I read this elsewhere and wanted to know if it's true:
"[I]f your severance is at least 60 days then it is considered to be in lieu of WARN. WARN isn't really meant to give you supplemental severance it's just to prevent companies from letting you go with no warning and no severance.
Husband got laid off last year and they paid everyone the 60 days in lieu of WARN."
Is this accurate?
re state publication of WARN - WF does notify every state of every layoff. they notify the state when they notify the employee. the state controls what if anything is published. The point is that the employee has already been notified, so the state publication is redundant.
no loopholes or conspiracies here. WARN was passed because of the one-company towns (primarily manufacturing) that suddenly went out of business with no notice. Literally people showed up to work one day and the entire business was empty/gone and they were without a job and paycheck with no notice.
all WARN does is say that an employer has to notify employees at least 60 days in advance of elimination of their paid job. WF's 60 day notice satisfies this requirement.
there is no severence requirement of WARN. If you have zero severence, but still give notice 60 paid days of work prior to termination - WARN has been satisfied
The idea behind warn laws is to give notice to employees. Wells policy does that.
Yes this is the loophole in the WARN system. If the company lays you off and doesn't want to report you they don't have to if you have been given 60 day notice. Even if you are reported some states ignore the report if you have been given 60 day notice.
So I was laid off last year and received 60 days notice and thankfully also several months of severance as well. Does this mean that I just wasn't counted in the WARN figures?
If true, it suggests actual layoffs exceed WARN figures.
Yes! This is what I have been saying on this site when everyone keeps bringing up WARN notices for number of people laid off. The 60 day pay is the notice in most cases.
Seems like it.