View Single Post
Old 10-26-12 | 07:30 AM
  #9  
cafzali
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 2
From: Westchester County, NY

Bikes: Giant TCR SL3 and Trek 1.5

Originally Posted by downtube42
We have an announced reduction in force, and for reasons I don't need to explain here I'm at significant risk for being RIFfed

Generally there's a severance offer based on years of service. I have not heard anything this year, but in the past it's been as much as 1 month per year of service, which would be 15 for me. I'm guessing significantly less this time, but I don't know. You're given the option of a lump sum or continued paychecks with full benefits for the duration. The cost is signing a paper saying 1) I won't sue, 2) I won't go to work for a supplier, and 3) I won't go to work for a competitor. Refuse to sign the paper and I walk out with nothing. Terminated exempt employees are permanently ineligible for re-hire.

15 months pay would be a no-brainer, a virtual lottery win. But what if it's 3 months or 2 months or 1? The reduced employment options hurt - many of my professional contacts will be unable to help.
Unfortunately, this is still going around a lot these days, despite the fact that the economy is getting better. Not sure what your specific questions are, but perhaps this guidance will help a bit. For tax purposes, you're probably better off taking continued checks rather than a lump sum. You can ask to make sure, but there are times when lump sum payments are taxed at a higher rate than your traditional bracket. This is definitely true of bonus income, but may not be the case with your lump sum. That said, there's no risk in spreading the payments out. Also, the cost of benefits bought on the open market is quite expensive, even though you will have the option to continue benefits through COBRA at a reduced cost. Still, I'd keep continued payments to stay on the benefits.

As far as the other issues, this is standard legalese. Courts have consistently ruled that no matter what's on these papers, non-compete clauses can't be overbroad. In other words, saying that you can't go to work for a competitor is tantamount to saying you don't have the legal right to earn a living in the future. If you went to work for a competitor and your soon-to-be former employer sued, there's very little doubt that it would stand up in court. Giving up the right to sue is enforceable, but you probably weren't looking to do that anyway.
cafzali is offline  
Reply