible was considered by Calvinists to be a religious duty. Not only condoning, but encouraging the pursuit of unlimited profit was a radical departure from the Christian beliefs of the middle ages. In addition, unlike Luther, Calvin considered it appropriate to seek an occupation which would provide the greatest earnings possible. If that meant abandoning the family trade or profession, the change was not only allowed, but it was considered to be one's religious duty (Tilgher, 1930).
Edit: the other poster here has a much better summary, with sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment
> It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute (subject to any appeal).
What on earth has this man done to make you think that he knows his legal obligations?
Why do you think that? He hasn't replaced Tesla's General Counsel since they left in early 2019. But he's a lot more diligent with his personal life?
There's no reason to take your comment seriously when you open like this. You clearly have a bias against the man and you're willing to run with assumptions as facts. Until there is evidence that Twitter was not going to pay for 60 days of employment as required by law, this is a frivolous suit filed out of spite. Otherwise, similar suits would be filed against Stripe, Opendoor, Lyft, and the many other companies that did layoffs recently which are virtually identical to this one.
Edit: Twitter is paying for 90 days of salary and benefits, similar to other companies, more than required by law: https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
Who said you couldn't voice your opinion? I was pointing out you haven't given anyone any reason to take your post more seriously than the one you insist shouldn't be taken seriously.
Not his first 420 reference, either; the “funding secured” Tesla tweet that got him in hot water with the SEC set a Tesla share price of $420.
At the very least, he likes to make weed jokes.
There is no reason to think that here: https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
Sure you do. Often the news reports this with the phrase "seeking injunction base on rumors that..."
Elon didn't even read the contract that bought the company. He spent the last 6 months in court trying to get out of the contract, not realizing it was ironclad.
Failing at that, he might as well lean into it. He's got enough money to make billions of stupid mistakes, and this stupid mistake gave him ownership of his favorite thing. A favorite thing that incidentally gives him leverage against a US government desperate to control social media, a US government who is basically a business partner on every company he has.
He's likely to extract a load of profit out of twitter through that, anyway, we just won't see it because it will show up in his other businesses in the form of contracts, favorable regulation, and favorable legislation.
The court case went on as long as it did (at great cost in lawyer time) because Elon thought he had a case.
If Elon understood the contract, he wouldn't have wasted so much money on the courts and lawyers.
I like how you think, my man.
The criminal court system (and public defenders in particular) are another story.
Very first line of the article.
You can't ascribe 5-d chess skills to Musk on this one, he's lost the benefit of the doubt.
“Twitter is being sued for not giving employees advance notice of a mass layoff that began in earnest early Friday.”
I don’t think Elon is playing 5d chess. I think he’s being an enormous asshole about what is likely a justifiable thing to do at Twitter if you’re someone with purely capitalistic intentions.
I’m also saying that he’s not being sued for something he might do later as the poster I replied to suggested, he’s being sued for something he’s already done.
Was this incorrect notification process or a lock out? Both are at odds with the job responsibilities and benefits.
Not a Musk fan, but "circumventing" feels a bit weird when he's basically acting in the spirit of it?
He’s actually complying with the spirit of the law while also doing what I’d prefer he did given the amount of user data that Twitter holds.
No employee with a 60-day payoff is going to win in court when the hourly rate of these people has approached infinity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...
AFAICT, nobody was told to "stop working" today. They were all laid off, meaning terminated, no longer compensated, etc.
No idea about the actual jurisdiction in question...
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
Unless they want to claim some side effect of working is part of the employee's compensation this lawsuit looks baseless enough to be an abuse of process.
Actual damages are practically capped around 3 months on the theory that you should be able to find a new job in that timeframe. And if you don’t, then that’s evidence you’re not actually qualified qualified and the termination wasn’t wrongful! And if Twitter is effectively paying 60 day’s severance then it’s even harder to show actual damages.
Now theoretically punitive damages are a possibility. I assume that’s what this lawsuit is hinging on, raising the however unlikely possibility that a jury might vote for punitive damages. That almost certainly won’t happen though absent gross malfeasance: think outright full blown macroaggression racism or sexism. Otherwise, well privileged tech nerds like tweeps just aren’t very likely to get a jury all riled.
Those who were put on garden leave have 3 months of pay to lean on while they search.
Those who were not, if they quit, their pay ends that day. They'd have whatever savings they have.
You asked what was stopping someone (who wasn't fired but who wanted to leave) from just quitting.
Now, kenjackson's statement is kind of generalizing from self a bit. He believes he'd want to leave in that situation and believes that most people share his ideals in this case.
And while it's probably not the case, it's also not the case that the number is zero.
There are valid reasons to stay in an undesirable situation until you can line up something better.
Of course, the laws in France favor the worker a lot more than the U.S so it will be interesting what the result of the lawsuit will be.
Eagerly awaiting for France to have their own equivalents (in terms of success and worldwide influence) of Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc. As well as for their devs to be paid even remotely close to what they can get paid in the US.
From what I am seeing, even "the year of Linux on desktop" is more likely to happen than that. Which doesn't inspire much confidence.
Perhaps the French would see that as a failure, not a success.
Not sure if that warrants a celebration. But if they consider it as such, then who am I to disagree.
Perhaps it's OK for a society to be... OK, instead of "the top", especially if top comes with a correspondingly distant bottom. Perhaps in 50 years we'll not see some of Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc. as quite so positive of achievements.
However, I was disputing it in the context of the claim that "France model is leading them steadily on the way to the top". To the top of what? To the top of being OK? That's a very questionable definition of "the top".
Meanwhile, sure, you can argue that some of "Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc." might end up not so positive of achievements in 50 years, but a lot of them quite are. Tesla, a non-european car brand, is one of the most registered new vehicles in quite a few european countries now, and I consider it a positive thing in comparison to ICE vehicles made in europe like bmw/audi/etc. SpaceX with its recent Falcon9-Heavy launch is quite positive. Which search engine do french people use? I bet it is Google. Which OS and office productivity suite does the majority of France currently run? I bet it is Windows with MS Office. Where are the majority of the websites and services that most people use are hosted? Most likely they are hosted at AWS.
Again, I dont subscribe to the notion that one has to be "at the top" in a bunch of arbitrary metrics to lead a great life, and it applies to both individuals and countries. However, I still disagree with the notion that France is anywhere on "the steady way to the top" when it comes to any of those metrics, as I see zero evidence to that.
Not a lawyer, but employees are only required email access for all if company policy say they must. Usually the policies say access can be removed at any time for any purpose the company management desires, because they are, after all, the managements systems to operate and provide.
This is done on the scale of hours, not months.
While unusual, if management needs to end the employment of staff but is precluded in doing so by law.... the only thing Twitter must do is provide normal compensation & benefits, nothing else. Under employment contracts, the employee must do whatever the employer deems acceptable (within legal limits, or leave under their own will.)
> An employer who violates WARN provisions is liable to each employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...
He learned his lesson from a similar large scale layoff at Tesla. The lawyers in this case were the same lawyers in the previous case.
"Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs without proper legal notice"
At least replace the "with" with "without".
HN guidelines ask that the original be used. But if original is too long, we should at least try to leave something that makes sense and doesn't incorrectly flip Boolean flags.
Looking at the slug, it seems like TFA might have originally butchered, and later changed the title, too.
Shaved off exactly 11 characters (including spaces).
Edit: source is https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
> Today is your last working day at the company, however, you will remain employed by Twitter and will receive compensation and benefits through your separation date of February 2, 2023.
Elon is doing a lot of ill-advised things with his Twitter transition, but this armchair lawyering doesn't even take the basic facts into account.
https://casetext.com/case/lynch-v-tesla-inc
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Cou...
It gives a good summary of what the law is about
It eventually got settled via arbitration:
https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/tesla-workers-warn-act-...
Elon Musk? A credible CEO?
And here I was thinking shitposting wasn't allowed on HN.
Maybe no one will want to hire him as CEO, if that's what you're referring to. But he can just buy another company if he wants to be CEO of it.
You'll probably mention a few side-projects of his that haven't done much - but he hasn't flown them into the ground either. They're just interesting experiments.
But if you want history of using his money for extreme trolling, just look at the whole Hyperloop thing, where he admitted it was a troll.
He's had a lot of disdain for Twitter in the past. He's laughed at people he's kicked out already. The Twitter story is one giant troll. If, somehow, it manages to get any kind of success, he wins. If it fails, he writes it off and moves on to the next sociopathic experience.
However, now that it's done, I don't doubt his earnest or abilities to drive twitter forward. In any case it will be very interesting to watch.
On the other hand, how would he cash out his gamble? You cannot announce that you want to buy 100% of the company stocks, and then start selling off the 9% that you already have, that would be a dead giveaway that the offer is not serious.
Sux how rules and established norms of behaviour restrict one’s actions.
If you want to be a jerk, that influences future hiring chances both ways. Most companies expect to need to hire at some point in the future.
This is basic stuff easily remedied by corrected exit package details if it did in fact happen.
You seem to be implying that's irrational behavior, and therefore won't happen.
I agree that it is irrational.
Is silicon valley not like this? What is this "advanced notice"?? No, really, I am not taking sides, but is this how it works at some places? I have been working for several decades, I have _never_ heard of this.
Most European countries have more
This is different to an employee being let go. This isn't a bunch of people being fired, this is retrenchment due to reorganization.
> “an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order”
edit: Thank you for the clarification, appreciate the added insights.
Note, I don't benefit from this since I'm not in CA, but I still think it's a good idea.
(EU laws apply more broadly, but the California one is only in the event of mass layoffs)
I will draw attention to https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title20-vol3/pd... which defines a mass layoff:
> (c) Mass layoff. (1) The term "mass layoff" means a reduction in force which first, is not the result of a plant closing, and second, results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for: (i) At least 33 percent of the active employees excluding part-time employees, and (ii) At least 50 employees, excluding part-time employees.
There is no difference of "for cause" or "not for cause" in the wording of the WARN act. There may be a difference in the contract (not removing a comic may be construed as "for cause") but if that employee was let go in the the frame of a reduction in force, they are likely covered by the WARN act too... of course, ask a lawyer.
In particular, employers with a bit more pragmatic/cautious legal department will avoid firing people for cause in the 30 day window where a layoff happens to avoid the possibility that the fired employee falls into the same category as those who are covered by the WARN act.
Only applies in the case of mass layoffs.
I have seen some reports of Twitter employees in the UK being told they've been laid off, but that's simply not legal in te UK.
For a company the size of Twitter, a process must be followed:
https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/consultation
The company can be forced to reinstate the employee if the company has been found to have ignored the law.
Delaying the layoff until January doesn't remove the legal obligations Twitter has.
"2-day a week office requirement = 20% voluntary departures" "Day-0...sharpen your blades boys!"
https://fortune.com/2022/10/06/elon-musk-jason-calacanis-ret...
An office requirement because you think it helps the culture is one thing; an office requirement simply because you know the attrition it will cause so you "sharpen your blades"/salivate over the prospect is very different. Twitter encouraged employees to move out of state far away from offices, etc.
If an employer says "you have to come back into the office 2x weekly" that is different from "you have to commute to our new office, located 60 miles away". The latter would be constructive dismissal because it is new, unexpected, and a material challenge for many employees. Ditto if they removed half the bathrooms, didn't provide enough office space for the workers, cut the parking lot in half, etc.
But asking employees to resume doing something that they were willing to do when they first joined the company (assuming they joined pre-pandemic) would be difficult to characterize as constructive dismissal.
They encouraged people to move far away from the office, where ever they wanted, and then are doing this explicitly for the attrition side-effect, not because they need the people in the office.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/twitter-board-of-direct...
It seems the board tried to block it at first.
Also -
"A Saudi prince who is among Twitter’s major shareholders scoffed at Musk’s offer in a Thursday tweet. Al Waleed bin Talal said he would reject Musk’s overtures because he didn’t believe $43 billion “comes close to the intrinsic value of Twitter, given its growth prospects."
Essentially, the Twitter board was snookered once Musk made a serious offer.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/twitter-board-of-direct...
Also -
"A Saudi prince who is among Twitter’s major shareholders scoffed at Musk’s offer in a Thursday tweet. Al Waleed bin Talal said he would reject Musk’s overtures because he didn’t believe $43 billion “comes close to the intrinsic value of Twitter, given its growth prospects."
Whatever Elon settles the suit for will be far less $ than actual severance would have been.
Funny how that works.
In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government, business, politician, friend, family member and neighbor I've ever known.
In other words, that's how the world generally works.
TBF, he is in most cases, just not that particular one.
If your friends, family, and colleagues are routinely getting into legal trouble, you need some better friends, family, and colleagues.
Of course, maybe you're part of The Family(tm), in which case... say no more.
And suing people for it is also how the world works.
I wish I had learned earlier that when somebody makes an accusatory statement, it is wise to consider that they may be inadvertently projecting their self and their intentions onto the people around them.
It is very human to believe that most people think and feel in more or less the same way. So when we hear generalized statements about what people are like, or how they would likely react to a course of action, the sentiment will often be biased by how the speaker thinks, or would react.
If you mean that in the sense that everyone, no matter how powerful, needs to be subject to oversight, I agree with you.
If instead you mean that in the schoolyard, "But Johnny was cussing too!" sense, well, if that's supposed to be a defense, it isn't. All I can suggest is be a smarter criminal.
People act like Twitter is the first company to do layoffs. This is super common and has happened to numerous tech companies in the last month. But of course, Space Man Bad.
Sucks to lose your job because management changed to someone you can't live with, but it would also suck to work a job with management you can't live with.
So, the penalty is paying workers the wages they would have been paid anyway under proper notice, plus interest? So for basically ~5-8% more Musk gets to terminate everyone today instead of in 60 days.
According to a leak to Business Insider[0], they are still "employed" but are not allowed to work. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
So it seems they are still being paid and get their benefits until Feb 2th
If, as some others have said, he's actually paying them for the 60 days, I don't think a judge or jury is going to be very sympathetic.
"So, your boss basically told you to take 60 days off with pay?"
Do you have any evidence for this?
Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all.
Making factual statements/judgements seems misguided, at this point, in my IANAL opinion.
I disagree.
He got bit by lawsuits over a previous mass layoff at Tesla. The lawyers who filed this lawsuit were the same lawyers involved in the previous one. Links pointing to the previous case:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33469900
I think that Musk learned from that, and reading the email employees received today, I think the lawsuit will be thrown out.
https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
On first sight, the mass layoffs appear to violate both California & Federal WARN Act notifications.
After reading the email, it appears that they are getting 3 months of "gardening leave" instead paychecks getting cut off at end of day.
> An employer who violates WARN provisions is liable to each employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...
Europe has different labor laws. I know enough about them to know that I don't know enough to have an opinion on what might happen over there.
At $1.85 million/day, he'd go broke in only 325 years.
I don't think it's a major worry for him.
This fact is probably something close to why I personally don't like the guy: he comes across as a personified avatar of the fact that laws don't really apply to folks with those kinds of resources, and that us peons have literally no recourse when faced with a rich person who wants to do whatever they feel like doing.
"hate the player, not the game" doesn't apply to folks who own the referees.
What, in your opinion, would be fair, other than "paying them forever for doing absolutely nothing"?
The law apparently says he has to pay them for 60 days. He's doing that.
If he's making a big deal about bringing in single digit millions per month to "pay the bills", you'd think he'd care about double-digit million fines, but who knows. He has more FU money than anyone else alive.
That is far from the only source of Twitter revenue.
Also, I'm about 99.999% sure that the $8/month thing is more about trolling the crap out of sanctimonious blue checks rather than actual revenue. They're basically Star-Bellied Sneetches who are going ballistic because the proles might also get "stars upon thars".
Yes, but he's claiming the $8/mo is to "keep paying the bills", so why focus on that small revenue stream and then pay a huge fine?
> Also, I'm about 99.999% sure that the $8/month thing is more about trolling the crap out of sanctimonious blue checks rather than actual revenue. They're basically Star-Bellied Sneetches who are going ballistic because the proles might also get "stars upon thars".
The revolution will be a subscription service, got it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...