In 55 years of speaking the English language I've never heard of anyone "chalking it down"

infinity ag said:

---

I saw this on blind today. As you might have heard, Snap which owns Snapchat, had layoffs yesterday.
This chap quit his job, uprooted his life, moved across the country to join Snap.... and then got laid off in a week. He won't get much severance for a 7 day job but he has expenses of uprooting and moving.

My questions to the folks here are:

1. Does this person deserve any protection at all? Or do we chalk it down to "too bad.. sucks to be you" and move on?
2. If you think he deserves protection, then who should it be from? If you say get unemployment, it would be mostly on the taxpayer's dime. Should there be minimum corporate penalties for this kind of situation?
3. Should these companies be allowed to file for H1B? If not, should there be a some rule against companies not being allowed to file for H1B for a certain period if they lay off over x% of their company?


Keep in mind that this could happen to you or your kids so answer accordingly. My personal experience is I have been laid off 5 weeks after I joined a company in a 33% corporate layoff, in 2001. It was in my town so no moving was involved. One person in that same layoff got impacted after 3 days on the job.

---

That message is VERY suspect. He almost certainly got a relo package and the way he is speaking in that message sounds like rage commentary not an actual person.

backintexas2013 said:

---

I think it's a combination of the CEO, boomers, and possibly the Jews. The triple whammy

---

Has Tucker weighed in on how Mossad forced Trump to make Snap do this layoff yet?

I guess he deserves the same sympathy as Feds who were recently hired or moved across country for promotions only to be canned by DOGE.

IF this really happened, big IF...

then the people doing the hiring need to raise a stink if they did not know about it.

It's possible they did not know about it, that's all I will say on that.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Why would he uproot his life if he didn't get moving expenses? Seems strange to me. Way too much missing information.

---

Depends. I interviewed with Walmart 2 years ago to move to the Bay Area and they gave me moving expenses. I did not accept the job for other reasons. Some other companies I have talked to make it clear about no expenses paid. There is no confusion, but it is not guaranteed to get expenses paid.

And it is not strange.

The issue is not just expenses. It is the ethics of a company making a job offer to a person knowing that the person has to uproot his life and move to a new city, and then go "umm sorry, things changed, no job". There is no way you can fully protect yourself because no company will ever sign anything that says if you get laid off in x days, we will pay something big enough to compensate. Unless you are a top exec of course and those aren't too many of us (even though many here pretend to be).

It is easily conceivable that a person can get an offer, get moving expenses, sell their house to move to a higher cost area only to find that they lost their job for no fault of theirs (company had large layoffs) and now they are stuck in a high cost location with no way to pay for it and they cannot just go back to their old location as they don't have a house there.

Company didn't do anything illegal but they have too much power in the equation so they can dictate terms.

I got moved to a new team/manager one week after taking a new job with company A. I had another offer with company B so I contacted the hiring manager to see if they were still interested (even though I turned down their offer). I told the hiring manager what happened and he laughed and said he'd leave too. I put in one-day notice and went to company B.

Corporations don't care about you. No reason for any loyalty.

I am not a lawyer, but if I were, I'd argue that the company was deceiving him.

Why bother hiring a person, knowing that he'd have to pay significant relocation expenses, letting him believe he's getting a stable long-term role, knowing that the company was planning a massive layoff?

Or did the CEO keep the layoff plans hidden from the company's own recruiters until the last minute? If so, it seems like a poor way to run a company.

OTOH, unless the employee signed a contract explicitly saying that that the company couldn't do that, he might just be SOL.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

I am not a lawyer, but if I were, I'd argue that the company was deceiving him.

Why bother hiring a person, knowing that he'd have to pay significant relocation expenses, letting him believe he's getting a stable long-term role, knowing that the company was planning a massive layoff?

Or did the CEO keep the layoff plans hidden from the company's own recruiters until the last minute? If so, it seems like a poor way to run a company.

OTOH, unless the employee signed a contract explicitly saying that that the company couldn't do that, he might just be SOL.

---

To me, it suggests that the people doing the hiring were not aware the layoff was coming. The company I work for was purchased a few years back by a venture capital group. At some point, they decided to do a layoff to cut expense ratios. Rather than go through the different divisions and groups and find out who the dead weight really was, they apparently tasked some small group very high up on the finance side to look through recent billings and figure out who was expensive, but recently low on billability. Then they just announced the layoffs and told those folks to go home. No warning for the managers that their people were being laid off, no heads up to payroll or HR that it was coming ahead of time, etc.

It caused absolute chaos because there were people that were absolutely critical to various projects that got let go, people that were irreplaceable SMEs that were working on very short fuse very high dollar proposal efforts let go with no notice, etc. And they would not listen to any appeals to try to bring any of them back. The rest of us were just forced to try to pick up the slack and move on. It was by far the worst handling of a layoff I have ever seen by a large company.

All that to say, sometimes even big layoffs are held very tightly at the top of the management chain and even the people responsible for hiring may not know they are coming. The logical thing for management to do would have been to put a blanket hiring freeze in place once they knew it was coming, but assuming they were smart is probably a bad bet.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

I am not a lawyer, but if I were, I'd argue that the company was deceiving him.

Why bother hiring a person, knowing that he'd have to pay significant relocation expenses, letting him believe he's getting a stable long-term role, knowing that the company was planning a massive layoff?

Or did the CEO keep the layoff plans hidden from the company's own recruiters until the last minute? If so, it seems like a poor way to run a company.

OTOH, unless the employee signed a contract explicitly saying that that the company couldn't do that, he might just be SOL.

---

Never heard of such a thing existing.

backintexas2013 said:

---

I think it's a combination of the CEO, boomers, and possibly the Jews. The triple whammy

---

So....like shooting fish in a barrel?

Rapier108 said:

---

Almost every company has a probationary period where someone can be let go for no reason at all.

7 days would be well within that time period.

And since there are almost no real facts given, this reads as a rant by some leftist who got fired and wants to blame the "CEO" and be seen as a martyr.

OP, we know you hate all CEOs, but don't fall for this one simply because it fits your preconceived bias.

---

Also, is it a right to work state aka free state?

The company I work for once fired an engineer after only 3 weeks. He tried to sue for some sort of lost opportunity cost. Claimed he could have accepted a job with a different company and that job was no longer available. I don't think he ever got anything from it.

If he's working in an employment-at-will state and is working 'at will' (rather than under the terms of a binding contract), he's toast.

It's unfortunate, but in most employment cases neither employers nor employees have any legal responsibility to one another in an at will relationship.

(I saw folks mentioning right-to-work laws, but I didn't see anything specifying that the individual was working under a CBA or in an agency/closed shop, but may have missed it).

txags92 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

I am not a lawyer, but if I were, I'd argue that the company was deceiving him.

Why bother hiring a person, knowing that he'd have to pay significant relocation expenses, letting him believe he's getting a stable long-term role, knowing that the company was planning a massive layoff?

Or did the CEO keep the layoff plans hidden from the company's own recruiters until the last minute? If so, it seems like a poor way to run a company.

OTOH, unless the employee signed a contract explicitly saying that that the company couldn't do that, he might just be SOL.

---

To me, it suggests that the people doing the hiring were not aware the layoff was coming. The company I work for was purchased a few years back by a venture capital group. At some point, they decided to do a layoff to cut expense ratios. Rather than go through the different divisions and groups and find out who the dead weight really was, they apparently tasked some small group very high up on the finance side to look through recent billings and figure out who was expensive, but recently low on billability. Then they just announced the layoffs and told those folks to go home. No warning for the managers that their people were being laid off, no heads up to payroll or HR that it was coming ahead of time, etc.

It caused absolute chaos because there were people that were absolutely critical to various projects that got let go, people that were irreplaceable SMEs that were working on very short fuse very high dollar proposal efforts let go with no notice, etc. And they would not listen to any appeals to try to bring any of them back. The rest of us were just forced to try to pick up the slack and move on. It was by far the worst handling of a layoff I have ever seen by a large company.

All that to say, sometimes even big layoffs are held very tightly at the top of the management chain and even the people responsible for hiring may not know they are coming. The logical thing for management to do would have been to put a blanket hiring freeze in place once they knew it was coming, but assuming they were smart is probably a bad bet.

---

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Though, after doing some Googling, there's a federal law requiring a 60-day notice for mass layoffs. But maybe Snap is a small enough company to be exempt.

I've been in the room for decent size RIFs that go across several business units. The first thing we ask HR for is pending/accepted job offers. If this really happened, it's total crap. Working through a RIF takes quite a bit of time.

I'd at least pay a lawyer to threaten further action in case they just settle and send you a check.

samurai_science said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Almost every company has a probationary period where someone can be let go for no reason at all.

7 days would be well within that time period.

And since there are almost no real facts given, this reads as a rant by some leftist who got fired and wants to blame the "CEO" and be seen as a martyr.

OP, we know you hate all CEOs, but don't fall for this one simply because it fits your preconceived bias.

---

Also, is it a right to work state aka free state?

---

Snap Inc. is headquartered in California.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

I am not a lawyer, but if I were, I'd argue that the company was deceiving him.

Why bother hiring a person, knowing that he'd have to pay significant relocation expenses, letting him believe he's getting a stable long-term role, knowing that the company was planning a massive layoff?

Or did the CEO keep the layoff plans hidden from the company's own recruiters until the last minute? If so, it seems like a poor way to run a company.

OTOH, unless the employee signed a contract explicitly saying that that the company couldn't do that, he might just be SOL.

---

This exactly is what I was trying to get at.

You talk about a contract, have you ever seen such a contract in real life for everyday employees who are NOT executives? We all know execs are covered, whether they succeed or fail. I have never seen such a contract myself. Why would a company do that when they hold all the power and the employee holds no power anymore? And with offshoring, there is even lesser power to the employee.

My question was, do you think this behavior by companies is okay? We know that employees currently have no recourse, but should there be? Like maybe a law that in such conditions, companies need to pay the employee 1 year of salary. That would make them think twice before randomly hiring and firing.

aggie93 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

I saw this on blind today. As you might have heard, Snap which owns Snapchat, had layoffs yesterday.
This chap quit his job, uprooted his life, moved across the country to join Snap.... and then got laid off in a week. He won't get much severance for a 7 day job but he has expenses of uprooting and moving.

My questions to the folks here are:

1. Does this person deserve any protection at all? Or do we chalk it down to "too bad.. sucks to be you" and move on?
2. If you think he deserves protection, then who should it be from? If you say get unemployment, it would be mostly on the taxpayer's dime. Should there be minimum corporate penalties for this kind of situation?
3. Should these companies be allowed to file for H1B? If not, should there be a some rule against companies not being allowed to file for H1B for a certain period if they lay off over x% of their company?


Keep in mind that this could happen to you or your kids so answer accordingly. My personal experience is I have been laid off 5 weeks after I joined a company in a 33% corporate layoff, in 2001. It was in my town so no moving was involved. One person in that same layoff got impacted after 3 days on the job.

---

That message is VERY suspect. He almost certainly got a relo package and the way he is speaking in that message sounds like rage commentary not an actual person.

---

Don't worry about if it is suspect or not. Let's discuss the situation. Even if he got the relo package, it does turn his life upside down when he comes to a new city and now is practically homeless and cannot afford the new place and cannot go back to his old life as he likely sold his house and resigned from his job.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Almost every company has a probationary period where someone can be let go for no reason at all.

7 days would be well within that time period.

And since there are almost no real facts given, this reads as a rant by some leftist who got fired and wants to blame the "CEO" and be seen as a martyr.

OP, we know you hate all CEOs, but don't fall for this one simply because it fits your preconceived bias.

---

Also, is it a right to work state aka free state?

---

Snap Inc. is headquartered in California.

---

But was it in Texas or other free state he moved to? If so, good luck trying to win that lawsuit, even if headquartered in commie land.

infinity ag said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

I saw this on blind today. As you might have heard, Snap which owns Snapchat, had layoffs yesterday.
This chap quit his job, uprooted his life, moved across the country to join Snap.... and then got laid off in a week. He won't get much severance for a 7 day job but he has expenses of uprooting and moving.

My questions to the folks here are:

1. Does this person deserve any protection at all? Or do we chalk it down to "too bad.. sucks to be you" and move on?
2. If you think he deserves protection, then who should it be from? If you say get unemployment, it would be mostly on the taxpayer's dime. Should there be minimum corporate penalties for this kind of situation?
3. Should these companies be allowed to file for H1B? If not, should there be a some rule against companies not being allowed to file for H1B for a certain period if they lay off over x% of their company?


Keep in mind that this could happen to you or your kids so answer accordingly. My personal experience is I have been laid off 5 weeks after I joined a company in a 33% corporate layoff, in 2001. It was in my town so no moving was involved. One person in that same layoff got impacted after 3 days on the job.

---

That message is VERY suspect. He almost certainly got a relo package and the way he is speaking in that message sounds like rage commentary not an actual person.

---

Don't worry about if it is suspect or not. Let's discuss the situation. Even if he got the relo package, it does turn his life upside down when he comes to a new city and now is practically homeless and cannot afford the new place and cannot go back to his old life as he likely sold his house and resigned from his job.

---

Does he vote Democrat or Republican?

Sounds like "snap" made a good call on this one. Never put your job complaints in writing.

doubledog said:

---

Sounds like "snap" made a good call on this one. Never put your job complaints in writing.

---

Can you explain?

Tea Party said:

---

The CEO is clearly the big bad guy in this story and we don't need any additional information about this person that got let go other than his one post.

---

4 said:

---

In 55 years of speaking the English language I've never heard of anyone "chalking it down"

---

Probably because you don't spend much time at the Department of Anthropology.

infinity ag said:

---

This exactly is what I was trying to get at.

You talk about a contract, have you ever seen such a contract in real life for everyday employees who are NOT executives? We all know execs are covered, whether they succeed or fail. I have never seen such a contract myself. Why would a company do that when they hold all the power and the employee holds no power anymore? And with offshoring, there is even lesser power to the employee.

My question was, do you think this behavior by companies is okay? We know that employees currently have no recourse, but should there be? Like maybe a law that in such conditions, companies need to pay the employee 1 year of salary. That would make them think twice before randomly hiring and firing.

---

The only reason a company would offer some sort guarantee as to how long before they could get rid of someone is if that person had some sort of worth, real or perceived, over and above a regular employee. Like in the NFL, the #1 pick is going to get guarantees that the last pick or an unsigned free agent will not get.

Snap most certainly has >100 employees, so they are required to file a WARN notice at least 60 days before layoffs occur.

infinity ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Sounds like "snap" made a good call on this one. Never put your job complaints in writing.

---

Can you explain?

---

You can complain all you want, but anything you put in writing can come back to bite you.

Always treat your employment as an investment. Look at the fundamentals. Look at the technicals. Snap is an easy call. Just look at a chart of the stock price for last 5 years. It screams at you. If you want to take the risk, fine. But it's on you.

Aa someone who has uprooted and moved my family around the world....twice now...these are the type of risks you think about and address upfront in your employment agreement/contract. It's all a negotiation and if you aren't looking out for yourself during the negotiation and thinking about the "what ifs" there is potential to get really screwed financially.

Life is not fair.

infinity ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Sounds like "snap" made a good call on this one. Never put your job complaints in writing.

---

Can you explain?

---

This guy just broadcast to the world that he is difficult. No one with common sense is going to hire him.

I work for a Fortune 50 and it would be extremely rare for us to offer moving expenses to an external hire. Extremely rare. No need. You want to work here? You'll get yourself here. That said, we do offer a signing bonus depending on level

The most likely scenario here is that the midlevel managers doing the hiring didn't know a layoff was coming, and the higher levels (combined with HR) did a **** job of paying enough attention to stop the mids from doing external hiring

TXAG 05 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Sounds like "snap" made a good call on this one. Never put your job complaints in writing.

---

Can you explain?

---

This guy just broadcast to the world that he is difficult. No one with common sense is going to hire him.

---

You got all that from just 1 post?