upvote

points

by tandr17 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby geye123416 hours ago|
next
[-]
> management said if any layoffs will happen in 3 years period after this, same package will be offered no question asked.

And people believed them?!

reply
upvoteby ThrowawayR25 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Failing to live up to a business promise runs afoul of promissory estoppel: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp
reply
upvoteby dcrazy3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There is plenty of room for uncertainty where promissory estoppel and right-to-work laws intersect.
reply
upvoteby Maxatar14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
If this claim was in writing then it's legally binding in most U.S. states. Technically it's legally binding even if it's not written but in those cases it's harder to prove.
reply
upvoteby 0cf8612b2e1e15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Right? When management demonstrates their inability to plan for repercussions, how am I to believe a pinky promise covering the next three years?
reply
upvoteby sedatk15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> And people believed them?!

Probably because they could sue them for not keeping their word.

reply
upvoteby tandr16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It was more than 3 years ago, but as far as I know, they did honor the agreement. Some people took early retirement packages closer to the end of that three-year period and they got the same deal.
reply
upvoteby groos15 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
30% was the quoted number for the acceptance rate of the earlier VRP, which was mostly long tenured employees who were at retirement age, or close to it. I would be surprised if this gets a significant acceptance from the younger employees. OTOH, older employees who didn't accept the earlier VRP and were regretting that decision may jump at this offer.
reply
upvoteby therealdrag010 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So if we get the same acceptance rate. This would be about a 10% reduction in headcount.
reply
upvoteby davidbuhler10 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Was this Shaw?
reply
upvoteby tandr2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Hi David. Yep, it was.
reply
upvoteby lotsofpulp16 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
>so management said if any layoffs will happen in 3 years period after this, same package will be offered no question asked. Cooled things a bit, but what a mess...

Unless those funds were placed in an escrow account, I would have assumed that claim held no water.

reply
upvoteby wavemode16 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Because the company wouldn't have the money by that point? Seems unlikely. Or because it was an outright lie? Could be grounds for a lawsuit.
reply
upvoteby rtkwe16 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Also just from raw corporate penny pinching. Why would they make payouts like that if they're not forced to, yes there's reputational risks of making that promise and then not following through with it but faced with a choice between that and a few lawsuits (with the usual corporate advantages of arbitration clauses and vastly more resources they're likely to win too) a corporation looking to shed people is likely to take the win of reducing their severance payouts.
reply
upvoteby wavemode9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In practice, the money you save long-term by reducing headcount is one or two orders of magnitude larger than the money you pay out in severance. Losing your reputation and a lot of legal fees over (basically) pennies tends not to be sound business.

There's a reason corporations almost always settle lawsuits (if they aren't dismissed).

reply
upvoteby lenerdenator16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> Could be grounds for a lawsuit.

And?

Litigation is a rich man's game. Companies almost always have more resources to dedicate to litigation than individual employees, especially if those individual employees have been laid off and are now without an income.

The company knows this, the employees know this, the company knows the employees know this, and vice-versa.

reply
upvoteby JustResign16 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> The company knows this, the employees know this, the company knows the employees know this, and vice-versa.

Okay, so how many nights until the blue-eyed employees all leave the company? :p

reply
upvoteby WalterBright12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The employees can (and do) hire attorneys on contingency.
reply
upvoteby tux316 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
A promise like that just isn't binding, things can change in 2 years, the managers themselves may have moved and been replaced with different people. A bird in the hand is worth many birds three years from now.
reply
upvoteby IAmBroom14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Management at a certain level speaks with the legally binding authority of the company. Management at any level carries some legal authority.

You can't say, "Well, we hired a new CEO, so all those old agreements are null and void."

reply
upvoteby luxuryballs16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
hey! we said no questions asked!
reply