[supernova87a]

What's the logic, that if a company has cash available then it should just go to the employees?

If the money is all borrowed and meant to keep the company running, why would employees get more than is a reasonable severance package? And by the way, 9 weeks of severance on pretty good tech job salaries is far more than many are lucky enough to get, lest you live in too much of a bubble to realize.

[DannyPage]

> And by the way, 9 weeks of severance on pretty good tech job salaries is far richer than many get.

It's drastically shorter than their cohort of tech companies, which is the comparison they sell themselves as.

Between that and the rescinded offers, if they do ever make it out of this trough, they'll have a hard reputation to shake and have to pay up with signing bonuses.

[supernova87a]

Possibly. But personally, I don't think the generosity of any severance package is a deal-breaking factor in most people's decisions to work for a company or not. Or for most people getting a job offer, that the company has reneged on some recent offers -- there are far more fundamental questions than those specific actions.

[lowbloodsugar]

It is when the ship is sinking and the remaining people are deciding if they too should jump.

[supernova87a]

People who jump ship don't get severance.

[dangus]

One part of my logic is that I believe all employees should be given around 3 months or more of severance for layoffs.

Just because that isn’t common practice doesn’t mean I don’t think something like 9 weeks isn’t unacceptably short.

It’s nearly impossible to get another job and receive your first paycheck within 9 weeks.

I think it’s just that little bit extra pathetic when it’s a large and successful company with revenue in the billions that can’t even find the money to round up severance to an even number of weeks.

And I am struggling to think of how applying the WARN Act to all layoff situations wouldn’t be a net benefit to most employees.