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.
AFAICT, nobody was told to "stop working" today. They were all laid off, meaning terminated, no longer compensated, etc.
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...
No idea about the actual jurisdiction in question...