What do you prefer?

To me, the WARN is doing exactly what it's supposed to do, giving people some time to prepare. Tell me, honestly, which would you rather have.

60 days notice that you might get laid off in writing with WARN, then termination and no severance
No warning that you might get laid off, but a generous severance to help a little through transition to a new job where you are getting paid but not having to work.

Personally, I prefer #2.

Posted by @ood+1rfT8Mki. I think most people would disagree with them, but I'm curious to find out if I'm wrong.

Comment! It's anonymous!

5 replies (most recent on top)

#3. Competent leadership. None of this had to happen.

pardon my ignorance, but I’m always confused when people say that uthey leave you on payroll and you get severance. Does that mean you’re getting paid for 60 days on top of receiving x amount of months worth of severance? Or does being left on payroll mean you can keep your benefits?

I was the one who originally posted that, and it's missing the key fact that they are keeping people on payroll for 60 days PLUS paying severence. That didn't exist before WARN

The severance is already above industry standard. What are you saying?

You do you that companies provided severance before WARN was passed…

What is your angle with this insane false dichotomy?

Thread regarding Nike Inc. layoffs

What do you prefer?

5 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply