points by wavemode 3 days ago | 0 comments
Because the company wouldn't have the money by that point? Seems unlikely. Or because it was an outright lie? Could be grounds for a lawsuit.
[–] lenerdenator 3 days ago
> Could be grounds for a lawsuit.
And?
Litigation is a rich man's game. Companies almost always have more resources to dedicate to litigation than individual employees, especially if those individual employees have been laid off and are now without an income.
The company knows this, the employees know this, the company knows the employees know this, and vice-versa.
[–] JustResign 3 days ago
> The company knows this, the employees know this, the company knows the employees know this, and vice-versa.
Okay, so how many nights until the blue-eyed employees all leave the company? :p
[–] WalterBright 3 days ago
The employees can (and do) hire attorneys on contingency.
[–] tux3 3 days ago
A promise like that just isn't binding, things can change in 2 years, the managers themselves may have moved and been replaced with different people. A bird in the hand is worth many birds three years from now.
[–] IAmBroom 3 days ago
Management at a certain level speaks with the legally binding authority of the company. Management at any level carries some legal authority.
You can't say, "Well, we hired a new CEO, so all those old agreements are null and void."
[–] rtkwe 3 days ago
[–] wavemode 3 days ago
There's a reason corporations almost always settle lawsuits (if they aren't dismissed).
[–] rtkwe 2 days ago