Hacker News
points by somenameforme 3 days ago | 0 comments
People often confuse what 'at will' employment means. All 'at will' employment means is that the default is that a worker can quit or be fired at any time without either party having recourse. But this can be overridden by contracts and for basically all white collar and higher paid jobs, it is.

I'm not privy to a standard Microsoft contract so I can't say for 100% certain, but I'd be quite shocked if they don't provide a clause that workers can only be terminated for cause. So they're legally required to buy out contracts if they want to get rid of a substantial number of workers in a short period of time.

[–] m348e912 2 days ago
> So they're legally required to buy out contracts if they want to get rid of a substantial number of workers in a short period of time

Sounds like you might be European. The US doesn't have contracts for salaried employees most of the time. In the event of a layoff, no notice is required, no mutual termination agreement needed, no consultation takes place. You are terminated (sometimes effective immediately) and if you're lucky you may get a severance package, which is not required by law.

[–] _heimdall 2 days ago
Unless something has changed drastically since I worked at MS, they absolutely can do mass layoffs without having to buy out contracts.

Sure they offer severance, industry norm is usually 1-2 weeks of severence per year of employment, but in no way are they contractually limited to only lay people off for cause.

Firing an individual is different, on that front they are careful how its handled to avoid being sued and having to settle. Employment laws also vary by country, I'm mostly familiar with US laws.

[–] somenameforme 2 days ago
Yeah that would make sense. If they state in their contract that they're free to terminate you in exchange for what they're offering now then that would explain what they're offering now.

What I was responding to is somebody above thinking that Microsoft was being "generous" with this deal - what I was saying is that they were almost certainly just sticking to greediest possible behavior that stays within the bounds of the contract. You can describe billion dollar multinational corps in quite a lot of ways, but generous isn't one of them.

[–] _heimdall 2 days ago
Oh gotcha, I may have misread you comment!

In comparison with what I've seen in big tech layoffs over the years, this offer is pretty "generous" in comparison. I'd assume any layoff following this would be as well, at least beating the 1-2 week per employed year norm.

[–] bootlooped 2 days ago
> But this can be overridden by contracts and for basically all white collar and higher paid jobs, it is.

Is this really true? I believe all of my software engineering jobs have been at will, and there was nothing in the documents I signed that would give me any benefits or rights if my employer wanted to fire me.

[–] WorldMaker 2 days ago
In the US "at will" employment in many states means that companies don't ever need employment contracts. Jobs have terms and conditions, often these are explicitly not written as employment contracts and you never actually sign them, you just agree to them by nature of showing up to the job. Even for white collar and higher paid jobs, companies like the CYA nature of not having a contract they can be considered in breach of, but a document they can use as a stick.

US "at will" laws really are that bad. The US has a strange history with labor laws.

[–] senordevnyc 2 days ago
and for basically all white collar and higher paid jobs, it is.

I'm bewildered that you think this is the case. Have the widespread layoffs in tech over the last few years not aptly demonstrated to you how false this is?

For the vast majority of white collar jobs in America, there isn't a contract that the employer has to "buy out", and the employer can lay them off with sufficient notice (WARN requires 60 calendar days if the company is above a certain size, etc).

[–] janalsncm 3 days ago
Only a MSFT employee can say for sure what their employment contract is these days, but I found an old court case where they used pretty standard “at will” language.

https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/no-breach...

[–] somenameforme 3 days ago
That's very different. That was them rescinding a job offer before a 'real' contract had been signed in something explicitly stating that it was not a contract of employment, and was also fully contingent on them passing a criminal background check - which the applicant failed. So they're losing in both at will, and by the terms of the contract. They still got sued, because people gonna people, but it's not related to a normal Microsoft employment contract.
[–] janalsncm 2 days ago
Maybe I should’ve been more clear. Your argument above relies on “I’d be shocked if…” which is not evidence in and of itself.

Most American employees are at-will, and the contract in the MSFT lawsuit above was an at-will contract which is why they could be terminated, as you said.

Unless you can provide some other evidence that MSFT employees at not at will, it seems reasonable to believe they are, in which case providing the generous severance they did was not legally required.

[–] somenameforme 2 days ago
A Microsoft employee chimed in elsewhere and mentioned that their contract had a clause that they could only be terminated for a set level of compensation, which is exactly what this buyout is offering. At-will, at least as I am using it, implies the ability to terminate a contract by other side without consequence. That is not the case for Microsoft even if they aren't constrained to only for-cause dismissal.