The article doesn't even explain on what ground these people are suing. I'm sorry, but a tweet saying "people laid off will get x months of severance" is kind of worthless.
How can this article go on and on and not mention what these people are legally entitled to as per their country's employment legislation?
"They said they were initially told that, although their contracts were being terminated, they would be paid to work for one more month. But they were immediately locked out of their emails and no further salary payments were made.
In July, the BBC reported that the Africa ex-employees alleged that X had "ghosted" them in the middle of the negotiations, leaving them without severance pay and other work benefits, such as health insurance, stocks and shares options and unpaid leave allowances."
I would like to know what was actually in the contract. Being told something is wind until it is either enforced by a local law or in the signed contract.
If I get let go tomorrow, HR can tell me they'll compensate me with a baby unicorn, it has no value.
You do realize that verbal agreements are, in fact, binding? Just because companies can get away with breaking the law in instances such as this doesn't mean you can't be upset at them breaking the law.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64381582
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter-lawsuit-he...
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/elon-mu...
It's a deadbeat company.