10 ms·

I wonder if this legally really is the case. Twitter seems to have asked "Do you still want to work here", giving an option to affirm. They didn't say "you have

I wonder if this legally really is the case. Twitter seems to have asked "Do you still want to work here", giving an option to affirm. They didn't say "you have to go", they said "you may go if you do not like the new direction of the company, please tell us which one it is". I'd be rather careful with that, and not just proclaim these people were terminated. I see a rather good chance court could rule very differently.

klyrs 4y ago
Even if you think they "quit" that's still extremely clear-cut constructive dismissal.
apawloski 4y ago
The magic proclamation is actually going the other way. If the company is ending the employment, that is termination. The company does not get to simply say "well you've resigned." Perhaps you're not arguing termination vs resignation but rather whether they're entitled to unemployment and wrongful termination protection? That's more open for debate, but the former employees are entitled to those considerations (which they would not be had they resigned).
witheld 4y ago
You can’t send out an email asking “Do you NOT quit?” Quitting is a process you do, you give a letter, or you tell your boss, or you stop showing up to work, anything else is termination
- dehrmann 4y ago
  I'm guessing this is the case because "I didn't see the email" is plausible. I think all my jobs have asked for a one sentence resignation email to HR just so everyone's on the same page.
  - function_seven 4y ago
    It has nothing to do with the plausibility of seeing the email or not. Somebody could say “yeah I read that email. It was stupid and I wasn’t going to respond to it. I would still like to work here though, just not on double hours.”
- watwut 4y ago
  It you stop showing to work, it won't be quitting. Instead you will be terminated by employer for cause.
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    What if you cannot show to work because everyone's been locked out of the building or their accounts?
    - watwut 4y ago
      It is obstacle on the side of employer. If employer makes it impossible to reach office, it is his issue. But I gotta say, I really hope someone will speak to journalists about what that was about.
nocoiner 4y ago
There is very, very little chance a California court would rule the way you imagine.
- nprateem 4y ago
  California labour laws don't apply globally
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    There needs to be some competition to California model.
    - lovich 4y ago
      There is, it’s every other polity’s labor laws. So far the competition is doing fairly poorly compared to California’s economy
      - systemvoltage 4y ago
        I wonder if that’s why people are moving out of California at a record rate. Same with companies. https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/ https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-m... There is a lot of tailwind for California's economy. If I were starting a new company, I would stay away from California. Every possible metric is worse except for network effects and access to capital in SV.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Does it matter where they live if they still work for California companies remotely, and perhaps are subject to Californian labor laws?
        lovich 4y ago
        >I wonder if that’s why people are moving out of California at a record rate. Same with companies Probably because they are no longer competitive to afford them. If you want to argue that there needs to be a more compassionate, less capitalist competition to California then I'll walk back my argument as I would agree that there are tradeoffs there. If you were discussing there needing "to be some competition to California model" and referencing capitalistic model then I will still point to the fact that gdp per capita puts California as the best subnational polity >Every possible metric is worse except for network effects and access to capital in SV. Again if you meant to compare this to a non capitalistic market then you have a point, but if this is capitalism vs capitalism that's like saying "if you just remove all the ways they are winning, aren't they actually losing?"
scotty79 4y ago
> "Do you still want to work here" Many stably employed people would answer "no" to that question (if they could be honest) and kept working.
perlgeek 4y ago
Employment is managed by a contract. Likely that contract doesn't have a clause that states it only remains valid if the employee clicks on "yes" in death march emails. So, the contract remains valid until either the employee quits or the employer terminates. Not reacting to an email is not quitting. I'm pretty sure that legally, the employees that received that email and didn't click/answer are still considered employees. They are only terminated once they received their actual termination papers, not an "if / then" email.
- LambdaComplex 4y ago
  > Employment is managed by a contract. In the USA? Not unless you're an executive (or an actual contractor). (With that said, "Not reacting to an email is not quitting" is still a true statement)
  - perlgeek 4y ago
    Are you seriously saying you spend 8+ hours a day working for a company and don't have a contract that manages your rights (like salary, PTO, ...) and obligations (work hours, presence, ...)? Mind blown.
    - causi 4y ago
      Most American workers have an employment agreement with generalized clauses to the effect of "we can terminate you at any time for any reason" and "hours are thusly unless management needs you otherwise" and "duties are so-and-so but also anything else we want you to do." I've had jobs where I kept the software running so smoothly 80% of my time at work was spent with a broom or a rag cleaning because "downtime" was not a thing.
    - snowwrestler 4y ago
      Federal employment laws, state employment laws, and court precedents substitute for a detailed contract for many employees in the U.S. This is in fact a big reason that companies like to use so many contractors: it’s way easier to manage the downside risk for a contractor because the employer’s liability is scoped entirely to one written agreement. Whereas their relationship with employees is scoped to the broad set of laws and precedents mentioned in my first paragraph.
Gene_Parmesan 4y ago
Saying "we are materially changing the terms of your employment, you can accept them or quit" is constructive discharge. Besides, unemployment is one thing that is usually very liberally decided in the employee's favor, given that you are effectively paying for it.
CaptainZapp 4y ago
They phrased a little differently, though, didn't they?
twixfel 4y ago
Is it that simple though? By your logic it's possible to never fire anyone, just change the contract until they resign... doesn't really make sense to me.
- rndgermandude 4y ago
  No, I didn't say that. And there it really becomes tricky, If they try to unilaterally change terms of the contract, they cannot do that. However, at the same time an employee is not entitled to dictate the direction of a company. I am pretty sure a lot of the "perks" that might go away in favor or "hardcore mode" weren't contractually guaranteed. The terms of the employment contract wouldn't have changed then. If they muddle around e.g. with pay or work hours that would be quite different. I don't really see the "constructive dismissal" argument either that others brought up, as that would require the employer deliberately creating a hostile work environment. Just saying "we're going into hardcore mode" and taking away some perks that weren't guaranteed wouldn't yet fulfill that. There might be of course other shit that twitter/Musk pulled/pulls that may legally satisfy a constructive dismissal. The email, in my laypersons view, wouldn't be enough. However there is a strong point about the "missed the email" argument, and the non-affirmative nature of the "resignations" it creates. I think that's a rather strong point in favor of the employees. But then again, never underestimate courts ability to render "surprising" rulings. My guess is though that twitter would not just "dismiss" everybody who did not respond. At the very least HR would get in touch with those people anyway, at which point employees can say "oh wait, what email?". I'd think the email is just meant as a pre-filter to save time by filtering out what people you do not need to talk to because they want to stay anyway.

klyrs 4y ago

Even if you think they "quit" that's still extremely clear-cut constructive dismissal.

apawloski 4y ago

The magic proclamation is actually going the other way. If the company is ending the employment, that is termination. The company does not get to simply say "well you've resigned." Perhaps you're not arguing termination vs resignation but rather whether they're entitled to unemployment and wrongful termination protection? That's more open for debate, but the former employees are entitled to those considerations (which they would not be had they resigned).

witheld 4y ago

You can’t send out an email asking “Do you NOT quit?” Quitting is a process you do, you give a letter, or you tell your boss, or you stop showing up to work, anything else is termination

dehrmann 4y ago
I'm guessing this is the case because "I didn't see the email" is plausible. I think all my jobs have asked for a one sentence resignation email to HR just so everyone's on the same page.
- function_seven 4y ago
  It has nothing to do with the plausibility of seeing the email or not. Somebody could say “yeah I read that email. It was stupid and I wasn’t going to respond to it. I would still like to work here though, just not on double hours.”
watwut 4y ago
It you stop showing to work, it won't be quitting. Instead you will be terminated by employer for cause.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  What if you cannot show to work because everyone's been locked out of the building or their accounts?
  - watwut 4y ago
    It is obstacle on the side of employer. If employer makes it impossible to reach office, it is his issue. But I gotta say, I really hope someone will speak to journalists about what that was about.

nocoiner 4y ago

There is very, very little chance a California court would rule the way you imagine.

nprateem 4y ago
California labour laws don't apply globally
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  There needs to be some competition to California model.
  - lovich 4y ago
    There is, it’s every other polity’s labor laws. So far the competition is doing fairly poorly compared to California’s economy
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      I wonder if that’s why people are moving out of California at a record rate. Same with companies. https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/ https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-m... There is a lot of tailwind for California's economy. If I were starting a new company, I would stay away from California. Every possible metric is worse except for network effects and access to capital in SV.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Does it matter where they live if they still work for California companies remotely, and perhaps are subject to Californian labor laws?
      - lovich 4y ago
        >I wonder if that’s why people are moving out of California at a record rate. Same with companies Probably because they are no longer competitive to afford them. If you want to argue that there needs to be a more compassionate, less capitalist competition to California then I'll walk back my argument as I would agree that there are tradeoffs there. If you were discussing there needing "to be some competition to California model" and referencing capitalistic model then I will still point to the fact that gdp per capita puts California as the best subnational polity >Every possible metric is worse except for network effects and access to capital in SV. Again if you meant to compare this to a non capitalistic market then you have a point, but if this is capitalism vs capitalism that's like saying "if you just remove all the ways they are winning, aren't they actually losing?"

scotty79 4y ago

> "Do you still want to work here" Many stably employed people would answer "no" to that question (if they could be honest) and kept working.

perlgeek 4y ago

Employment is managed by a contract. Likely that contract doesn't have a clause that states it only remains valid if the employee clicks on "yes" in death march emails. So, the contract remains valid until either the employee quits or the employer terminates. Not reacting to an email is not quitting. I'm pretty sure that legally, the employees that received that email and didn't click/answer are still considered employees. They are only terminated once they received their actual termination papers, not an "if / then" email.

LambdaComplex 4y ago
> Employment is managed by a contract. In the USA? Not unless you're an executive (or an actual contractor). (With that said, "Not reacting to an email is not quitting" is still a true statement)
- perlgeek 4y ago
  Are you seriously saying you spend 8+ hours a day working for a company and don't have a contract that manages your rights (like salary, PTO, ...) and obligations (work hours, presence, ...)? Mind blown.
  - causi 4y ago
    Most American workers have an employment agreement with generalized clauses to the effect of "we can terminate you at any time for any reason" and "hours are thusly unless management needs you otherwise" and "duties are so-and-so but also anything else we want you to do." I've had jobs where I kept the software running so smoothly 80% of my time at work was spent with a broom or a rag cleaning because "downtime" was not a thing.
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    Federal employment laws, state employment laws, and court precedents substitute for a detailed contract for many employees in the U.S. This is in fact a big reason that companies like to use so many contractors: it’s way easier to manage the downside risk for a contractor because the employer’s liability is scoped entirely to one written agreement. Whereas their relationship with employees is scoped to the broad set of laws and precedents mentioned in my first paragraph.

Gene_Parmesan 4y ago

Saying "we are materially changing the terms of your employment, you can accept them or quit" is constructive discharge. Besides, unemployment is one thing that is usually very liberally decided in the employee's favor, given that you are effectively paying for it.

CaptainZapp 4y ago

They phrased a little differently, though, didn't they?

twixfel 4y ago

Is it that simple though? By your logic it's possible to never fire anyone, just change the contract until they resign... doesn't really make sense to me.

rndgermandude 4y ago
No, I didn't say that. And there it really becomes tricky, If they try to unilaterally change terms of the contract, they cannot do that. However, at the same time an employee is not entitled to dictate the direction of a company. I am pretty sure a lot of the "perks" that might go away in favor or "hardcore mode" weren't contractually guaranteed. The terms of the employment contract wouldn't have changed then. If they muddle around e.g. with pay or work hours that would be quite different. I don't really see the "constructive dismissal" argument either that others brought up, as that would require the employer deliberately creating a hostile work environment. Just saying "we're going into hardcore mode" and taking away some perks that weren't guaranteed wouldn't yet fulfill that. There might be of course other shit that twitter/Musk pulled/pulls that may legally satisfy a constructive dismissal. The email, in my laypersons view, wouldn't be enough. However there is a strong point about the "missed the email" argument, and the non-affirmative nature of the "resignations" it creates. I think that's a rather strong point in favor of the employees. But then again, never underestimate courts ability to render "surprising" rulings. My guess is though that twitter would not just "dismiss" everybody who did not respond. At the very least HR would get in touch with those people anyway, at which point employees can say "oh wait, what email?". I'd think the email is just meant as a pre-filter to save time by filtering out what people you do not need to talk to because they want to stay anyway.