Hacker News Reader

Comment by bnejad | Hacker News Reader

Seems like a clear wrong doing on SpaceX's side... Weird SpaceX would lay people off when by all accounts their business is doing fairly well?

View on HN

According to this article ( http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41428spacex-s... ) they were firings, not layoffs. Which may throw a wrench in their lawsuit.

but how do you justify not paying the wages earned?

Yeah this is really the worst part even they were actually firings.

IANAL, but I don't think this is going to fly in court given that (4 times) more than 50 people were let go at once. If it looks like a layoff and quacks like a layoff, I don't think the judge or a jury is going to care what SpaceX calls it.

Kind of surprised a company that is so on the ball technically would fuck something like this up; it is definitely going to end up costing them way more than 2 months severance to everyone (plus whatever they were owed -- some people claim they didn't even get that) would have.

In this case I think it might, I'm not a lawyer, but the relevant law seems to be this one (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...), which defines layoff as

> "Layoff" means a separation from a position for lack of funds or lack of work.

US Dept of Labor and the Federal WARN Act have specific requirements for employers over 100 employees where 50 or more are let go from a single location in a 30-day period: http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm

Doesn't matter if they're layoffs for lack of work or performance-based firings: you still have to comply with the provisions of that law.

(I have no knowledge whether SpaceX did or did not comply, of course.)

The article says that the suit is about a alleged "violation of California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.", and "The Cal WARN Act", not the Federal WARN Act.

I have no knowledge of this lawsuit other then this article though.

The "not paying them wages earned before termination" would be a matter of state law, and with California having its own WARN Act, I presume the lawyers think it's best to sue in state court.

http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/EmployerWARN09_2003.pdf

The official employers guide to WARN states that people let go for cause are not counted under WARN.

The SpaceX position seems to be: 1) We just did our yearly performance reviews 2) Low performers were fired 3) Since they were all let go for cause, WARN does not apply.

Some people are claiming that it is a layoff and SpaceX is just trying to work around it. I'm imagining the SpaceX position here would be: 1) Layoffs are defined as letting employees go due to reduction in work or lack of money 2) SpaceX is experiencing neither of these 3) SpaceX plans to grow 20% this year; proof that there is no reduction in work 4) SpaceX has lots of open positions and is actively hiring; further proof that there is no reduction in work or lack of money

Well, the company always wants to say it is a performance based firing, that reduces the company unemployment insurance liability. However, the companies don't get the final say in the matter.

I think fired employees are eligible for unemployment, so I wouldn't think it would effect unemployment insurance liability. As far as I am aware, you are eligible for unemployment so long as you did not chose to leave.

Fired employees are not always eligible for unemployment: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits...

Elon is probably cautious about cash flow after the Tesla Motors incident:

http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_10727401

NASA is/was noted for releasing a large number of people after successful missions. Everything is going well overall, they just didn't need everyone around during long idle periods. Might presume SpaceX is doing the same: what do you do with >200 idle personnel? pay them to do nothing, or release them and hire as needed when the time comes again?

R&D? Ping pong?

I don't think the problem is with laying off unnecessary staff. I think this is a notification and backwage issue. If someone works for you for two weeks, then gets fired, you can't just not pay them for the time worked. Also, in most states, you cannot lay off employees without cause (meaning without a specific issue with a single employees behavior or performance) without sufficient notice.

That's pretty much completely wrong, for better or worse. It's called at will employment.

Edit: I wonder if the downvoters who have not bothered to comment realize that every state in the US except Montana has some form of at will employment. The person I was replying to couldn't be more wrong. (The very obvious claim about not being able to fail to pay people is of course true)

You're being downvoted because you're wrong. At-will employment doesn't mean you can stiff your employees on backwages. It also doesn't mean you don't need to comply with Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) laws, which exist in many (most?) states.

At-will employment doesn't mean the employer gets to do whatever they please.

There's a host of possible reasons. They could have discovered they hired too many people, for example.

"Oops, our bad. We're going to let you go, because we hired too many people for the amount of work we had, and on that note, since we didn't really have any work for you the last few weeks you were here, well, we're not going to pay you for that. And we're going to tell anyone, including press releases, that you were 'fired'."

Mass firings under any and all conditions is how capital works these days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com