We are entitled to being paid for not working. That is what is morally right. Of course the Republicans are stupid and think you should be required to work for what you are paid. That is morally wrong, and it goes against the concept of basic income.

No, you're a moron making a strawman argument.

If you think that working for a company for years, to get laid off and have zero severance is in any way a sensible thing, then you're an idiot who thinks the rest of the world should take it up the ass to benefit corporations.

Because I don't hear any Republicans saying how evil it is when CEOs get multi-million dollar severance packages for being incompetent. They act like it's well deserved.

But let's not pretend that this is a case of "getting paid for nothing". This is a case of "corporations don't get to fuck employees over for their own benefit".

Since there are Republican candidates who have received massive corporate payouts when they lost their job ... don't even pretend this is any different.

You're a moron. The rest world doesn't think in terms of "Republican" and "Democrat" -- just you guys.

They also don't think in terms of being 100% douchebag capitalist, or 100% socialist. Because they're not morons incapable of understanding the whole picture of how to balance society's needs with those of corporations.

Corporations aren't some magical construct -- it's a bunch of people looking out for their own interests. That doesn't mean they should be entitled to do that at someone else's expense.

Except the Republicans seem to champion the idea of douchebag capitalism as some form of moral idea, and then make stupid statements like you just did.

Are you somehow suggesting that in a failing corporation, the people who were laid off without proper severance should fall on their swords to protect other people? Why? Some noble sacrifice for the company?

Honestly, pick one .. greedy capitalism, or altruism.

But some countries, even though they allow greedy capitalism, they also have laws to protect employees. Which is a good thing -- sure, run a business, be profitable. Awesome!! Everybody wins, life is good.

But don't think that entitles you to treat your employees like serfs who should be grateful to work for a company who will screw them over at the first chance.

Would you sacrifice yourself for a company who laid you off, or for its remaining employees? Because if you would you're an idiot.

What you're advocating is: for the benefit of a company who has laid you off, who (in violation of the law) has failed to pay severance .. that people should say "wow, the company could go under, I should sacrifice myself so that doesn't happen".

Again, if you would do that you are an idiot.

Honestly, who the hell is going to perform a charitable act to benefit the company who laid them off?

If they didn't have the cash to pay out separation pay, what were they paying the remaining employees with in another month. The shareholders clearly let them walk into that trap by not properly structuring the layoff to match cash flow.

No, it means that this wasn't the first time they'd been in this mess, and the shareholders were more willing to cut their losses than double down on losing even more.

This wasn't the first time Mandriva struggled to make ends meet. It had some epic troubles in 2010, right before Croset joined, that resulted in layoffs and the exit of its founder.

After so many years of struggle, the shareholders didn't want to put up more money to save Mandriva, and the company was forced into bankruptcy,

This company sounds like it had been struggling for a long time, and would have failed anyway.

In which case the employees who said "give me my damned money now" spared themselves from being the ones with no chair when the music stopped.

What the shareholders didn't do is throw good money after bad.

The ex-employees got paid, and in fact as CEO makes clear had the court allowed say 'installment payments' or 'deferred payments' rather than 'all the money right now' they may have been able to hang on, but no.

Or, they might have still failed, and the employees would have been left behind with nothing.

These 'greedy ex-employees' wanted their money & 'be damned with who gets hurt'.

Who gives a fuck? They've been laid off, they owe nothing to the company, and getting left holding bag isn't their problem.

That doesn't change the fact the company was legally obligated to pay them.

Your obvious belief that the company owes any single indivdiual employee anything

First off, it's the fucking law that they have to pay severance. So, by law, they sure as hell do owe employees something ... your idiotic belief that workers should be grateful to a have a job and suck it up if they get fired is irrational libertarian drivel.

as opposed to 'in the best interests of the company & as many employees as we can save' is telling.

Are you actually giving me the "needs of the many" crap with regards to a fucking corporation? That employees should forego their severance from a failing company for the "greater good"? Because now you're talking bullshit out of both sides of your mouth.

Why the fuck should any employee put the "best interests of the company & as many employees"? You think employees should give their employers one final act of altruism and sacrifice? For what? Shareholder fucking value?

The corporation doesn't give a fuck about your welfare, they have no business expecting you to give a damn about theirs.

Your selfish & its all about you.

You're fucking right I am. I'm selfish in the exact same way the corporations are -- I'm here to look out for myself. The only difference is in civilized countries there are laws which say you have to give employees severance so that the greedy, selfish assholes who run corporations can't just shit on their employees for their own gain.

Isn't "enlightened self interest" the whole fucking point of capitalism?

Not bending over so the corporation which laid you off can skip out on paying you what they owe you in the hopes that they might come out of it ... that is completely irrational from the perspective of the ex-employees. and somehow says "for the greater good, we should all sacrifice ourselves in the name of corporate profits".

Fuck that.

When the company began to run into problems from external sources the laws of the country we had set up in did not give us the flexibility we needed to continue trading and maintain at least some of the worker's jobs.

No, if you read TFA, it really comes down to the people they had "restructured" out of jobs found that the company lacked the liquidity to pay them their legally required severance, and a court agreed to pay them so they didn't become victims of a failing company trying to buy time.

Sorry, but if you think the employees should roll over and get fucked and not get paid so that company can try to stay in business ... you're sadly mistaken.

You may think it's perfectly reasonable to expect employees to get screwed over to keep the company going, but the rest of the world doesn't.

These kinds of laws exist precisely so you can't just fire people for free. America may think at-will employment because it lets corporations be greedy douchebags -- but the rest of the world has pretty much figured out that screwing over the employees to benefit the corporation is a stupid fucking idea.

Because they probably would have gone under anyway. Any employee who would voluntarily get screwed to keep the company going is an idiot. Because they sure as hell won't do it for you.

Boo hoo. A corporation didn't get to leave its employees holding the bag.

No sympathy whatsoever.

Yeah, no kidding ... failing company gets ordered to pay employees before the business folds and they get nothing is not something which evokes much sympathy.

Because I can't tell you have many companies have folded, leaving the employees with nothing, but a CEO who has managed to come out of it quite well.

Sorry, but you're the CEO ... which means the buck stops at you, not you get to skip off with your severance while everybody else gets screwed over.

Mandriva SA went out of business following a few court decisions upon action of former employees, who had been dismissed as a part of the restructuring process in 2013. As the labour laws are very generous towards the employees in France, those court decisions forced the company to announce bankruptcy, as the cash available was not sufficient to cover the amounts due and the shareholders did not want to cover them.

In other words, you were about to go out of business, and instead of leaving the employees with nothing they took what was theirs before you stiffed them and went under anyway.

Sorry, but employers don't give a damn about us. I see no reason to give a damn about them ... and certainly not to the point of not getting paid so the business can fail anyway. Who the hell is going to do that for a company who laid them off?

Sounds like he'd have happily left them with nothing if he'd had the chance. I can't see any reason why the former employees would have done anything but fight for their severance.

In Soviet Russia, internet trolls you

It's OK, 1987 is too busy snorting cocaine and being a selfish bastard to notice.

This is not a NASA project, so you've made a stunningly basic error in your first sentence. Not looking too good for attention to detail for someone "in the professional software field".

LOL .. no disrespect to the GP, but that level of attention to detail explains a lot about many commercial software products.

Just sayin'.

LOL ... don't speak for 1987, it hates that.

You know, somehow I'm betting a significant chunk of Slashdotters can't do a running jump without falling on their ass. ;-)

You drive for Yellow Cab, eh?

You're completely fucking stupid, eh?

Look, whatever libertarian fantasy world you live in which says a company gets to ignore regulations because their asshole business model says they're special is full of shit. In fact, it's downright delusional. "Boo hoo, teh regulations are teh evil. Horseshit.

Uber like to paint themselves as some crusading underdog being oppressed by the taxi lobby -- but that;'s a crock of shit.

They're a company dispatching bootleg cabs. That's it.

Followed by a temper tantrum that it's OK for them to break the law because they say so.

Sorry, but childish selfish douchebag isn't a business model. This is just more .com era crap of a tech company thinking they're magical because they say so.

I don't give a shit about skirting regulation or attacking the comfortable regulated complancency of the taxi cab industry. This however, this disgusts me.

But it's all part of the same thing: we're special, and the rules don't apply to us, and in order to prop up our shit business model of ignoring the law, we're also going to be spamming assholes.

Basically their entire MO is to be assholes.

Yet another tech company which thinks the unicorn poop makes them magical and special.

And, of course, since they've given themselves permission to share with 3rd parties (again, to make themselves money) ... then they've also give permission to doxx them and their families.

Everything about this screams "greedy assholes trying to leverage your personal information for profit while loudly saying taxi regulations don't apply"

The more I hear about Uber, the harder is is to think this isn't a purely criminal enterprise.

Let's see, you want to do location tracking of everybody with your app, and you want access to their private information, and you claim the right to pass that on to 3rd parties ... yeah, no.

How about drop dead you greedy bastards?

This is quite honestly why I'm getting away from apps.

Generally, the web page works just fine from mobile, and you don't need to worry about the shit they're doing behind the scenes.

This whole "oh, just give us access to your contact list and we'll spam them" is crap. Same for things which say "hey, just give us your email password and we'll load your contacts".

How about piss off, and keep your hands off my private information.

Someone needs to start pelting the owners of Uber with eggs. Because this screams of greedy assholes deciding they get to have access to your entire phone.

In which case they deserve to die as a company as fast as possible.

If someone didn't explicitly opt-in to receive stuff from you, you have no business sending them stuff. In fact, isn't it illegal?