FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised MITRE is so open about its RIFs because others do it quietly without announcements.

Like who?

RAND for one. The first round was announced as a RIF and as such, they met their reporting and announcment requirements. The subsequent rounds have been rebranded and handled very quietly, even telling each person that they are not part of a larger group, which doesn’t appear to actually be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised MITRE is so open about its RIFs because others do it quietly without announcements.

Like who?

RAND for one. The first round was announced as a RIF and as such, they met their reporting and announcment requirements. The subsequent rounds have been rebranded and handled very quietly, even telling each person that they are not part of a larger group, which doesn’t appear to actually be the case.

You and your coworkers need to consult an employment law firm ASAP. You and your family could get a nice settlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised MITRE is so open about its RIFs because others do it quietly without announcements.

Like who?

RAND for one. The first round was announced as a RIF and as such, they met their reporting and announcment requirements. The subsequent rounds have been rebranded and handled very quietly, even telling each person that they are not part of a larger group, which doesn’t appear to actually be the case.

Isn’t your CEO part of that weird new age effective altruism movement? This doesn’t sound altruistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised MITRE is so open about its RIFs because others do it quietly without announcements.

Like who?

RAND for one. The first round was announced as a RIF and as such, they met their reporting and announcment requirements. The subsequent rounds have been rebranded and handled very quietly, even telling each person that they are not part of a larger group, which doesn’t appear to actually be the case.

You and your coworkers need to consult an employment law firm ASAP. You and your family could get a nice settlement.

It was probably under the threshold for reporting. Even MITRE only has had one WARN notice in Virginia, and that was for June, even though they've had other layoffs. There's no additional legal requirement that you tell someone you're laying off how many people you're laying off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised MITRE is so open about its RIFs because others do it quietly without announcements.

Like who?

RAND for one. The first round was announced as a RIF and as such, they met their reporting and announcment requirements. The subsequent rounds have been rebranded and handled very quietly, even telling each person that they are not part of a larger group, which doesn’t appear to actually be the case.

You and your coworkers need to consult an employment law firm ASAP. You and your family could get a nice settlement.

It was probably under the threshold for reporting. Even MITRE only has had one WARN notice in Virginia, and that was for June, even though they've had other layoffs. There's no additional legal requirement that you tell someone you're laying off how many people you're laying off.

If the company is actively misrepresenting the nature and scope of the layoffs to individual employees to avoid the appearance of a WARN-triggering event, this could strengthen a potential legal claim by employees. It suggests a potential attempt to evade the spirit (if not the strict letter) of the law and could be a factor in arguments related to breach of good faith or other employment law claims, especially when combined with the alleged "rebranding" of the layoff rounds. PP should consult a lawyer. MITRE and RAND should hire good outside counsel if this is how they are handling RIFs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised MITRE is so open about its RIFs because others do it quietly without announcements.

Like who?

RAND for one. The first round was announced as a RIF and as such, they met their reporting and announcment requirements. The subsequent rounds have been rebranded and handled very quietly, even telling each person that they are not part of a larger group, which doesn’t appear to actually be the case.

You and your coworkers need to consult an employment law firm ASAP. You and your family could get a nice settlement.

It was probably under the threshold for reporting. Even MITRE only has had one WARN notice in Virginia, and that was for June, even though they've had other layoffs. There's no additional legal requirement that you tell someone you're laying off how many people you're laying off.

If the company is actively misrepresenting the nature and scope of the layoffs to individual employees to avoid the appearance of a WARN-triggering event, this could strengthen a potential legal claim by employees. It suggests a potential attempt to evade the spirit (if not the strict letter) of the law and could be a factor in arguments related to breach of good faith or other employment law claims, especially when combined with the alleged "rebranding" of the layoff rounds. PP should consult a lawyer. MITRE and RAND should hire good outside counsel if this is how they are handling RIFs.

If the employee is at-will and the number of layoffs is well below the reporting threshold, what claims do you have in mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised MITRE is so open about its RIFs because others do it quietly without announcements.

Like who?

RAND for one. The first round was announced as a RIF and as such, they met their reporting and announcment requirements. The subsequent rounds have been rebranded and handled very quietly, even telling each person that they are not part of a larger group, which doesn’t appear to actually be the case.

You and your coworkers need to consult an employment law firm ASAP. You and your family could get a nice settlement.

It was probably under the threshold for reporting. Even MITRE only has had one WARN notice in Virginia, and that was for June, even though they've had other layoffs. There's no additional legal requirement that you tell someone you're laying off how many people you're laying off.

If the company is actively misrepresenting the nature and scope of the layoffs to individual employees to avoid the appearance of a WARN-triggering event, this could strengthen a potential legal claim by employees. It suggests a potential attempt to evade the spirit (if not the strict letter) of the law and could be a factor in arguments related to breach of good faith or other employment law claims, especially when combined with the alleged "rebranding" of the layoff rounds. PP should consult a lawyer. MITRE and RAND should hire good outside counsel if this is how they are handling RIFs.

If the employee is at-will and the number of layoffs is well below the reporting threshold, what claims do you have in mind?

This. And in Virginia all employment is at will -- unless there is a specific signed written agreement otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised MITRE is so open about its RIFs because others do it quietly without announcements.

Like who?

RAND for one. The first round was announced as a RIF and as such, they met their reporting and announcment requirements. The subsequent rounds have been rebranded and handled very quietly, even telling each person that they are not part of a larger group, which doesn’t appear to actually be the case.

You and your coworkers need to consult an employment law firm ASAP. You and your family could get a nice settlement.

It was probably under the threshold for reporting. Even MITRE only has had one WARN notice in Virginia, and that was for June, even though they've had other layoffs. There's no additional legal requirement that you tell someone you're laying off how many people you're laying off.

If the company is actively misrepresenting the nature and scope of the layoffs to individual employees to avoid the appearance of a WARN-triggering event, this could strengthen a potential legal claim by employees. It suggests a potential attempt to evade the spirit (if not the strict letter) of the law and could be a factor in arguments related to breach of good faith or other employment law claims, especially when combined with the alleged "rebranding" of the layoff rounds. PP should consult a lawyer. MITRE and RAND should hire good outside counsel if this is how they are handling RIFs.

If the employee is at-will and the number of layoffs is well below the reporting threshold, what claims do you have in mind?

This. And in Virginia all employment is at will -- unless there is a specific signed written agreement otherwise.

DP here who is an employment lawyer (defense side).

The issue is whether an employer is actively misrepresenting what they think is "well below" the reporting threshold. MITRE and RAND need to ensure they are not creating an avoidable pattern of fraudulent intent that could aggregate the layoffs or serve as pretext for other, more serious claims - especially for jurisdictions like California.

[Anonymous]

Never a good sign when DCUM is debating how much liability your FFRDC is exposed to from laying off your coworkers on a Sunday morning……

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never a good sign when DCUM is debating how much liability your FFRDC is exposed to from laying off your coworkers on a Sunday morning……

There have been massive funding cuts that have affected FFRDCs and all other categories of contractors. I don't think you would need to track DCUM to know that a lot of organizations aren't in a good place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never a good sign when DCUM is debating how much liability your FFRDC is exposed to from laying off your coworkers on a Sunday morning……

There have been massive funding cuts that have affected FFRDCs and all other categories of contractors. I don't think you would need to track DCUM to know that a lot of organizations aren't in a good place.

RAND seems to be in worse shape because an inexperienced CEO buys you these kinds of problems as seen by the lack of preparation for this current administration. Case in point..... https://puck.news/whats-next-for-ai-in-trumps-washington-after-bbb-failure/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised MITRE is so open about its RIFs because others do it quietly without announcements.

They're not open about it. Nothing on Google. But word of mouth gets out quickly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised MITRE is so open about its RIFs because others do it quietly without announcements.

They're not open about it. Nothing on Google. But word of mouth gets out quickly

They have internal announcements with expected numbers

[Anonymous]

MITRE layoffs are supposedly happening today. I know someone who received an email invite over the weekend to meet today with HR and the manager of that person’s manager. Pretty crappy way to handle this.

[Anonymous]

Sadly, sometimes if the employee's direct manager is not listed in the Mtg. invitation, it might mean that they have been RIF'd as well. I am very, very sorry for all affected.