Carta lays off 10% of the workforce Just got off company announcement, here are the key details: |
Carta lays off 10% of the workforce Just got off company announcement, here are the key details: |
> eShares Inc. d/b/a Carta Inc. filed a breach-of-contract and trade secrets lawsuit against former CTO Jerry O. Talton III on Friday in New York Southern District Court. The suit, brought by Dechert, accuses the defendant of leaking private, privileged and confidential info to outside parties in order to induce and assist legal claims against the company. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 1:22-cv-10987, eShares Inc. v. Talton.
https://www.law.com/radar/card/eshares-inc-v-talton-iii-4732...
It’s a consideration that they’ll have lots of questions that would have been “I don’t know, go find an attorney.” So now it’s “we paid this attorney to answer you up to 30 minutes.”
Visa holders are extra hosed during layoffs, but there’s not really any way to avoid this as you can’t favor visa holders to not be laid off.
It's your fucked unless your true love decided today was the day to get married!
Besides if you need an attorney for an immigration case it would be a massive amount of hours. The 30 minutes consultation is helpful to decide if you need to pursue a case.
I can't believe with all they are giving you still had to shit on it somehow.
I don't know Carta at all, but if they had an European branch and if I were an European employee that is being told "you're fired", well, they will have a really hard time doing it.
A) Voluntarily leave and get some sort of severance.
B) Wait and gamble that the company decides to ask you to leave.
If you wait and are not selected to leave, you likely won't get any severance. So if you are angling to leave, it's safer to just take the package.
The people who take voluntary leave are often the most able to quickly find a new job (i.e. the best people). So it is not in their best interest to incentivize that.
Either way, I'm more curious about those airtight NDAs on the way out
If interested, feel free to apply via our website at: https://www.liquifi.finance/
Or reach out to me directly at oliver@liqufi.finance
[1]: https://www.teamblind.com/post/Carta-announcing-layoffs-and-...
And now everyone and including their cats and dogs are all talking about a 'recession'. You're too late, it has already happened and it is lagging behind and taking effect. Should have prepared for that in November 2021.
You were warned.
So it's not firing but it's still perfectly possible to reduce headcount. What you can't do is the standard US move of firing everyone with zero notice by email.
This is incorrect. Every jurisdiction allows for laying people off to reduce costs. This is the primary thing a business is supposed to do -- hire when there is more work and fire when there is less work.
The only requirements in the EU are notification periods and filing the appropriate paperwork for mass layoffs -- known euphemistically as "collective redundancies". See here: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resources/employ...
Moreover European companies lay people off all the time during downturns as does everyone else.
Most likely because you could justify any firing to be "cost savings" and thus defeat the whole purpose of job stability.
Think about a tech company.. they could increase their staff by 25% for a year, using that team to advance products, meanwhile the new employees think they have a stable career on their hands.. but then the tech company is just like "nope, you are all fired". And they benefit into perpetuity for what the employees did while the employees are getting nothing more from that company and don't have a job.
Yes I'm oversimplifying, but that is part of what these laws are trying to avoid. It's unfair to the employees to have these mass hirings and mass firings with mass information asymmetry. In theory it would create more of a culture of "we hired you for the long term".
No idea about this case. But often it seems they're cutting cost because they think they can, not because they have to.
But if the company is shutting down a whole team without replacement, the employees should still get the option to relocate into another role. They can be let go only after that fails.
The exact specifics of the deal in our case were a little different for US and UK folks because of things like how healthcare works in the US being so completely awful so you have to figure out things like COBRA which would just not be a thing in Europe. That forced us to adjust things to make it equitable/equivalent for both US and UK folks, but we really tried our best to be fair to everyone.
While the base requirements are much higher in the UK/Europe than in the US if you have teams in both places, you should do whatever you can to offer broadly the same deal to both teams. Besides your basic duty as a human to be fair to people, note that your remaining employees will judge you based on how you treated their departing colleagues.
https://www.safeguardglobal.com/resources/blog/terminating-a...
If you are legitimately downsizing it is pretty easy. If you are trying to use "layoffs" as cover to cut the bottom x% of performers, you'll hit trouble.
There's a lot of benefit here for those who need guidance.
If each individual goes to a lawyer and they want the same treatment, it's not going to cost them $500, it will cost them significantly more.
Yes, it kind of is a raw deal for immigrants. But it’s one of many things that suck for immigrants (look at the fees immigration attorneys charge). The exchange is that they typically get a 2-5x multiplier in earnings from their home country and consider it worth the risk.
It’s kind of like med school and residency. It really sucks and is difficult and is a “raw deal” yet everyone puts up with it because of the payout.
In a land of immigrants - having such a poor immigration process for highly skilled employees will only mean that the best and the brightest talent will no longer be interested in moving to the US when they could get treated much more fairly in other countries. The result will be the workforce will be filled with mediocre and sub-par talent who are willing to go through the painful delays in the immigration process.
The evidence of millions of people putting up with it refutes your statement. I think the immigration record in the US shows that people literally think the pain is worth it.
That is quite common, especially in the developed world. The US is a little stricter in the timelines and thresholds it applies, but not as much more as people seem to think.
Immigrants get a raw deal everywhere, especially immigrants from developing countries.
I don't know where you get this idea but that is absolutely not the case.
There are also visa in the US that have nothing to do with employment.