I agree. The externality of layoffs gets partially transferred to the company and they're required to provide 3 months of salary for each impacted employee. It appears to work better for American companies AND workers. Both earn far more than their European peers who don't experience comparable layoff frequency.
what makes you say they gave you severence because of warn. severance has been a thing way before warn usually to save the hassle of legal challenges, employees badmouthing on social media ect.
> what makes you say they gave you severence because of warn
You are correct–WARN requires advance notice (where one is paid for the period after said notice, during which one is employed). It does not require severance [1].
That said, they have measurable benefits. Mini-WARN acts, when properly written, measurably increase notice periods [2]. That reduces "reemployment earnings losses and the probability of post-displacement unemployment" [3].
(I can't say if these benefits outweigh their costs. But it's false to say they have no, or no substantial, effect.)
I think what they meant to say is that they dont need to give you warn if they give you serverance. They file warn after layoffs and count severance as warn.
But ppl were getting severance even before warn ( due to other reasons i mentioned in my previous comment) so warn act had no impact on us.
FMLA is another joke. They simply lay you off in next round of layoffs ( which is just around the corner). This happened to me and several ppl i know.
