Hey! Let's take a look at Twitter these days

[Leaf473]

Twitter said it fixed ‘verification.’ So I impersonated a senator (again).​

Elon Musk said Twitter would begin authenticating users who pay $8 for Blue. Our tech columnist was still able to get a checkmark for an impostor Sen. Ed Markey.​

On Tuesday, @SenatorEdMarkey briefly went viral on Twitter. Gisele Barreto Fetterman, the wife of Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), thanked@SenatorEdMarkey in a tweet that garnered 140,000 views.

The problem is, @SenatorEdMarkey is actually me, not the real Sen. Edward J. Markey. It’s a test of Twitter’s $7.99 per month Blue “verification” service I made with the permission of the real Democrat from Massachusetts. I wouldn’t blame anyone for being confused: My test account has the senator’s name and photo and a blue check mark that says it is “verified.”

---

In other news, I understand Twitter will be accepting cause-based and political ads. Previous management had stopped that in 2019.

I appreciate the articles that you post!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Laid-off Twitter workers feared meager severance deals. Elon Musk just set the bar even lower​

The agreements offered one month of severance pay, but with a major catch — employees must sign away their right to ever sue the company, assist anyone in a legal case against the company unless required by law, or speak negatively about Twitter, its management or Elon Musk.

More striking is what the document omitted, said one former engineering manager who was laid off Nov. 4. The separation agreement does not include year-end bonuses, cash contribution for healthcare continuation, additional severance based on tenure, or the cash value of restricted stock units that are typically vested every quarter. These were all part of Twitter’s general severance package prior to Musk’s acquisition of the company in October, according to a previous companywide email.

(here come the lawsuits)

 

[probinson]

Wonders if people realize that severance pay is not legally required...

 

[Vylo]

Wonders if people realize that severance pay is not legally required...

It is when it is company policy to do so.

 

[probinson]

It is when it is company policy to do so.

Except it wasn't. The company was sold to new ownership, and as anyone who has ever worked in a company that has been sold is fully aware, any and all policies can be changed, modified or revoked when new ownership comes in. Unless there was some condition of the sale that Musk had to maintain existing policies for a set period of time, there is no legal requirement to abide by the last ownership's company policies.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Except it wasn't. The company was sold to new ownership, and as anyone who has ever worked in a company that has been sold is fully aware, any and all policies can be changed, modified or revoked when new ownership comes in. Unless there was some condition of the sale that Musk had to maintain existing policies for a set period of time, there is no legal requirement to abide by the last ownership's company policies.

New ownership may modify policy, but it can't unilaterally modify employment contracts.

 

[probinson]

New ownership may modify policy, but it can't unilaterally modify employment contracts.

I suppose this is a discussion for lawyers and courts, but new ownership most certainly can change their severance policy to whatever they like.

Also, do we know how many people at Twitter were working under contract? I suspect it's not that many. Probably mostly at-will employment.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I suppose this is a discussion for lawyers and courts, but new ownership most certainly can change their severance policy to whatever they like.

They can. However, if severance is laid out in your existing contract, that doesn't change unless you agree to the modification.

Also, do we know how many people at Twitter were working under contract? I suspect it's not that many. Probably mostly at-will employment.

At-will employment just means that you can be fired for any reason without notice. It doesn't mean that you have no contract with your employer. Everyone (should) have some form of employment contract that lays out their duties, salary, raise schedule, leave/PTO, benefits, and severance (if any). It's possible to include grounds on which your severance could be denied in a contract, but without that or failing those conditions, severance must still be paid out if it's in the contract.

 

[probinson]

They can. However, if severance is laid out in your existing contract, that doesn't change unless you agree to the modification.


At-will employment just means that you can be fired for any reason without notice. It doesn't mean that you have no contract with your employer. Everyone (should) have some form of employment contract that lays out their duties, salary, raise schedule, leave/PTO, benefits, and severance (if any). It's possible to include grounds on which your severance could be denied in a contract, but without that or failing those conditions, severance must still be paid out if it's in the contract.

I have an employee handbook. It is not a "contract". It is an explanation of the company policies and benefits that my employer provides to me in exchange for the work I do for them. Having been at my current employer for 20 years and having changed ownership three times, I can tell you that those policies and benefits changed with each ownership change without any input or agreement from the employees.

 

[rambot]

I have an employee handbook. It is not a "contract". It is an explanation of the company policies and benefits that my employer provides to me in exchange for the work I do for them. Having been at my current employer for 20 years and having changed ownership three times, I can tell you that those policies and benefits changed with each ownership change without any input or agreement from the employees.

I just looked and in my province, severance IS paid out by new management (this information would be included when the new company purchased it to account for costs.

But I KNOW that America is 100% about protecting the interests of the rich and actively hurting the working and middle class so I can't say that my province is going to be representative of anything down south....

EDIT:
And then I found this site:
elaws - WARN Advisor

So yes. When your company is sold, it's "technically a termination of employment". So....yup sorry. You lose.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I have an employee handbook. It is not a "contract". It is an explanation of the company policies and benefits that my employer provides to me in exchange for the work I do for them. Having been at my current employer for 20 years and having changed ownership three times, I can tell you that those policies and benefits changed with each ownership change without any input or agreement from the employees.

That's your situation. Without seeing the agreements that Twitter's employees signed (specifically those employees who are suing), it's impossible to say what Twitter's obligations might be. If they had contracts, then changing the severance would violate the contract. And if they only had an employee handbook that laid out a severance policy, that might still constitute a contract, depending on the language used.

 

[probinson]

So....yup sorry. You lose.

I don't "lose" anything, because I have no horse in this race. The courts will decide if Elon Musk must abide by the severance agreements that were in place prior to his acquisition of the company.

 

[probinson]

That's your situation. Without seeing the agreements that Twitter's employees signed (specifically those employees who are suing), it's impossible to say what Twitter's obligations might be. If they had contracts, then changing the severance would violate the contract. And if they only had an employee handbook that laid out a severance policy, that might still constitute a contract, depending on the language used.

Right. And I'm sure a court will determine that, regardless of what you or I (or anyone else) thinks about it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Right. And I'm sure a court will determine that, regardless of what you or I (or anyone else) thinks about it.

Indeed. I only sought to correct your assertion that there was no legal basis for their claim.

 

[rambot]

I don't "lose" anything, because I have no horse in this race. The courts will decide if Elon Musk must abide by the severance agreements that were in place prior to his acquisition of the company.

Sorry....not you. I was referring to "workers" in general.

 

[probinson]

Indeed. I only sought to correct your assertion that there was no legal basis for their claim.

That was not my assertion. My original statement was, "Wonders if people realize that severance pay is not legally required..." Still a true statement, regardless of the outcome of this particular situation.

Whether or not there is a legal basis for their claim in this instance is for a court to decide.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ron 'Totally not Q' Watkins has had his Twitter account restored.

 

[JacksBratt]

So far come Elon and twitter, it's like the overturning of Roe v Wade where the dog caught the car.

They didn't overturn Roe v Wade...

They just past down the responsibility to the individual state lawmakers to decide at state level.

If you really want an abortion... you can still get one...

 

[JacksBratt]

Except it wasn't. The company was sold to new ownership, and as anyone who has ever worked in a company that has been sold is fully aware, any and all policies can be changed, modified or revoked when new ownership comes in. Unless there was some condition of the sale that Musk had to maintain existing policies for a set period of time, there is no legal requirement to abide by the last ownership's company policies.

That may be in the US..

I don't know if Elon could have found "cause"..... legally.

But, if they don't take him to court.. and sign their termination... they're done.

However, not so in Canada.

In Canada, my company was bought outright... At that time I had been there 15 years...
If they wanted to get rid of me, they would have to pay severance... Unless they could find "cause".

Otherwise.. when you buy a company.. you must state that you are not going to need any of the employees and the previous owner would have to pay severance.

Also, if I am "head hunted" by a company and they request for me to come and work for them... I can put a clause in the new contract that if they let me go... they must honor my previous years of service...as part of my severance.

 

[SimplyMe]

Right. And I'm sure a court will determine that, regardless of what you or I (or anyone else) thinks about it.

I believe California law has some additional laws about severance, but we shall see what the court decides. I do feel relatively certain that the court will rule employees do not have to sign the document to not criticize Twitter.