remember people, most employment lawyers work on contingency for this reason. They only get paid if you win. Most people don't know that and think it'll be too expensive to take on their old company
This is illegal, but I imagine I could see something like this happening naturally and cynically... you get similar effects with realtors and recruiters.
Still, there's plenty that are honestly and earnestly do their job for the most part. Often times these people can make deals happen. Taking a relatively basic deal instead of going to trial is often a good call.
If he knows he can get something pretty decent and you have to risk $30K+ for a long shot chance.
It does, instead, mandate that the employee is given a 30 (edit: California is 60, federal is 30) day notice that they will be laid off. It would be completely within the law to say "you will be laid off on Feb 4" and require you to work until Feb 4, and not have any sort of additional severance pay.
Severance pay is not required under California law. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/finalpay.pdf
> There is no legal requirement under California law that employers provide severance pay to an employee upon termination of employment.
Confusing severance pay, WARN act, and the common practice of garden leave can make it harder for people to understand what they are entitled to.
> mandate that the employee is given a 30 day notice that they will be laid off
ie maybe he was terminated with notice and it wasn't explicitly labeled a severance letter.
Think: would you want to bring on a cofounder who sued their previous cofounder? Maybe you would, but many would have second thoughts too.
In many ways suing or getting sued in business is like losing your virginity. It seems like a big deal before it happens the first time but then anfterward it isn’t a big deal and just stuff that happens.
I feel you are spreading FUD to protect one of the richest guys in the world and telling little people who have been abused here to just take it.
What's the point of being able to free to file a lawsuit if you practically can't?
What would you think of someone that wouldn't fight for themselves when they were lied to and cheated?
Similarly, I'd look very carefully at anybody who stayed at Twitter well into the Musk era. As I did people who were at Uber during the Travis era. Sometimes decent people have good reasons for working for bad execs. (E.g., I hear a lot of the SpaceX people see putting up with Musk as a necessary evil for getting to work on something they care so much about.) But sometimes they are clue-deficient or lack a moral core, and those people require too much close supervision for my tastes.
Yep. Don’t forget immigration, that can be a big reason to stay. There was this famous pic of Elon with the some of the remaining Twitter staff and let’s just say they looked quite international. Obviously SV is multicultural and you shouldn’t assume individual traits from appearance, but, for a group it’s somewhat reasonable to assume a fair amount of H1B hostages with a huge incentive to stay, especially in the current economic climate.
Speaking as a former H1B holder.
You don't get a pass because Elon and Twitter happens to be involved.
It is very unlikely if upto has of Twitter 2000+ employees are "H1B hostages", but I doubt that will serve your purpose
> I doubt that will serve your purpose
What purpose? I’m not coming from a culture war perspective in the slightest, but purely from his micro-/mismanagement of the company, and his treatment of employees, which I have learnt directly from his own words.
It is not. He made no negative assumptions about the people in question and did no harm to them.
The opposite is true. The “internationals” in that photo have a strong reputation for interest and hard work in engineering and the sciences.
Maybe the people without H1Bs. The H1Bs are in a tough spot.
Quite likely the people who have quit are upper middle class folks who have a huge safety net that allows them to throw tantrums with little repercussion. They also likely dont have to support a family and I don't mean 1or 2 kids.
TLDR; being ethical is great if you can afford it.
Back when email spam was relatively new, sometimes I would track down a spammer, call them up, and ask them what they were doing. Some were apologetic! They didn't know why it was bad, or had gotten talked into something by a sleazy sales guy. But I still remember one conversation with a guy who clearly felt bad about it but wasn't going to stop because he had a family to feed.
What I hope he eventually figured out is that everybody has a family to feed, but that doesn't justify harming other people and their families. I get that in the short term people end up stuck in things where the didn't realize what was going on. for example, that's how I ended up working in financial trading for a while. But I got out. It may take them a while, but others can too.
And for those that can't figure it out or don't care? I don't want to work with them until they do. They get to make their choices, but I get to make mine.
Fair enough. But who is the bad person in this instance? What is the bad thing they did in contrast to really bad people like kingpins and human traffickers? Is it worth jeopardising finacial stability and a career over it.
It seems to me we need a universal scale of morality - since people have to justify why they are continuing to work for a paycheck.
You can try constructing a universal moral scale if you want. For me it's sufficient to see if the people I might hire are good matches for the work and the team.
Not everyone can afford to piss off a job because it doesn’t perfectly align with their moral compass.
All this talk about recession, unaffordable housing, tech layoffs and whatever else gets page views might make someone just a little hesitant to up and quit a job because the company is run by a raving lunatic.
Must be nice though to be in a position where you can create a class of undesirable peoples.
You seem to be acting as if I'm going to just throw out any resume with Twitter on it. What I said was I'd look very carefully at someone, which is what I'd do with literally dozens of causes of concern. And "perfectly align" is pretty hyperbolic. If you're exaggerating like this for hit-dogs-holler reasons, you might think about that.
You did imply that is the case. The only people who stayed post-musk have compromised morals or they would have left with the rest of the right thinkers.
Maybe not what you meant but what I read.
I once saw a resume that had Enron, Wells Fargo, Uber and a crypto scam on it. That thing went straight in the bin. I'd have way more respect for someone who spent a couple of years bagging groceries than someone who embraced an abusive, toxic culture out of greed.
Of course you don’t want people standing up to you if you are trying to screw them over, but it that is just your self interest.
You are advocating the mindset of a medieval serf, how dare little people stand up for themselves and defy the baron?
Someone who is too worried about what Musk fanboys think of them to go after what they are owed would make a terrible founder.