Just curious if some employees were fired instead of RIF’ed? Isn’t that a good way to save the company $ by not paying severance?
Aetna did this to some employees years ago during a lay off. Saved them all kinds of expenses because they did not have to pay severance AND fought their UI benefits.
No expert here, but I feel like straight firing would open the company up to lawsuits (and keep in mind, these RIFs do not happen without Legal's buy-in, guidance, and consult), especially given the obvious focus on longtime/tenured employees.
If they roll everyone up into a RIF, with younger/newer/non-class-protected employees within, they have a safety net on discrimination lawsuits. In a recent RIF that primarily focused on black/latino and/or older and/or disabled associates within one org, those with otherwise good cases were turned away by attorneys because a single unprotected class associate was retained. Of the ~10 associates laid off that day, precisely one was not in a protected class. And of the ~8 they DIDN'T lay off, only one was (in a protected class). That one associate saved them.
One of the RIF'd was straight up told by an attorney, after seeing the evidence the associate had compiled over the prior two years and agreeing it was damning, "you have a case here, but I can't take it, because this was a reduction in force and they kept another black person, and one who is older than you. It's nearly impossible to argue discrimination in a RIF, especially if those impacted are not all in the same protected class."
Anyway, the point is that if they had simply fired her, versus RIF'ing her, that attorney would've probably jumped at the chance of an easy settlement.
To compensate for WARN and to get the results wanted. Companies change severance to be tied to unemployment and reduce the payout to 50%. Not a bad deal for no bad press.
Mass firings would trigger the WARN Act because no severance is being paid when you are fired. They can get around the WARN Act by paying severance at the equivalent of the number of days (or longer) of the notification required by the act. So, yes, they could probably save money today by firing everyone but would then be hit with multiple lawsuits from individuals and possible legal action taken by federal and state governments and all of the bad press that goes with that.
Interesting thought, if RIF some disclosure requirements depending on state, if you fire a whole bunch of people with stock that has not vested, could be a say to save a lot of money (no stock, severance, health insurance).