Hacker News
points by geye1234 3 days ago | 0 comments
> management said if any layoffs will happen in 3 years period after this, same package will be offered no question asked.

And people believed them?!

[–] Maxatar 3 days ago
If this claim was in writing then it's legally binding in most U.S. states. Technically it's legally binding even if it's not written but in those cases it's harder to prove.
[–] ThrowawayR2 3 days ago
Failing to live up to a business promise runs afoul of promissory estoppel: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp
[–] dcrazy 3 days ago
There is plenty of room for uncertainty where promissory estoppel and right-to-work laws intersect.
[–] dcrazy 2 days ago
Bah, too late to edit but I meant work-for-hire laws, not right-to-work laws.
[–] 0cf8612b2e1e 3 days ago
Right? When management demonstrates their inability to plan for repercussions, how am I to believe a pinky promise covering the next three years?
[–] tandr 3 days ago
It was more than 3 years ago, but as far as I know, they did honor the agreement. Some people took early retirement packages closer to the end of that three-year period and they got the same deal.
[–] sedatk 3 days ago
> And people believed them?!

Probably because they could sue them for not keeping their word.

[–] _heimdall 2 days ago
Why not? People believe the FDIC has enough money to prevent any bank runs from wiping and cash on hand. Very few check the tape, especially if they're in the middle of a fear or panic reaction and an authority claims its fine.