Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

Good to note they are keeping those laid off on health insurance for 6 months which hasn’t been done to my knowledge in the past. So basically if they do pay 6 months severance plus the health insurance it could be a way around some of any rules. I’ve never heard of that Act mentioned but I’m also in a right to work state

Given this is mass-layoff (numerous leadership communication seems to establish that), seems 60days notification is required. May be June 1st email was that notification, which could mean last employment day could be July 31st. (An individual case could be treated as an at-will situation with 14days notice). Either HR will clarify/change specifics of notification, or ask "clear your desk" in 14 days and still pay for 60 days.

Reference: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2010-title20-vol3/xml/CFR-2010-title20-vol3-part639.xml

Purpose of WARN. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN or the Act) provides protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. Advance notice provides workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to successfully compete in the job market. WARN also provides for notice to State dislocated worker units so that dislocated worker assistance can be promptly provided.

Ok I was one of the persons causing the confusion. Sorry about that. I have some clarification on the WARN act and ATT. I spoke to a labor attorney and she told me the WARN act was triggered last week when the company send out the email saying there will be job cuts. in the past when the company gave non bargained for employees up to 60 days or more notice that was NOT due to the WARN act but due to business reasons by the company to qualify for severance payment. With that said, the company can now come to a non bargained for person, give them a termination letter effective the next day not 60 days. So what that means is if you are non bargained for, you probably will get no more than 14 days notice that you are off payroll. Hope this helps.

How is that a violation of the WARN Act? AT&T or any at-will company in an at-will employment state can show you the door today. Union employees may have a contract that says otherwise but not management or non-union. AT&T operates in all states and with several locations. As long as it does not exceed the WARN threshold at one state/ location they can lay off thousands across the country in one day and not need WARN statement. Also severance would take care of most if not any WARN penalties.

figures the viral senior management taking advantage of people when they are down. pretty much the lowest of the low and goes right along with their billing practices and stealing pension from former employees. it is all just about stanky's speed.

https://www.plansponsor.com/att-sued-calculation-early-retirement-benefits/

COVID counts as a natural disaster, as did the purchase of TW.

Also, many states also have their own version of the WARN Act, so there's no "one size fits all" answer to the question.

From the WORKER’S Guide to Advance Notice of Closings and Layoffs booklet published by the Dept of Labor at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/layoffs/warn

You may be protected by WARN if your job loss occurs as part of:
• A plant closing (see glossary)—where your employer shuts down a
facility or operating unit (see glossary) within a single site of employment
(see glossary and FAQs) and lays off at least 50 full-time workers;
• A mass layoff (see glossary)—where your employer lays off either
between 50 and 499 full-time workers at a single site of employment
and that number is 33% of the number of full-time workers at the single
site of employment; or
• A situation where your employer (see glossary) lays off 500 or more
full-time workers at a single site of employment.

Stankey has made it a point for years that it's not his job to care about employees' lives, so he doesn't.
I have zero doubt that if this were 200 years ago the guy would be a proud slave-owner.

He has sociopathic tendencies, which unfortunately are necessary for ascension in the AT&T culture. The only thing that will change any of this is for someone outside the old SBC/AT&T pipeline to come in as CEO and clean house.