Twitter must pay over half a million to unfairly dismissed Irish exec Twitter has been ordered to pay €550,000 ($607,000) compensation for unfair dismissal to a former senior executive in Ireland, said to be a record amount awarded in the country over such a case. Ireland's Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled on the incident involving the former senior executive after the social media …
I'm seeing a lot of people dump Xitter for Threads, which, to be fair, is also run by a Machiavellian billionaire, just not one who has so openly having a public meltdown for the last couple of years.
Twitter was the de facto platform for this sort of social media, simply because it was the first around (at the time, Facebook already existed, but didn't quite work in the same "broadcast" sense). Lots of alternatives have come and go, and these days, I see a lot of people cross-posting to multiple platforms, so cutting one loose isn't really such a big thing as it once was. Nobody is really tied to Xitter by dint of having no alternative any more, and the more of a toxic hate filled echo chamber full of right-wing culture war talking points it becomes, the more people with any common sense are leaving it for platforms that will actually do something about hate speech.
It does work in the UK and I can even read selected (US) Threads accounts from a Mastodon/Fediverse server. Threads plan to extend Federation so you, theoretically, won't have to have a Meta account to read and later comment on Threads postings. Which is about as 'open' as we are likely to get in this area. Certainly more than Twitter/X & Bluesky.
But Federating with Threads debate is like cycle helmet discussion. Neither side takes prisoners.
hrhr X a hate filled chamber for the right wing? ahahha, surely you gest?
It was a hate filled intolerantt of anything other than left wing / woke views unltra moderated left fest.
Certainly before Musk took over:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/26/how-twitter-became-media-americas-left/
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics
https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-conservatives-more-harshly-than-liberals/
And people will retort that conservative views are amplified by the algorythm.
The truth is somewhere in between, but to suggest X isn't filled with toxic hate filled lefties is bonkers denial. Nobody cared much about Musk until he took over the leftie playground and was going to level the moderation playing feild. Now look at the all the hate spewed by left sufferers.
The Internet with Social Media has created a poltical and social head space that literally pits humans against each other and made humans have ever more proposterous and extreme views. To the point where people are literally taking aim with guns at politicians. We've had left and right nutters kill MPs in the UK.
Suggesting hate is only the domain of the right is madness. Its extermism and intolerance and anger thats the problem - on all sides.
"hrhr X a hate filled chamber for the right wing? ahahha, surely you gest?
It was a hate filled intolerantt of anything other than left wing / woke views unltra moderated left fest."
Stopped reading and downvoted purely because the rest is clearly going to be more of the same illiterate ranting :-)
I almost quite reading at "gest", but managed to struggle through the next "sentence" before my famous left wing woke intolerance won out :-)))
Telegram probably has the greatest feature and scalability match and setting up channels is easy enough even for the public sector.
But anything should be multichannel because no one service is (or ever should be) used by everyone and I don't think the current trend of embracing WhatsApp serves the public any better.
What they should have is properly searchable and indexed government information sites for the purpose with feed options. Not the garbage excuse for "help" sites that the government here in Canada is notorious for. (Good luck finding information related to GST - Goods and Services Tax, the equivalent of the UK's VAT on the federal site, for example. You'll find out some summary information and how to apply for key programs, but nothing related to running a business and what kind of filings and when to do them can be found. You have no choice but to hire an accountant to handle your corporate taxes here.)
I suppose it rather depends on where someone lives and what organizations are relevant to them, but I too have not looked at Twitter in many years (and I never posted anything there), and I've never — not once — learned of something and then wished I'd read about it a few hours earlier on Twitter. I often read news stories and articles that quote or cite material that appeared on Twitter, and none of that changes my opinion in the slightest.
If it's at all important, in my experience it will appear elsewhere, and in plenty of time if it's something that requires some action.
North East Ambulance service leaves X over 'hate speech'
Just in the local new today. Hopefully the start of a mass exodus.
"I take it that you're unaware that GP practicess are, in fact, independent businesses providing services to the NHS?"
Even if they are (many aren't) - their rates are fixed. Meaning; if they want more money per patient per consult, they need to negotiate to get it. And when the answer is no, they go on strike. Despite being offered far FAR more than is remotely reasonable when they are (a) already being compensated well (these aren't street sweepers) and (b) in the current economic climate.
I believe under New-Blair introduced UK employment law my employer can (apparently) unilaterally issue me a new contract with three months notice to accept or walk, which appears very similar to what X did (except they gave 3 months severance pay in lieu of notice). Given this judgement, under EU regs you have to be given significant advanced notice of a notice of a unilateral change of contract ... I wonder if this regulation was carried into UK law after B*****it and therefore the interpretation would still apply?
The gov.uk website says of contract changes
"You must get an employee’s agreement if you want to make changes to their contract."
saying that they should
"* consult or negotiate with employees or their representatives (for example from a trade union or staff association)
* explain the reasons for changes
* listen to alternative ideas from employees"
If the employer makes the change without employee agreement, then the employee can refuse to work to the new terms, resign and claim constructive dismissal and take the employer to industrial tribunal
The gov.uk pages have a lot of ‘should’ and ‘may’ rather than ‘must’, which muddies the waters somewhat. For example: ’If an employer does dismiss and re-employ someone, they may be able to take a case to a tribunal and claim:
breach of contract
unfair dismissal’
Fire and re-hire is still very much a thing in the UK, even in companies with unions, so I think employers must have enough wiggle room to get away with it. Labour have said they will stop the practice but I’m not holding my breath.
Employers may "get away with it" because :
Employees don't know their rights
Employees know their rights but think pursuing them would be expensive
Employees know their rights but don't want to risk a tribunal
Employees would rather have a job than risk looking for alternative employment
Given this judgement, under EU regs you have to be given significant advanced notice of a notice of a unilateral change of contract ... I wonder if this regulation was carried into UK law after B*****it and therefore the interpretation would still apply?
It's why good HR people are a very necessary evil, along with treasurers. Most EU regs were transposed into UK law, but now the UK is sovereign, it can create it's own employment legislation. Then within the EU, individual countries still have their own rules, eg Netherlands, France, Germany typically have better regulations than the UK or some other countries. So a good HR person will understand all that and make sure contracts are correct. Then if a CEO wakes up one day and fires off an email saying "fire all the things!" can attempt to reign them in.
It'll be interesting to see the ruling, and CEO's & HR types will also be looking at it. So OK, you can't just fire-by-mail on a whim, but you probably could kinda do that, if you provide links to any new contract terms, termination terms, pay in lieu of notice etc. X's fault was probably missing all that stuff, along with not being entirely reasonable. So ruling may say something like 7 days, or 30 days for employees to decide if they want to accept the new terms.
But it's not just X that tries it, a lot of US companies seem to think US rules apply and employees can be disposed of at will. Then discover that isn't the case, but challenging it can be difficult & expensive.
The previous poster is thinking of employment lawyers, who are to HR droids what neurosurgeons are to slime mould.
No, I'm not. Hiring, caring for your minion and ultimately maybe disposing of them is all part of the HR function. So a good one will be aware of the regulations covering the countries you're thinking of doing business in. Bad ones might be flown in from US head office, discover they ain't in Kansas any more, expose the business to expensive litigation and reputational damage and find themselves needing employment lawyers of their own.
Anyone who's ever worked for a US company will know this situation only too well. This is not America, doobey doobey do, have a P45! But then firing HR people is one of those times where having an employment lawyer on speed dial can be rather useful. Plus they seem to enjoy it.
Well, you should have been thinking of employment lawyers.
I have never met or worked with a competent HR person. Those I have had the misfortune to encounter have invariably been tenth raters of low intelligence and utility.
That's not to say that their theoretical function is not important. Of course it is. But health is important, which is why clued up people consult doctors and not chiropractors.
Sigh. Is it really necessary to be this petty? When have these sorts of generalizations added anything of value to any discussion?
On various occasions I've needed to work with HR to sort out issues of one sort or another. Employment contracts and benefits are complicated. Most of those interactions have been professional and competently executed.
Been through it a few times now, despite lying scum HR directors on group calls twisting the truth and managers making private phone calls with threats of sacking for encouraging colleagues to join a union, I've come out of it well.
It's not quite as simple as "here's your new contract, you've got 3 months to sign" but you've got to know your rights and have colleagues prepared to make a stand.
He didn't get three months notice to accept or reject the new contract. According to the article, and also to the report on RTE at:
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2024/0813/1464761-record-award-of-550k-to-former-twitter-senior-executive/
he got 1 day to accept. When he didn't, he was laid off with three month's pay in lieu of notice. That's not really "very similar", in my view.
That pay was a Musk promise. About as reliable as "Funding secured".
I have personal experience of companies tripping over the fact that the labour laws in one country does not apply in another.
I was employed by a firm in the UK but was based in the Republic of Ireland.
When we were given the terms of our redundancy payment it was based on the offer for those in the UK. After taking legal advice my colleague and I turned around and said "Not so fast, we don't work in the UK and there are different rules here in Ireland." After to and froing for some time the penny dropped and we were given a revised redundancy payout of twice that of our UK based colleagues.
It would seem as if Twitter fell into the same trap and it took the Irish authorities to tell Musk that what goes in the US does not go in Ireland.
So well done to the Workplace Relations Commission for its educational activities.
Seems to think "at will" employment is everywhere. Not everywhere is as ruthless as most of the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/employment-at-will-laws-by-state/
Thanks for that info. I'd always been a bit confused to hear Yanks bandying around the term "fired" when it sounded like they were actually being made redundant. I wasn't aware of the 'at will' thing before, so now the language makes sense (even if the employment law feels a bit nonsensical to my British mind)
The weird thing is, many Americans I've spoken to online think this is a GREAT thing... "I can walk out the door any time I like"...
Yes, but here, if someone decides to sack me, they have to pay me three month's wages somehow even if they insist I go on "garden leave".
I know which I'd rather have.
On the rare occasions the subject has come up, in my experience, those who defend at-will employment do so on the grounds that it makes businesses more "nimble" and "responsive to changing conditions".
In short, they're assuming they won't be the ones laid off, because they're above-average employees who are too valuable to lose. It'll be all that "deadweight", which is shorthand for "people I don't know and/or don't like".
Class struggle in the US has always been displaced onto other categories of social difference. There's a ton of work on the subject, such as Lott's Love and Theft, to pick one example more or less at random.
It's worth noting that even in the most rabid "At Will" state, the moment a contract is signed those laws don't apply and significantly better protections are applicable
In UK/EU even if a contract isn't signed, taking the job and paying an employee automatically infers that a minimum spec contract exists, moreover a US style contract containing optouts from legal requirements is neither legal or enforcible on this side of the pond
Both of which don't have an effective radius of more than a few metres, plus require the violence to be up close and personal
This seems to put most people off
Ronn Cobb summarised it many years ago: https://www.lambiek.net/artists/image/c/cobb_ron/cobb_progress.jpg
Armed militias are definitely a thing of the past in civilised nations.
Only when they're unofficial. So the US has it's National Guard, which are kind of armed militias semi-controlled by state governors. Plus it also has other armed militias like whatever Blackwater is called this week, and other civilised nations also have PMCs. Or there's Ukraine, where oligarch's stood up their own militias, with varying degrees of integration into the UAF and are one of the reasons why that country is in such a mess.
No mentioning of russias mercenary groups? Weird...
Heya Tufty! Nothing really 'weird' about, other than the speed with which Tampon Timmy's meme has infected the gullible. But I didn't think it necessary because the OP said-
Armed militias are definitely a thing of the past in civilised nations.
And according to the narrative, that would exclude Russia. Rest really depends on how you might define an armed militia. US Constitution kind of allows them to prevent any future tyrannical government, Most of the EU doesn't because it doesn't want armed militias challenging their power.
Brave move to exclude Russia from civilized nations, comrade, luckily you qualified it with "the narrative".
I wonder if there are any washing machines left in occupied Ukraine for Russian soldiers and hired mercenaries to take or they've all been expropriated by now.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Most of the EU doesn't because it doesn't want armed militias challenging their power murdering people.
There, FTFY. Note as well, that there are plenty of civilised countries outside of the EU. Have you ever been to Iceland? It might blow your mind to find out, that, despite having no armed forces of any kind, and very strict gun laws, they still manage to function and not be an authoritarian nightmare. Their murder rate, incidentally, peaked in 202 at five. That's five people, in a year. In the same year, the US suffered almost 50,000 deaths from gunshot wounds. Accounting for population difference, per capita, that's more than ten times as many people being murdered in the US, with guns, than in Iceland, from any cause. So, tell me again, about how guns are so great.
My advice to any nation that is listening, is to be more like Iceland, and less like the US.
...they still manage to function and not be an authoritarian nightmare
That's because they put drugs in their hákarl. This is the only reason I can think of for it being a national dish. Then again, when some Icelandic friends visited, I returned the favour by letting them try Marmite. But Musk may consider Iceland an authoritarian nightmare given their kids have to be named per official lists of approved names.
My advice to any nation that is listening, is to be more like Iceland, and less like the US.
Or the other example that is EU-adjacent, Switzerland where citzens are allowed to keep their dreaded 'assault' rifles after national service. Or there's some fun within the EU where bears are being re-introduced, who then introduce themselves to hikers, and hikers aren't allowed to introduce bears to 10mm or .45-70. I think this is to encourage biodiversity though and protect furries while they're dogging.
They're working on "fixing that", if they have their way.
But remember that Americans (I'm one) constantly VOTE for this stupidity. The laws are exactly what business wants because people vote in pro-business candidates under the false belief that, somehow, it'll 'trickle down' to them and they'll get a slice of the pie.
One day. The same day Santa Claus comes down the mountain, proves himself real, and grants every other fairy tale fantasy wish, too.
It's always worth remembering that when the US made slavery illegal, it only did so outside of the penal system. Unpaid forced labour is still perfectly legal there if someone is in detention. Incidentally, it also makes prisons very profitable, and the US also, again, purely by coincidence, has both the highest per-capita and highest absolute prison population in the world*.
*officially. I'd question whether China has caught up in recent years with its "re-education centres". I don't think anyone should aspire to be more authoritarian than China though.
Imprisonment is not slavery; forced labour whilst in detention is. There doesn't have to be "ownership" of an enslaved person for them to be enslaved. Such exploitation is illegal in most civilised countries, I'm saddened to see that the UK is not included in that list of civilised countries, either.
Prison services with hard labour went slavery either.
When you get sent to person you lose certain rights. Chief amongst these is the right to walk around at will, but there are lots of others. No right to wear your own clothes, for example.
Those who equate work in prisons with chattel slavery are deliberately minimising the experience of enslaved people ("Yeah, they were bought, sold and traped at will but that's totally the same as having to make licence plates") and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that downplaying the suffering ff black people has racist underpinnings.
At the same time, the prison population of the US is disproportionately composed of black people, and the colour of your skin has a statistically significant impact on whether you will get a custodial sentence for many crimes, so tell me again how the US has definitely abolished the slavery of black people.
That's because of the Rockefeller drug laws. Which, somewhat "conveniently", get imposed far more often, and far harsher, on minorities than on whites. Prior to the legalization of marijuana here in some states, a white person smoking a joint would get a side glance, but a black person smoking the very same joint would get disdain and the attention of the police if they happen to be nearby. After all, we can't have a [black] man selling single, loose cigarettes, can we?! We'll lose our tax income!
Therefore, as proven by studies, the Rockefeller laws only serve to punish people of color as police turn their selective ability to do their duty on only the people they believe 'deserve the attention'. Rather like the "benefits" of predictive policing in the United States...only those deemed "worth of attention" are 'serviced' by your generous neighborhood Police Department.
A large part of the disproportionality can be explained simply by noting that it's greatest in states which prohibit "convicted felons" from voting after they're released from prison
This is something that the USA has repeatedly been called out on by human rights organisations and a couple of states have recently removed those restrictions, however it was opposed tooth and nail by "conservatives" - who generally cater to the "rights are for me, not thee" mentality
...I'll also add, that at no point did I equate prison slavery with chattel slavery. That's a false argument you have put forward. Once again, the being bought and sold part is irrelevant to the person who is enslaved; they are enslaved either way.
I'm not quite sure why you are so in favour of attempting to legitimise the enforced labour of imprisoned people, but it doesn't really shine a very good light upon you, and, from a criminological point of view, it is also counterproductive to the aims of rehabilitation and societal benefit. The only people it does benefit, are those operating the prisons, in much the same way that the forced labour of enslaved people on plantations benefitted only the plantation owners and not the "workers" there. Of course those situations are not identical, but the imprisonment and forced labour aspects are clearly analogous to all but the most wilfully blind.
Actually, as proven by the post-Civil War and segregationist South, enforced labor of imprisoned people only legitimizes the inequality of both enforcement and sentencing on people of color or the poor and disenfranchised. If 'free labor' only involves finding, punishing and then incarcerating people in jail, then both the police and the legislature will find ways to make sure said jails are well stocked with working "volunteers".
I wouldn't be surprised if, after the amount this is going to cost them, they will shortly be "accepting her resignation" too. And without any half a mill in compensation either. It would be perfect karma for someone who was so willing to heartlessly go over to the corporate dark side.
I wouldn't be surprised if, after the amount this is going to cost them, they will shortly be "accepting her resignation" too.
I wouldn't rule out the latter part of your statement, given rule by Musk, but not for that reason. The entire hardcore idea was Musk's. All she's done is give evidence following based on Musk's diktat.
Oh, this one's clear cut: Ireland and UK laws are rather specific about contract law and workers rights: You can't just terminate someone's employment at will, which seems to be what Musk thought he could do.
That's a lack of due diligence - something Musk has been accused of before.
I know of a few UK companies that have fallen foul of this over the years - all of which were American owned, which suggests it's not an isolated mistake. Those affected also got decent compensation when it went to tribunal, which goes to show that it's better to check than assume.
You think they would check, but they don’t. Many Americans have little idea how the world outside America works, and many assume everything is just like the USA, but with stuff written in not English but some foreign language.
Years ago I was working in Europe for a USA company. One day they decided to close the site. It was a rude awakening when they discovered this thing called employment law, redundancy law, and unions. It took close to 3 years to shutter the site, and cost a small fortune. But, hey, the US side was loosing money, the Europe side was profitable, so clearly they had to close the Europe side and keep jobs in the US side.
But, being fair, Europeans don't exactly know how everything in the U.S, never mind Australia, India, Thailand, Japan, UAE, Dubai...
It's not a shame to be ignorant of a huge world that is so incredibly complex that not a single person in existence knows how everything works, everywhere. That's simply called living a normal life.
YES I know (F)Elon's "earnings", as I describe following, are not "real money"... but if he were to "cash out" tomorrow then it WOULD be "real money" (and probably f*ck many stock exchanges at the same time)...
So please bear with me
(F)Elon was recently awarded USD$46,000,000,000 for effectively doing F-All...
Aggrieved ex-employee awarded USD$607,000
Aggrieved ex-employee received about 0.0013% of (F)Elon's award - around 7 minutes "(F)Elon time"...
Reminds me of the old Q/A joke about Bill Gates (and I'm paraphrasing - the joke came out a LONG time ago):
Q: "What would Bill Gates do if he accidentally dropped a $100 bill?"
A: "Nothing - based on his hourly income it would cost him more to pick up the $100 bill than what it is worth"
There are around 525,600 minutes in a year - so (F)Elon received around USD$87,520 a minute for his "award" (I assume for 'that particular year') - so, again, bear with me...
At maximum (my "best case" scenario) I can earn around AUD$135 per hour (AUD$2.25 a minute!) - at current rates that's USD$89.50 per hour (USD1.49 a minute)
(F)Elon (has effectively) earned around 58,738 times the amount I can earn in the same time...
Even assuming the "worst" [for (F)Elon that is] and spread (F)Elon's award over 20 years...
Still means (F)Elon (in worst case scenario) has been awarded around 2,937 (per unit time) than my "best case" scenario...
If I've f*ck up on the maths, I apologise - have had a few beers...
The main question is: "Does (F)Elon provide value to the company worth the same as that provided by tens of thousands of ordinary employees?".
If the answer is "No", which it logically must be, then (F)Elon is being overpaid by several orders of magnitude.
But then capitalism does seem to favour paying the people who do the most work the least, and those that do the least work the most. Trickle down, something, something...
As an acquaintance of mine - a lawyer and Jesuit priest - said, "The essence of capitalism is that you motivate the rich by paying them more and you motivate the poor by paying them less".
Distantly related to the idea that Apple make products so well that you want to buy another while Google makes products so badly that you need to buy another.
It would screw over anyone who has invested in any of his companies, and I suspect the stock exchanges would shrug it off. Since Tesla stock is already tanking, I'd wager that most serious institutional investors are already steering well clear. In reality, if Elon tries to cash in his shares in Tesla, SpaceX, etc., then as soon as he placed the sell orders, the price would crash, because nobody in their right mind would fill those orders. The only thing this would f*ck, as you so eloquently put it, would be His Muskiness Himself.
Try this though experiment:
You hold the controlling share in "Company X", let's call this 1,100,000 shares out of 2,000,000 in total.
The market price of "Company X" is £100 per share.
You want to make some quick cash, so you liquidate some of those shares.
If you sell 100 shares, you'll probably make the $100 per share, and net $10,000.
If you sell 1,000 shares, again, you'd probably get the asking price, and net $100,000.
If you try to sell 10,000 shares, people might get a bit nervous, and you might only get $99 per share. Still, $990,000 is not a bad amount of money. You'd probably get a bit more than that, as there would be some buy orders at the full $100 which would fill.
If you tried to sell 100,000 shares, people will notice that you're giving up your controlling share. All the existing sensible buy orders would immediately fill, the price might crash and then bounce back to 50% of its previous value, and unless you set a limit on your selling price, a whole bunch of chancers wanting to buy at silly low prices would snap up a bunch of shares. You'd maybe get $5,000,000.
If you tried to sell 1,000,000 shares, all of the above would happen, the stock would probably get a stop put on it on its native exchange, at around the point where the price has plummeted to $1 (if you're lucky). You'd probably net less than the $5,000,000 in the scenario above, and your remaining, unsold stock would be essentially worthless, wiping a big chunk off your personal "on paper" value.
In these latter scenarios, the market value of any other companies in which you have a controlling interest (let's call some of them "Penis Substitute X", "Reinvent the Train X", and "The Big Hole Digging Corp X") would almost certainly also plummet, as investors lose confidence in you personally.
Also, the sentence Meanwhile, "Twitter is trying to sue the World Federation of Advertisers because its members are failing to advertise on the site." is not accurate.
Try "Meanwhile, Twitter is suing the World Federation of Advertisers because its members colluded to stop advertising on the site."
I hate to break it to you, but jointly deciding not to purchase something because doing so might be damaging to yourself (and having your adverts next to hate speech certainly could be considered harmful to a brand), whilst it could be described as "collusion" is hardly illegal. That's called free choice, you know, something that people have in an "ideal market". It's actually supposedly core to free market capitalist economics, where every "actor" is supposedly perfectly well-informed. In this case, "collusion" would have been that free exchange of information between advertisers, allowing them to make that free and informed choice. Not that there's actually any evidence that there was "collusion" in this, other than people making an obvious choice not to harm themselves, based on both freely available information, and also Elon actually telling them to go fuck themselves. I don't believe that any of those advertisers were in any way contractually obliged either to not talk to each other, or to continue to do business with Twitler.
'Lauren Wegman was reported as saying that the email was sent out to 270 employees in Ireland, of whom 235 had clicked "yes." Of the remaining 35 employees, she said: "We accepted their resignations."'
'However, The Irish Times says Wegman claimed at the hearing that the pay and conditions of those that clicked "yes" had not in fact been changed, and that she did not accept that any reasonable person would have thought that this was going to happen from the information in the email.'
So she thought no reasonable person would've thought clicking 'yes' would lead to a change in conditions, but that a reasonable person should've known not clicking would lead to their resignation?
She's either a horrible liar or completely blind to the hypocrisy of that.
I'm also curious about the 1 day deadline to accept the employment terms. Apparently also in Twitter's reasoning, any employee who went away for the weekend or was out of the office and didn't check their e-mail for 2 days also "resigned"?
I would be curious if they had any employees caught like that without a contract in place mandating how responsive to e-mail they are required to be.
"I would be curious if they had any employees caught like that without a contract in place mandating how responsive to e-mail they are required to be."
I wonder when, precisely, the email was sent? There are workers rights involved here that include the right to not have to be contactable or respond to calls or emails outside of normal business hours unless they are "on call" or similar. Of course, IANAL and it may be different up at "executive" level where they get salary, and are not usually hourly paid. If any of the preceding applies in this case, there may even be a lot less than "1 day" to respond, eg the email was sent in the evening or over the weekend.
I only noticed recently that our company Outlook settings pop up a message if I send an email out of hours asking if I want to send it now or schedule it for office hours.
72 pages? To write "the decision not to click "yes", should not be regarded as constituting an act of resignation and that 24 hours did not constitute reasonable notice"? That one sentence would seem enough.I've got to start applying for these commission jobs.
Join the legal profession, get paid by the milisecond for photocopying and charging more than HP per page!
But sometimes length = complexity, and an indication that things might be more complicated than we think. Which is why reading these decisions can be useful, especially if you're running or thinking of running a business. It will state the claim(s), then walk through the relevant legislation, often citing previous case law and why the claim(s) stand or fall.
Elon-think might be that emails can be legal notices, click-through T&Cs are often legal, pay in lieu of notice can be legal, so fire & forget. Then lawyers come along and go 'nope'. We as non-lawyers may also think 'nope', because it's a scumbag move, or maybe just hate Elon. Or because we have some understanding of running businesses and how to do that legally. So things that struck me are the number of employees affected, which usually means mandatory consultation periods of 30, 60 days etc. So bad businesses may just go through the motions and do what they were planning to do anyway. Then there's stuff like TUPE. Aha, you might say, that's a UK thing, but nope-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Undertakings_(Protection_of_Employment)_Regulations_2006
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced TU-pee*, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. They are also used in Ireland. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business.
Which would seem to apply in this case, ie Twitter being transferred to X. Which can be a FUN! bit of business, especially in M&A where you end up with employees on different contracts with different benefits & make running the business more complicated. It can also lead to resentment if one group of employees have better perks because they were TUPE'd across. But all part of the FUN! of running a business. Often you'd want to harmonise contracts so everyone's on the same, but TUPE sets out rules for how to do this, how long protections might last etc. X didn't do this.
* It isn't pronounced 'TUP', as one big boss once did. Tupping an employee means something rather different, and will also usually involve HR.
Musk to Irish court: Put a sock in it. We're a big American company and I'm richer than your whole country put together. My company can put your country out of business. Your puny little laws don't apply to us. He's not getting a penny of our money and there's nothing you can do about it. So go fish.
Not clear if you're mocking such attitudes- from Musk or from US-based loudmouths in general- or endorsing them.
Given that Xitter has an Irish subsidiary- if only for tax reasons- I'm sure they have more than enough assets there for them to be seized by the Irish courts. And bear in mind that Ireland- as part of the EU- was very good at getting them on its side when the UK government and Ulster unionists were threatening a land border across the island of Ireland.
If Xitter doesn't want to do business in the EU because the manchild-Nazi-in-chief throws a tantrum I suspect they'll be very welcome to fuck right off with their mouthpiece for the far right.
...an Israeli company who coerced encouraged their employees to post propaganda content supporting the Israeli government narrative (*) in the current conflict, and who sacked an employee in their Irish office for being critical of the Israeli state?
I think that one is still ongoing, but I do remember that the then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar himself suggested that the woman would very likely have a legal case against them.
From this article, "Mr Varadkar said that while he was not aware of the details of the case, he encouraged Ms Carey to seek advice as "under Irish employment law, it is not okay to dismiss somebody because of their political views".
(*) "[Wix] encouraged employees to “show Westernity” in social media posts backing Israel, as “unlike the Gazans, we look and live like Europeans or Americans” " (Irish Times)
Nice name. Is this some platform for masturbation issues ?
The verb "wixen" is german slang for male masturbation (not to be confused with "wichsen" which may have the same meaning but normally is the action of applying shoeshine and polish it in.).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
