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.
Irrelevant. Is its definition of a layoff good for these purposes?
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...
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.
And structurally advantageous to incumbent firms with access to easy capital with which to ride downturns.
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.