Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Any company that does layoffs should immediately have all their visas revoked

This is dumb, but not directionally. Any company that has done a lay-off shouldn’t be allowed to apply for visas for 2 years, with a 5-year probationary period thereafter during which if they do layoffs again the penalty jumps to 5 years.



Seems like if you learn you have too many experts in X and instead need experts in Y you should be able to have layoffs for X but still hire for and get visas for Y.


We absolutely have companies that systematically binge and purge on employees. The WARN Act thresholds seem apt for such limits.


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.


warn act is a joke and a mockery


> warn act is a joke and a mockery

Irrelevant. Is its definition of a layoff good for these purposes?


I was glad it was in place when I was impacted by a layoff. It was the difference between severance and none.


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.)

[1] https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/eta/warn/faqs.asp#:~:text=WARN...

[2] https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentar...

[3] https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v44y1991i4p681-691.html...


> It does not require severance [1].

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.


Flat 20 year ban would be simpler to implement.


> Flat 20 year ban would be simpler to implement

And structurally advantageous to incumbent firms with access to easy capital with which to ride downturns.


Why wouldn't they just layoff their visa workers in a downturn.


> Why wouldn't they just layoff their visa workers in a downturn

Which they?

Hell, if this law passed I’d bet there would be opportunity for PE to buy the assets off a company that has done a layoff, fold the original company, and reboot it. Being locked out of 95% of the world population for twenty years is a real competitive disadvantage.


What if there's a few year downturn, so they lay off and want to hire back when it passes? Force them to hire offshore instead?


Are they incapable of hiring Americans? Like it's treated as a given no company would ever hire an American, it's absurd.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: