If Factset is a WARN company, shouldn’t they have announced layoffs? Last Sanoke dodged the question. Secondly, under WARN act shouldn’t Factset have given us the term date of 90 days later?
4 replies (most recent on top)
Does anyone remember back to the previous round when PS & HS said “we’re a public company so we have to inform investors before making moves like this.” Guess that was a load of bs since this wasn’t announced to investors.
Execs can’t stop lying.
They don't actually have to tell you 60d before they lock you out, as long as they pay you for 60d after they tell you.
Unfortunately unless 33% of employees at a given site were affected or if it was above 500 people in the US, then WARN doesn't apply. Also, any pay in lieu of notice deducts from any penalty they might be assessed.
Note that certain states have additional protections so please review before signing. For example, in IL, you cannot waive your right to claim unemployment even if your severance agreement "requires" you to. So anyone affect in IL should have the option of claiming unemployment.
You would think so - but there's always some corporate bs loopholes