[rndgermandude]

I wonder if this legally really is the case. Twitter seems to have asked "Do you still want to work here", giving an option to affirm. They didn't say "you have to go", they said "you may go if you do not like the new direction of the company, please tell us which one it is".

I'd be rather careful with that, and not just proclaim these people were terminated. I see a rather good chance court could rule very differently.

[apawloski]

The magic proclamation is actually going the other way. If the company is ending the employment, that is termination. The company does not get to simply say "well you've resigned."

Perhaps you're not arguing termination vs resignation but rather whether they're entitled to unemployment and wrongful termination protection? That's more open for debate, but the former employees are entitled to those considerations (which they would not be had they resigned).

[perlgeek]

Employment is managed by a contract.

Likely that contract doesn't have a clause that states it only remains valid if the employee clicks on "yes" in death march emails.

So, the contract remains valid until either the employee quits or the employer terminates. Not reacting to an email is not quitting.

I'm pretty sure that legally, the employees that received that email and didn't click/answer are still considered employees. They are only terminated once they received their actual termination papers, not an "if / then" email.

[LambdaComplex]

> Employment is managed by a contract.

In the USA? Not unless you're an executive (or an actual contractor).

(With that said, "Not reacting to an email is not quitting" is still a true statement)

[witheld]

You can’t send out an email asking “Do you NOT quit?”

Quitting is a process you do, you give a letter, or you tell your boss, or you stop showing up to work, anything else is termination

[dehrmann]

I'm guessing this is the case because "I didn't see the email" is plausible. I think all my jobs have asked for a one sentence resignation email to HR just so everyone's on the same page.

[watwut]

It you stop showing to work, it won't be quitting. Instead you will be terminated by employer for cause.

[Gene_Parmesan]

Saying "we are materially changing the terms of your employment, you can accept them or quit" is constructive discharge.

Besides, unemployment is one thing that is usually very liberally decided in the employee's favor, given that you are effectively paying for it.

[klyrs]

Even if you think they "quit" that's still extremely clear-cut constructive dismissal.

[nocoiner]

There is very, very little chance a California court would rule the way you imagine.

[nprateem]

California labour laws don't apply globally

[scotty79]

> "Do you still want to work here"

Many stably employed people would answer "no" to that question (if they could be honest) and kept working.

[twixfel]

Is it that simple though? By your logic it's possible to never fire anyone, just change the contract until they resign... doesn't really make sense to me.

[rndgermandude]

No, I didn't say that. And there it really becomes tricky, If they try to unilaterally change terms of the contract, they cannot do that. However, at the same time an employee is not entitled to dictate the direction of a company. I am pretty sure a lot of the "perks" that might go away in favor or "hardcore mode" weren't contractually guaranteed. The terms of the employment contract wouldn't have changed then. If they muddle around e.g. with pay or work hours that would be quite different.

I don't really see the "constructive dismissal" argument either that others brought up, as that would require the employer deliberately creating a hostile work environment. Just saying "we're going into hardcore mode" and taking away some perks that weren't guaranteed wouldn't yet fulfill that. There might be of course other shit that twitter/Musk pulled/pulls that may legally satisfy a constructive dismissal. The email, in my laypersons view, wouldn't be enough.

However there is a strong point about the "missed the email" argument, and the non-affirmative nature of the "resignations" it creates. I think that's a rather strong point in favor of the employees. But then again, never underestimate courts ability to render "surprising" rulings.

My guess is though that twitter would not just "dismiss" everybody who did not respond. At the very least HR would get in touch with those people anyway, at which point employees can say "oh wait, what email?". I'd think the email is just meant as a pre-filter to save time by filtering out what people you do not need to talk to because they want to stay anyway.

[CaptainZapp]

They phrased a little differently, though, didn't they?