Here's another similar story. I am sure the mindreading geniuses here will find something that the rest of us cannot.

It's a really ****ty thing to do on the part of a ****ty company, but unless he had a contract I don't think he'd have much recourse.

infinity ag said:

---

Here's another similar story. I am sure the mindreading geniuses here will find something that the rest of us cannot.

---

It's an app for dip**** teenagers. It's probably run by people who were dip**** teenagers less than a decade ago.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

Mr. Carlson broke bad

infinity ag said:

---

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?

---

Yes.

Just FYI - every state but one - Montana - is an At Will employment state. Put simply, an employer can fire you for any reason or no reason - just not an unlawful reason.

If this was a RIF and the threshold was hit, 60 days notice would be required. Many states also have 'baby WARN' acts that change the numbers.

Without an employment agreement (a rarity these days) he's SOL. In some states there may be an argument to convert At Will employment to a contract - a concept known as "detrimental reliance", but if you are making that argument in an employment case - you're losing.

As someone above said, RIFs are planned - I've done many. Typically, even if not announced, hires are frozen while the RIF is being planned. Something doesn't smell right about this story.

infinity ag said:

---

Here's another similar story. I am sure the mindreading geniuses here will find something that the rest of us cannot.

---

It's unfortunate, but sometimes hard lessons need to be learned. If you believe in meritocracy, people need to learn how to anticipate issues like this and demand protections are included in their employment contracts. Perhaps the problem is with our education system that has utterly failed at preparing them for this type of basic life-planning. It would not be a complicated provision to ask for. Whatever the case may be, the absolute worst possible "solution" would be to get the government involved.

The OP hanging out with others airing grievances on a failed career board on Reddit is the the least surprising detail on this thread.

Sucks hard but I'll say it again...it's a social media app. Moving across country to join a company that depends on the fickle and fleeting nature of teenagers is a highly risky move for your family. I'm not doing that unless it's a blue chip or has products / services that are much more essential than something I can simply delete from my phone.

It's reallly not even an employment contract issue. This one is a common sense risk analysis issue by the person taking the job.

Meh. It's a business decision. A company doesn't owe you anything.

The employee should've negotiated sufficient protection in his employment contract to cover relocation ramifications.

IIIHorn said:

---

The employee should've negotiated sufficient protection in his employment contract to cover relocation ramifications.

---

They aren't going to agree to that though. Thus, reinforcing my comment.

YouBet said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

The employee should've negotiated sufficient protection in his employment contract to cover relocation ramifications.

---

They aren't going to agree to that though. Thus, reinforcing my comment.

---

Maybe. Can't know until you ask. And if enough people say they wouldn't take the job without it, then the company would have to reconsider. That's the beauty of free negotiations. People who can tolerate that kind of risk can take the job. And those who can't have the option to negotiate protections. You personally may not be willing to move without the guarantee…but someone else might be. Someone who doesn't own a home, has few possessions, and maybe looking to move just for the sake of trying something different. The point is, the existing framework of employment contract is totally sufficient to deal with this problem. Again, the absolute worst possible solution would be to have the government step in.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

YouBet said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

The employee should've negotiated sufficient protection in his employment contract to cover relocation ramifications.

---

They aren't going to agree to that though. Thus, reinforcing my comment.

---

Maybe. Can't know until you ask. And if enough people say they wouldn't take the job without it, then the company would have to reconsider. That's the beauty of free negotiations. People who can tolerate that kind of risk can take the job. And those who can't have the option to negotiate protections. You personally may not be willing to move without the guarantee…but someone else might be. Someone who doesn't own a home, has few possessions, and maybe looking to move just for the sake of trying something different. The point is, the existing framework of employment contract is totally sufficient to deal with this problem. Again, the absolute worst possible solution would be to have the government step in.

---

Agree on government interference. I just think people having outrage over this (while justified by the person who gets f'ed) need to step back and realize they moved to join an unstable, fleeting fad. They gambled and it didn't work out. Lick your wounds and move on.

I Am A Critic said:

---

The OP hanging out with others airing grievances on a failed career board on Reddit is the the least surprising detail on this thread.

---

No personal attacks please.

You don't want Staff banging at your door.

Mrs. FishrCoAg said:

---

Meh. It's a business decision. A company doesn't owe you anything.

---

Would you say the same if it happened to you or your kids? If so, then I respect your opinion.

IIIHorn said:

---

The employee should've negotiated sufficient protection in his employment contract to cover relocation ramifications.

---

This is the most ridiculous assumption. Never happens to common employees. Only for C levels. If you demand this, they will tell you to GTFO as and file an H1B for Ramesh.
Either you are C level yourself or just posturing.

infinity ag said:

---

Mrs. FishrCoAg said:

---

Meh. It's a business decision. A company doesn't owe you anything.

---

Would you say the same if it happened to you or your kids? If so, then I respect your opinion.

---

I would be pissed off to hell. And then I would also acknowledge, "Well, it's freaking Snapchat. I rolled the dice and they came up snake eyes."

If they didn't implement a hiring freeze before doing the RIF, then they are a **** company and proves my point. You lay down with dogs, you might get fleas.

infinity ag said:

---

Mrs. FishrCoAg said:

---

Meh. It's a business decision. A company doesn't owe you anything.

---

Would you say the same if it happened to you or your kids? If so, then I respect your opinion.

---

Yes, if I took the chance without going for legal protections then it's on me.

People need to understand that there isn't going to be a mommy and daddy to hold your hand here (and having daddy government get involved is a really bad idea).

Business entities or the people running them are looking out for their own interests. If a person is contemplating this big of a change for a job, they should cough up some money and get advice from an employment attorney to understand their rights and learn how to protect themselves legally as an option.

As another poster said, the hiring company may not agree to what your employment attorney advises you to try to do, but you take it anyway, it's all on you. The last thing we need is further erosion of our free agency in this country.

backintexas2013 said:

---

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

---

Many companies don't pay moving expenses. This ain't 1985.

Burdizzo said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

---

Mr. Carlson broke bad

---

Apparently you never watched Different Strokes.

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

The employee should've negotiated sufficient protection in his employment contract to cover relocation ramifications.

---

This is the most ridiculous assumption. Never happens to common employees. Only for C levels. If you demand this, they will tell you to GTFO as and file an H1B for Ramesh.
Either you are C level yourself or just posturing.

---

Whenever I find myself getting overly optimistic about the future of humankind, I come here to see arrogance in full display. Either folks lack in self awareness and fail to be grateful for the state of their life, or they simply do not care about folks outside their circle.

infinity ag said:

---

Mrs. FishrCoAg said:

---

Meh. It's a business decision. A company doesn't owe you anything.

---

Would you say the same if it happened to you or your kids? If so, then I respect your opinion.

---

In fact, I did say that to my daughter who is working in tech.

Business is business. Business doesn't have feelings.

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

The employee should've negotiated sufficient protection in his employment contract to cover relocation ramifications.

---

This is the most ridiculous assumption. Never happens to common employees. Only for C levels. If you demand this, they will tell you to GTFO as and file an H1B for Ramesh.
Either you are C level yourself or just posturing.

---

You forget, we're all TexAgs Millionaires here on F16. We scoff at the lolpoors, and we all have fat employment contracts with generous golden parachutes.

torrid said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

The employee should've negotiated sufficient protection in his employment contract to cover relocation ramifications.

---

This is the most ridiculous assumption. Never happens to common employees. Only for C levels. If you demand this, they will tell you to GTFO as and file an H1B for Ramesh.
Either you are C level yourself or just posturing.

---

You forget, we're all TexAgs Millionaires here on F16. We scoff at the lolpoors, and we all have fat employment contracts with generous golden parachutes.

---

You don't have to be a "TexAgs millionaire" to have common sense and realize you may need to be careful before you go for the shiny new thing. You also don't have to be a "TexAgs millionaire" to understand that the world isn't looking out for you, so you need to be smart about what you do.

Dialog like this reminds me of spoiled teenagers that throw a fit when they don't get their way or something negative happens in their life. Bad things are going to happen to good people and you have to learn to deal with it.

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

The employee should've negotiated sufficient protection in his employment contract to cover relocation ramifications.

---

This is the most ridiculous assumption. Never happens to common employees. Only for C levels. If you demand this, they will tell you to GTFO as and file an H1B for Ramesh.
Either you are C level yourself or just posturing.

---

Nonsense. My SIL was offered moving expenses to move from Texas to California to work for Taylormade. Not even close to c level. A close friend is being offered the same and he's a store manager for Trader Joe's. As Youbet said, these are established and relatively well managed businesses. These two companies are significantly less risky than working for Snapchat and yet they STILL offer these packages. The difference is that in these two examples, they were wise enough to make sure it was included in the contract.

OTOH, It doesn't always make sense to offer things like this. Arguing otherwise just shows a lack of understanding in basic economics. If I have to pay your moving expenses, then that's less money I can offer you in direct compensation. If these companies could find employees locally, they could offer them a higher salary or simply a flat signing bonus equal to what they would have paid for relocation. So it's all a net wash anyways. It should be up to the employer and employee to negotiate these terms. Any other suggestion is an argument against the free market and in favor of more govt interference in the voluntary arrangements of a free society.

Bottom line is they took a big risk without concern for guarantees. Call me crazy, but I believe the consequences of risk, good or bad, should fall squarely on those who take those risks.

ETA in regards to this:

Quote:

---

If you demand this, they will tell you to GTFO as and file an H1B for Ramesh.

---

And if the govt requires relocation expenses, wouldn't that give employers even MORE incentive to just go the H1B route?