This is pure speculation, but it seems impact are smaller than we expected (still a lot though).
Could this be the result of the big mess and employees response to leadership, including the all hands, that forced them to scale down?
Is 1700 or 2% still the impact, as was announced?
Now this is a Nike conversation that feels like home! Lots of back and forth and spinning out over one topic! Nike meetings!
Ultimately, there’s a letter and it reads pretty clear. 😂
@llx where did I write anywhere this is being blown out of proportion? I have two posts here prior to this one, you know which they are and you can read them for yourself.
There are probably 7 threads on the main page right now and many more since Christmas with people trying to interpret WARN with tea leaves and Tarot readings. I read the room, which is why I posted. Maybe you should try reading the code if you're the prior poster and at the very least the posts you're responding to.
Required reading
https://www.parkerpoe.com/news/2016/02/warn-act-does-not-prohibit-employers-from-spacing
@qav+1saEZoui We can’t believe we work with you either, given you seem to be posting the same things repeatedly to do what exactly? Besides telling everyone the numbers are small and we are blowing this out of proportion.
Read the room
@jrf d0000000000000000d @weg here, the message I JUST posted was quite literally for people doing what you're doing: guessing and making sh-t up.
I even posted a link to the actual FEDERAL FU--ING CODE and you clearly didn't bother to try to consume it before posting. WARN itself describes, if you would just spend 15 minutes educating yourself, how you're incorrect (spoiler alert: Nov and Dec aren't required to aggregate)
I can't even believe I work with some people who post here.
Here the definition of "single site" https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=ef2b4cfeb3e9b0bc37efa5ade72e772f&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:20:Chapter:V:Part:639:639.3
The key component is here
(1) A single site of employment can refer to either a single location or a group of contiguous locations. Groups of structures which form a campus or industrial park, or separate facilities across the street from one another, may be considered a single site of employment.
They don’t have to file warn.
Source+ I was laid off in December and my paperwork gave me a list of those also laid off by title above a certain age. Given that I’ve compared with others who have their own lists in feb and November, the numbers are definitely more than 740 total for this timeline.
BTW, Layoffs seem to be done for the day, and we are just a bit under 500 for the day. They definitely put the hustle to the changes this time around as whole orgs are already getting the all clear. This is total, not WHQ, so don't try and math these into the WARN count
@weg+1saEZoui it’s literally not though! 200 people in November and December + 400 some in February doesn’t equate to 150 people now. There are more than 150 people being laid off now and the warn quote of “June and prior” is so vague you are speaking like you know the number and you don’t.
They for sure wouldn’t shut down campus for 200 people now and not have done so in feb or December
Doesn't feel small to my team today (in brand creative)
Every time WARN comes up a handful of confidently incorrect mo--ns seem to swarm this site with misinformation followed by a wave of anxious people asking legitimate questions. How about let's stop guessing.
The number reported of involuntary, not for cause terminations (employment loss) in the window of 90 days AT WHQ prior to and including June 28 is 740. This is per CFR 639.5. Obviously this includes phase 1 payroll end dates, which for WHQ is today a bit of an unknown number. The importance of defining the SINGLE SITE OF EMPLOYMENT as CFR 639.3 is something a lot of people are missing and has nothing to do with our records and everything to do with the federal definition. CFR 639.3 is REALLY IMPORTANT to understanding how this all works.
To said mo--ns being rightly downvoted, GO FU--ING READ THE RULE YOU LAZY FU--S https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/chapter-V/part-639?toc=1
To anyone else, please just read the rule if you have questions, its very straightforward and you should understand how it impacts you
WARN is REQUIRED to show all phases of a layoff, even if the reporting period is beyond 90 days. 740 includes all workers for this entire layoff (phase 1 and Phase 2) of people who are coded in HR system with a location of WHQ. DOesn't include remote, doesn't include other offices in the state or around the world. That means out of the ~1600 layoffs, almost half of them are from WHQ directly, which certainly seems reasonable.
We’re at about 480 people +/- a few
The reporting about this is confusing. It says 740 workers in Oregon are impacted but refers to two layoff waves for those 740 people: February and April. I take this to mean that this week’s layoffs are about half that number. I doubt we’ll ever know for sure.
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2024/04/nike-says-ongoing-layoffs-will-impact-740-in-oregon.html?outputType=amp
No. WARN has to document the time period and the amount of employees being laid off. 740 is for this period only.
The WARN notice of 740 seems to omit those that have already happened earlier this year and end of last year.
740 total for both rounds = WHQ region. There's still Converse, EMEA etc.
So how do we get to the 1,700 mentioned by the company a few months ago?
I could be wrong but I think the total for Oregon was 740, with about half of those having already been done. Which would mean about 300+ let go this week.
Please correct me if anyone knows different.
We're at ~450 let go today. The WARN was for 740 so I think we're on track for this being about what the WARN letter indicated.