Thread regarding Sears layoffs

"IT WAS 600, let go not 250!" Someone in the corporate headquarters probably didn't divulge the true numbers. If this was an intent to mislead the actual numbers this proves possible corruption at the top of the chain.

WARN act must state the date they will be off normal payroll. 60 days is October 28. Severance payments after that (if any) are NOT considered payroll.

WARN act does not provide for any clarification that the employee must be allowed to continue to work for those 60 days. Just be paid. Sears, and most employers, choose to send the person home and be on administrative leave for those 60 days.

So, like all the previous layoffs going back to November 5, 2001, the WARN notice is filed 60 days in advance and its printed date is 60 days in the future. Back in the early 2000's, pre Lampert-a-looza, the 60 days would sometimes not start until the end of the current month. So people got a week or two, then 60 days, THEN Severance. (If Eddie could get it down to minutes or seconds off our paychecks, he'd do it). Jeez, how about charging us for the paper to print the termination notice??? But I digress.

A bit after Eddie came up from the bowels of the Earth, it was enacted that Severance starts at the same time as the 60 days so in fact, 60 days of severance was lost compared to those earlier days.

Then started the reductions of maximum severance .

If he could charge us for the time of the HR person to read us a sheet of paper, he would.

Do we know if any/all of the employees let go were NOT placed on administrative leave until 10/28? The 250 employees referred to in the article will receive regular pay for 60 days which satisfies the requirements of the WARN Act.

From what I understand, WARN needs to be sent in advance https://www.thebalancecareers.com/warn-act-layoff-requirements-1918297. Which means the WARN must be upcoming and can't be retroactive, as:

"The employer who fails to provide this notice to the implicated local government is charged a civil penalty of up to $500 for each day the employer violates notification requirements. Employers can avoid this penalty if the employer pays each affected employee within three weeks after the plant closing or layoff."

So I'm not sure what is going on here. I think the October 28 date is more layoffs. But why Sears did not disclose the September RIF is beyond me.

Illinois WARN is "Applies to employers with 75 or more full-time employees when:
25 or more full-time employees are laid off if they constitute one-third or more of the full-time employees at the site, or 250 or more full-time employees are laid off. (https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/state-employment-and-labor-laws/state-layoff-notice-laws/)

You can also go here for more details on Illinois: https://www2.illinois.gov/dceo/workforcedevelopment/warn/pages/default.aspx

And there is a section where you can file a complaint if you feel that Sears violated WARN, which might be something for someone to look into considering we cannot reconcile a) the number of employees affected (which seems to be far more than what was officially reported and b) the fact that the RIF happened before the filing. I would strongly suggest someone who can back up claims of 600 employees let go actually file the complaint though, in order for the State to take the complaint seriously.

Note that nowhere does it state that WARNs only need to be filed by publicly traded companies.

Employees were told "a bit over 300" in meetings last week.

Not trying to start and argument my friend, just pointing out that if the number is inaccurate, it’s the WARN notice that’s wrong, not the press report.

The source is the director of human resources in an official filing with the state. There’s a link to the actual signed document in the article. I think we can assume the number is accurate.

They got it wrong, or someone didn't divulge correct number.
IT WAS 600, let go not 250!