Interested to see if this goes anywhere:

https://www.classaction.org/ne...yoff-without-warning

What say our legal experts of the forum?

If they didn't provide the 60 day notice required by law I would think they would owe the laid off employees that money.

Seems like an unlikely biff by their HR and in house legal if they truly violated the WARN act. Complying with the notice requirements is pretty straightforward.

My guess is that they didn't biff, but instead intentionally relied on an exception that the employee is unaware of. For instance, no warning is required if they're soliciting investors and announcing layoffs would affect their ability to get funding, or affect their ability to bid on contracts. Regular employees may not have the whole story of what's happening behind closed doors.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
Seems like an unlikely biff by their HR and in house legal if they truly violated the WARN act. Complying with the notice requirements is pretty straightforward.

My guess is that they didn't biff, but instead intentionally relied on an exception that the employee is unaware of. For instance, no warning is required if they're soliciting investors and announcing layoffs would affect their ability to get funding, or affect their ability to bid on contracts. Regular employees may not have the whole story of what's happening behind closed doors.

What is the definition of "mass layoffs"? A percentage of employees, hard number of employees, or?

If the company is truly out of money, what are the odds they'll BK out?

In California, 50 employees laid off is considered a mass layoff. I think the Federal rule is 1/3 of the work force or 500 laid off, whichever is smaller.

They might have slipped under the notice rules by picking the exact number of employees they could lay off without reporting.

In the early 1980s I worked at a plant that went from 400+ people down to 200 people in 2 days no warning at all. Really sucked. Really a crappy move on DD if they didn't give notice. Going to cost DD big bucks 60 days worth of wages X 160 people if that what happened. Most employers at least give 60 days notice out that I have worked for since. Regardless of warn act.

Federal law...The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the "WARN Act") is a US labor law which protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 calendar-day advance notification of plant closings and mass layoffs of employees

The WARN Act also is NOT activated when the following coverage thresholds are unmet:
If a plant closing or a mass layoff results in fewer than 50 workers losing their jobs at a single employment site;
If 50 to 499 workers lose their jobs and that number is less than 33 percent of the employer’s total, active workforce at a single employment site;
If a layoff is for 6 months or less; or
If work hours are not reduced 50 percent in each month of any 6-month period.

Yeah, forgot to mention...

It's still a dick move, regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit.

^ Indeed.

And how many DD rifles have you bought lately? I mean, if it was a dick move, you must have been supporting the company monetarily right? Worker solidarity and all.

The fact that 160 employees were RIFed doesn't mean anything without other numbers. Which will come out in court. And probably amount to nothing.

Fewer sales equals fewer rifles equals fewer employees. Don't be buying new boats and Disney vacations on credit when your employer is in a obvious major down market. There isn't much of a market for $800 ARs, much less DD priced ARs.

And before you ask, I've bought zero DD rifles. Some few parts, and a hat, but no rifles.

DD will have to lower their price for AR's or they are out of business. When you can buy an AR for 399 plus tax that is just as good, in fact the same thing as a DD they will have to lower their price and lay off Larry Vickers. Too much hype. As stated earlier, there is no market now for 1100 dollar ARs.

quote:

Originally posted by black1970:
DD will have to lower their price for AR's or they are out of business. When you can buy an AR for 399 plus tax that is just as good, in fact the same thing as a DD they will have to lower their price and lay off Larry Vickers. Too much hype. As stated earlier, there is no market now for 1100 dollar ARs.

I am going to have to disagree on weather it is "just as good" or that there is no place for 1000+ dollar ar's . I plan on buying a BCM in the near future.

DD marketed themselves as a family company over the years. Business aside..it was a dick move. At least let them out of their non-compete agreements. that costs nothing!!

if a company should be required to notify an employee 60 days before terminating their employment then it would only be fair for the employee to have to give the employer the same notice. It is no more fair to compel an employer to continue to employ an unneeded employee(s) past the point they are useful than it would be to compel an employee(s) to work for a company that they did not wish to work for.

Might as well have a law that says you must notify your local grocery store 60 days before shopping at Costco.

Most companies I’ve worked for tell you to GTFO immediately if you give them any notice.

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
Most companies I’ve worked for tell you to GTFO immediately if you give them any notice.

There is a protection in CA which I really agree with; if you give a two week notice on Friday and they let you go on Monday, they better be giving you a check to cover all wages and benefits to cover those two weeks or they be screwed.

Quitting or being let go, without warning *when there could have been one*, is a dick move regardless, and is almost always done out of fear of retribution or greed, and almost always has an unnecessary negative impact. Like rubbing salt in a wound, just because.

"Family" doesn't treat family that way, neither do friends or loved ones or even people you simply like and respect. Its a bitch/dick move, period, which is entirely separate from whether or not it should be required by law (which I'm not even addressing).

quote:

Originally posted by Stlhead:
if a company should be required to notify an employee 60 days before terminating their employment then it would only be fair for the employee to have to give the employer the same notice. It is no more fair to compel an employer to continue to employ an unneeded employee(s) past the point they are useful than it would be to compel an employee(s) to work for a company that they did not wish to work for.

Might as well have a law that says you must notify your local grocery store 60 days before shopping at Costco.

It's different for mass layoffs. Too many people cut loose all at once floods the job market. 60 days notice is designed to help alleviate the sudden crunch by spreading out the job hunt over a longer period of time, and to give Employees time to transition to other fields. Employees can start looking right away and under no obligation to stay the whole 60 days.

quote:

Originally posted by onegeek:
And how many DD rifles have you bought lately? I mean, if it was a dick move, you must have been supporting the company monetarily right? Worker solidarity and all.

Every AR I've ever bought has been a DD.

It's a dick move from any company not to give notice of a mass layoff. Firing a third of your staff usually does not come without warning, and the company should have used best efforts to notify it's employees at the earliest opportunity of layoffs. Even giving employees 30 or 20 day notices would have offset the hurt for both the employee and employer.

Have seen this happen a couple times in 'big company' corporate America.

Basically its called on Friday - you get the packet delivered Fedex on Saturday.

Call HR on Monday with questions. You get a check but they want you out yesterday.

Company does not want you 'working' half-ass, bad-mouthing mgmt, the company, on company time ruining / sabotaging the business. Some rare exceptions apply they are handled case-by-case. One time there was an on-site meeting with uniformed security guards in the back of the room.

Oddly - the times I have seen it - there is not really an attempt to keep the high performers. It's like some consultant came in and drew a couple hundred names from a hat to shrink the head-count. I'm sure there was some method to the madness - just couldn't see it.

Shit happens. Always have a marketable skill / fresh resume / back-up plan. The days of 30 years loyal service and a pension are long-gone.

--------------------------------

quote:

hey might have slipped under the notice rules by picking the exact number of employees they could lay off without reporting.

This. Regardless of the legalities, if DD knew they were going to lay people off and kept it secret, that's a dick move

quote:

if a company should be required to notify an employee 60 days before terminating their employment then it would only be fair for the employee to have to give the employer the same notice

False. The company doesn't need to find replacements in a mass layoff, and isn't trying to find a job in the same industry in the same geographical area against 500 other recently unemployed people in the same predicament.

It is kind of a dick move, but as a manager, would you want a bunch of people around who were afraid they were about to be laid off? Some will become extra diligent to try to be kept on, some will stay about the same, some will turn into slackers, and some will actively sabotage.

I would oppose legislation requiring notice, but it is the kind of legislation that can get passed, because voters will like it.

It is hard to imagine Daniel Defense missed the boat on compliance with the law, but it isn't a big company, so maybe they don't have in-house counsel. I don't know the statute.