I could care less about Stankey's severance. I will not work for a company with no moral values. AT&T has got to be the worst company in the world to work for.
20 replies (most recent on top)
You will get 0 severance because of your lazy good for nothing productivity and dirty hygiene.
J. Stanky
Wow, can you just imagine no severance and no unemployment?
AT&T is in horrible financial shape, I'm thinking chapter 11!
“ Severance is not mandated by law.“
Not required by law, correct. We get it.
That said, today, AT&T has a severance plan.
And under the terms of the current severance plan, a worker that is told they need to relocate greater than 50 miles to keep their job and refuses to do so would be involuntarily terminated due to organizational or structural changes. And would be eligible for severance. It’s in black and white right in the policy, and Corey Anthony stated the same last week.
So yes, they “could” terminate their policy and end all severance. I don’t think that’s going to happen.
You mean,
"I couldn't care less" about Stankey's severance!
Severance is not mandated by law.
Another component of the U.S.'s “at-will” employment system is that under its auspices, once an employee is terminated, their former employer does not owe them severance or any other like provisions.
You’re just now finding out this company has no morals? Where have you been for the last 20 years.
What about relo cash? Is that something that should be spread about? After all Stankey stated that at&t offers generous relo packages.
"Something tells me you are going to be disappointed! Stankey has no intention of paying severance. Face it, at&t has no money, the company is broke."
The FAQ says employees may receive a severance. Now, I have no idea what would qualify or disqualify people, neither does anyone above me, but it definitely mentions severance, so I don't believe it's productive to spread the negativity and claim there will be no severances paid.
You can't get blood from a turnip.
"It's true that there is no legal burden to provide severance..."
Yes, but there is precedent, and there is a contract (the severance policy).
So they are opening themselves up to legal action if they don't comply with their own policy.
“ If the company declares a role is moving, those that refuse are not eligible for severance“
This is not correct.
I get everyone is emotional, but the management severance plan is clear. Read it.
Section 1.3 Eligibility - D. “ is selected for involuntary termination by the Paticipating Company, including as a result of force surplus, technological, operational, organizational and/or structural changes…”
This would fall under involuntary termination due to organizational/structural changes (when you are informed your work location is being centralized/ moved hundreds of miles and you inform the company you can’t/ won’t move). You’ll be involuntarily terminated.
The language in the policy is clear. And Corey Anthony also stated as such in his fireside chat last week.
So “unless” they change the policy, which I wouldn’t necessarily put past them,…as of today workers refusing to relocate are eligible. And if they revise the policy now or otherwise try and sc--w folks out of it, they will certainly face lawsuits; I have a family member that is a corporate attorney and would be happy to file a class action.
I definitely would not count on severance. But don't let AT&T bully you into thinking that you won't be eligible for unemployment. Most states will recognize this ploy as one of "constructive dismissal", and unless relocation is customary for your role and typically spelled out in the job description, you will be eligible for unemployment with a high degree of probability. I know that is the case in my state.
It's true that there is no legal burden to provide severance, and given current circumstances, I would not expect it. But there is some risk to AT&T by not providing employees severance. Some of the verbiage in the communications could be used in lawsuits "season of life', etc. Yes, there will be some lawsuits. Many companies have lost employee related class action law suits (IBM, Google, Microsoft, etc.). So not out of the question, but again, I would not count on it. What I would count on is that AT&T cannot compete for technical talent with these actions. No computer science graduates are going to want to work for AT&T. Those other big employers all give decent severance packages. Even Twitter, under Elon Musk, awarded good severance packages to employees who weren't ready to buy into the new culture. Severance packages are a "norm" for technical companies. So weather legal and required or not, AT&T is simply not going to be able to compete for talent going forward.
This is no my problem that T has no money to pay severance. Money was stolen by 2 corporate criminals and let them cough out the coins back. Take their pensions benefits, bonuses and cut the pay to $1.
Read AT&T’s severance policy. There is a loop hole in there in which T has not updated to support the new RTO policy.
Why there are so many here who try to imply that there will be no severance and the option will be to go to the labour camp or gopuff yourself. Do these suckers know more than we do?
Something tells me you are going to be disappointed! Stankey has no intention of paying severance. Face it, at&t has no money, the company is broke.
I'm a bit confused. You "could care less"? Or you "could not care less"?
“I am waiting for them to tell me my role is moving, refusing, and getting my severance.”
This is not a good plan, you will be highly disappointed. If the company declares a role is moving, those that refuse are not eligible for severance. You all better brush up on your state workforce commission laws. This is an old school playbook right of the how to sc--w your employees
I’m waiting to be laid off. I’m not going to give my severance to Stinki. I’m not that generous. The guy ruined way too many lives to deserve a ‘bonus’.
You are taking the bait. Good for you.
I am waiting for them to tell me my role is moving, refusing, and getting my severance.