Does anyone know why AT&T didn’t grant the WARN act to employees surplussed? Has anyone had success in getting it? I read that we should get paid for 60 days if more than 100 employees were laid off. Any advice??
23 replies (most recent on top)
They need to do more in NJ....way too many managers
You make it sound like the NJ location is its own company. The fact there are too many managers in NJ means nothing. They likely are members of different work groups all over the country and many managers (whatever your definition of manager is) happen to reside in NJ.
they get around it by doing rounds of surplus rotating location to get around paying WARN. NJ is 90 days and they had so many that need to go they have to pay it as NJ just signed that ACT on April of this year so they definitely did not want law suites from not following the labor requirements. They need to do more in NJ....way too many managers. They pay their lawyers a lot of money to make sure employees can't sue.
"I see a WARN submission has been submitted for Bedminster, 29 employee effective 11/23."
Not only Bedminster.....
https://www.nj.gov/labor/assets/PDFs/WARN/2023_WARN_Notice_Archive.pdf
No doubt about it, NJ is way, way overstaffed. Time for some real headcount rationalization in NJ! This is way overdue!
I see a WARN submission has been submitted for Bedminster, 29 employee effective 11/23.
"So, even though this is absolutely a layoff, they have technical deniability."
Whatever they say in their PR and employee comms, they're not denying it's a layoff (or "involuntary separation") because employees are getting severance. They made the promise several paragraphs in on the original announcement, because any of us would have had legal standing to challenge the "follow the work" smokescreen if AT&T maintained it really was our voluntary decision to leave.
They can say that on all their internal insider feel-good meetings and postings, but the fact remains we are getting severance, which means it's involuntary, i.e. a LAY OFF.
The WARN act goes by location (an antiquated concept in the WFH world), so the company skated past that without triggering its requirements.
I know a remote employee in NJ that did get 90 days pay. Not sure why the 60 day rule doesn’t pertain to people in other states.
A lot of members of the general public know AT&T is having widespread layoffs. And here you are asking about the Warn Act. Are you a complete and total mo--n?
AT&T has been finessing their layoff policy since at least 1983 at divestiture . It is truly the only thing they are good at these days
Stankey was born at night, but not last night. He has the whole layoff process down to a fine science.
They avoid those triggers easily. 2 weeks pay for managers. Union folks get a little more if they have a lot of service especially
Stanley knows more ways around the warn act than anyone.
It’s 100 PER LOCATION at the Fed level and 11 states have additional WARN laws. T has an army of attorneys and outside counsel to guide them. Don’t hold your breath…not going to happen.
I heard if it’s less than 50 employees, then company doesn’t need to provide the NJ warn benefit.
The only ones who get that much notice are union employees because it’s in their contract.
Only a welfare employee would be concerned about the WARN Act in T's current state.
Stink and company have the sort of low animal cunning that allows them to learn from their past, and the prior mass layoffs which triggered WARN were bad publicity.
So, the first thing they did was to structure their latest scheme as a cynical "voluntary" separation by forcing people to choose between staying where they are, or moving to Atlanta or Dallas on the slim chance that they will keep their job. So, even though this is absolutely a layoff, they have technical deniability.
Secondly, they're now conducting a non-stop series of smaller layoffs, scattered across locations and time-zones in a carefully constructed conspiracy to ensure that the number of impacted workers at any one place and any one time remains below the WARN threshold. So, for example, if they plan on letting 1,000 people go, but spread it out so that there are about 75 in each location, and the process repeats every 60 days, they don't trigger WARN.
Make no mistake, Stink is a vile, sociopathic, disgusting, conniving, repulsive pile of excr-ment. The sort of guy who, when they finally are dust, will have made the world a better place through their passing.
When people WFH it will never happen. Too many locations.
Loop holes in every employment policy.
Has to be any one work location.
Just like many things anymore, the govt is only selectively enforcing rules and laws. The peanut butter is not spread evenly. I’m sure T is able to dodge via some loophole or has an agreement that they can just do what they want.
It has been mentioned many times - T is well versed in ruining peoples lives so you can expect they have covered all the bases to prevent any law suit. Take a look at WARN docs to better understand why they are not having to do it. The state of NJ passed some strong laws siding with the employee. Those folks have some protections and compensation that those in other states do not get.
All employees were warned when the RTO policy was announced. That was months ago.