quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
To collect, the workers need to prove that they 1) tried to get new jobs and 2) were unable to find work.

I'm not an expert in this area of law, but if they didn't seek to mitigate their damages, I don't see how DD is on the hook.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
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.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
To collect, the workers need to prove that they 1) tried to get new jobs and 2) were unable to find work.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
The very nature of Employer-Employee relationships is broken in a great many cases, and truckloads of shit is talked about loyalty, family, spirit, and the like, and it rarely ever materializes beyond superficial nonsense at the end of the day. I don't know how to solve it, mind you, nor am I suggesting a legislative solution, but a heaping helping of truth would be refreshing.

Like, if the 40hr week is truly a myth, and you intend to have your people work more than that for the same salary, say it clearly, up front, in the job posting and in the company motto. Flaunt your cheap bastard status, and let people make more informed decisions. And if no one is getting a raise in the next two years, say loud, say it proudly, chickenshit...

As it stands, a great many companies live in these ambiguities entirely intentionally, and they hide the news from Bob that he'll be let go next month just to squeeze that last ounce of perceived productivity out of someone because they're too greedy or afraid to simply be honest, much less give Bob and his family adequate time to make other arrangements.

It's the antithesis of family, loyalty, and the like. So at least be honest if that's you/your Co. Apply some Golden Rule, people. I've had to walk around with such knowledge many times as a manager in Corporate America, it's shameful. As a business owner I've chosen to behave differently.

Where do you fall on the Leader --> Boss scale?

Where do you sit on a spectrum of - are your Employees more like Slaves or more like Partners?

Be honest, with yourself and others, at the very least.

The majority of those I've ever met are much much suited and inclined to be *just short* of slave drivers than anything remotely resembling partnerships or (cough) "family', and I've little doubt many would fully whip employees and not pay them at all if they thought they could get away with it.

Freedom is ugly, and difficult, sometimes. And while Capitalism and a Free Market are better than the alternatives, it does bring out the worst in some folks, in the pursuit of money above all else.

I avoid these pitfalls most of the time by asking these sorts of questions anytime I'm interviewed, but even then many folks just lie about it. I wish that would stop. I wish the jerks would flaunt it, proudly and loudly, but wishes don't amount to anything. (shrug)

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
I really believe that there's gotta be some tactical reason that DD didn't give a WARN notice. It's really easy to comply with, and a company that size must have had an HR person that must have known about the WARN act.

It could be that they were bidding on a large contract or negotiating a merger or something...

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
To collect, the workers need to prove that they 1) tried to get new jobs and 2) were unable to find work.

I'm not an expert in this area of law, but if they didn't seek to mitigate their damages, I don't see how DD is on the hook.

The claim under the WARN act is statutory damages for failing to give required notice. Employee doesn't have to mitigate damages. It's not an unemployment claim.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:

I've orchestrated a couple of mass layoffs under California's WARN act. They concerns you raise are the concerns that management often raises.

Assuming you are required to give notice, there are a few ways to address the concerns.

1. Put everyone on notice, not just the people that are going to be fired. Those that want to kept on will be diligent. Those that aren't sure about staying on won't jeopardize unemployment by being terminated for cause. If you have truly key employees that you can't let leave, you approach them individually and revoke their notice letter while at the same time having them sign confidentiality agreements.

2. Offer severances to people who want to tap out early. 2 weeks pay if they leave by the end of the week. Those that stay on past the end of the week can tap out at any time, but won't receive a severance. This gets rid of most of the "Fuck this job, I'm outta here" crowd. The truly pissed will take the severance, the others will stay on until they line up a new job. Make sure severances come with claims waivers.

3. Let employees know that the company is actively looking to terminate employees for cause, which would affect their unemployment eligibility. Sabotaging or slacking off would be grounds for termination with cause. Make sure employees understand that they don't want to lose the unemployment safety net, and also be fired for slacking off, in a job market with 500 other perfectly qualified candidates out there.

4) Don't be a dick. Help your employees. Bring in recruiters. Hold workshops to help them with their resumes. Sit down, one-on-one with employees, ask about how they're doing and how you can help. Offer recommendation letters. Let your employees know that the company is doing its best, and if somewhere within the 60 days things turn around, then you'll be able to save more jobs. In the end, you'll have a better sense of which employees you want to keep and which ones you really need to let go--and you'll have fewer disgruntled employees because at least they felt that you cared.

quote:

What business do you run?

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

What business do you run?

Today, none that are relevant, I've gone back to solo self-employed Consulting - largely due to such things and also due to a stroke of luck regarding subject matter expertise some need from me, but over the years my and our businesses have been in the IT, Oil&Gas (landmen and rights/royalties acquisitions), and Entertainment (studios, labels, record stores, and more) sectors, with anywhere from a few to 100+ employees and 1+ locations, and I was raised in a franchised Food Service business with as many as 60+ locations. In any case - beyond a stint in Corporate Consulting including the giant firms, I've spent my entire life around and in running businesses, whether personally, or with partners/family.

You're in construction, IIRC, formerly law? Is that right?

In any case, why do you ask?