[eqbridges]

Can you cite where it’s been said he’s firing 25% (or any significant percentage) “for cause”?

The only parties being cited as fired for cause are the outgoing executives, and WaPo article at the top of this post provides reasons for that.

[saurik]

(I am not responding to the "25%" part as I did not use a percent myself, but am responding to the second, stricter, statement.)

Elsewhere in this thread, people are discussing a potentially-credible (but maybe you disagree) report on this from Gergely Orosz that does not paint this as "only the 3 senior executives".

https://twitter.com/gergelyorosz/status/1587042365084209153

> I talked with an engineering manager who was at Twitter for 5+ years, and got laid off on Sunday "for cause". They were too exhausted from working over the weekend to talk longer: they first need to sleep.

[eqbridges]

You're missing my point. There's no use in trying to debate whether or not any one person is being fired "for cause" or not...frankly I could care less whether the one item of hearsay you point at is credible or not.

What I'm trying to wade through is the vast oceans of nonsense being fielded in the media and in comments that do not add anything to the story and are just trying to prop up one side or another. There's an ocean of difference between one item of hearsay that you point out (hell, maybe that one EM was due to be fired "for cause" who knows? do you? I sure don't!), and 25% of the workforce being fired "for cause", and 4 executives (not 3 as you point out).

[lupire]

> laid off "for cause"

This is an oxymoron, so either the tweeter or the manager have no idea what he is talking about.

[ummonk]

There are Twitter employees tweeting out that they have been fired already. Whether it’s going to be 25% or not, it’s certainly not just outgoing executives.

And the WaPo article states: “ The first round of layoffs, led by his lawyer Alex Spiro, will target 25 percent of the workforce”

[jdminhbg]

You’re missing the distinction PP is pointing out, between “layoffs” and “for-cause firings.”

[hedora]

Getting rid of 25% of the company "for cause" is not going to hold up in court. They'll be treated as layoffs. I think Musk just proved this by trying the same thing at Tesla.

[jdminhbg]

You also have it backwards. The post is positing the for-cause firings and the supposed 25% layoffs as separate events.

[ummonk]

Ah I see now. Right we will have to see whether they’re claimed to be for-cause or not. Though the rush to fire people with a looming vesting deadline is certainly cause for suspicion.

[sp332]

From WP: "Layoffs are expected to begin ahead of Nov. 1, when Twitter employees are slated to receive additional compensation related to stock grants."

I think this might be the confusing part, because he's trying to claw back as much compensation as possible, maybe he's trying to avoid paying severance as well

[eqbridges]

What you're saying does not make any sense relative to the question asked.

[assetlabel]

Elon Musk says "This is false": https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586831721386766337