Fair Severance - Merging company

[gurumagic]

California

My company recently announced a merger with another company. Some employees will remain with the company, but many are being laid off.

The severance offered verbally so far is something like this


employee will be eligible for x number of weeks based on length of employeement. Lets say 5 years gets you 10 weeks

if asked to stay during the merger, 6 -9 months tentatively, there will be an additional bonus where warranted.

Now some employees are being told that there last day will be as soon as May (~ 2 - months) If they are a 5 year employee they will get 10 weeks pay at that time.

However, others are being asked to stay for 6 - 9 months. If they are a 5 year employee they will get 10 weeks pay and potentially a bonus, but they get neither until the 6-9 month period is up.

This seems very unfair to employees that have dedicated so much time to the company to say if they don't stay until there is no more use that they don't even get the weekly severance.

I'm guessing that this is perfectly legal, but it seems that if an employer offers up a severance package to all the employees being termed, that it should be equally fair across the board.

Am i just living in a fantasy world?

Any attention to the matter is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Beth3]

Now some employees are being told that there last day will be as soon as May (~ 2 - months) If they are a 5 year employee they will get 10 weeks pay at that time. Two weeks pay per year of service is a generous severance offer, particularly since an employer is not required to provide any severance at all.

However, others are being asked to stay for 6 - 9 months. If they are a 5 year employee they will get 10 weeks pay and potentially a bonus, but they get neither until the 6-9 month period is up. No employer is going to provide severance while an employee is still working and receiving compensation.

This seems very unfair to employees that have dedicated so much time to the company to say if they don't stay until there is no more use that they don't even get the weekly severance. The situation you are describing is quite commonplace when a merger or even a plant/company shut-down is announced. Some positions are eliminated quite quickly; others can be asked to stay for quite some time.

This seems very unfair to employees that have dedicated so much time to the company to say if they don't stay until there is no more use that they don't even get the weekly severance. I understand what you're saying but again, an employer is not going to provide severance when continued employment is being offered. Plus the employees who are being asked to stay will continue to have six - nine months of continuing employment, at the very least. Who knows how long it will take those who are let go soon to find new jobs?

I'm guessing that this is perfectly legal, but it seems that if an employer offers up a severance package to all the employees being termed, that it should be equally fair across the board. It is being offered equally. Everyone who stays until their jobs are eliminated (whether that's two months or nine months) are eligible for the same severance benefit. Your position appears to be that anyone who elects to quit should also receive severance. It just doesn't work that way.

Am i just living in a fantasy world? I don't know that I'd call it a fantasy world but you aren't being realistic. If you and others elect to quit prior to your jobs being eliminated, presumably because new jobs have been found, there's no reason at all for the employer to pay any severance.

 

[gurumagic]

Thank you

Thank you for your reply.

I'm sure they are not doing anything wrong, it's just that other companies that I've seen go through this had set a merge date, giving everyone that qualified a severance package and if they decided to keep you on longer, you could negotiate that seperately. I guess those companies were being more generous.

I certainly can see why they are doing it the way they are, but it still feels like the employees that are asked to stay are on the short end of severance just for being "needed".

Thank you very much for your comments and for taking the time to read my post.