Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Common Law of EmploymentComparative Work LawEmployment RegulationUnited StatesWrongful Dismissal

Severance rights for the 99%

by Rachel Arnow-Richman June 30, 2020
written by Rachel Arnow-Richman June 30, 2020

Written by Professor Rachel Arnow-Richman, Chauncey Wilson Memorial Research Professor & Director of the Workplace Law Program at the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law.

[Editorial Note: For Canadian readers, U.S. employment law presumes “at will” employment, meaning that either party can terminate the employment contract with no notice or pay in lieu of notice, as is required under most employment contracts in Canada. Professor Arnow-Richman is the leading academic voice in the U.S. arguing for American law to adopt a Canadian style legal obligation on employers to provide some form of severance pay for displaced employees. This article also appears in the Denver Post as an op-ed]

In a period of historic unemployment, news of layoffs and salary cuts barely command attention.  Still recent reports of furloughs and other labor cost-saving measures by profitable healthcare conglomerates raise eyebrows. These hospitals, which received billions in federal COVID funds, continue to dole out millions to their highest-earners while front-line medical providers and lower-paid workers suffer the brunt of the cuts.

Part of the problem is insufficient oversight of government funds. Congress could have imposed more conditions on deep-pocket industry recipients, requiring them to maintain a minimum percentage of their pre-COVID payroll and workforce levels.  Lawmakers had no problem doing this with small business owners seeking forgivable loans under the recently enacted payroll protection program.  Intended to help businesses meet payroll and overhead during state closures, those funds had so many strings attached that some owners chose to return the money rather than navigate compliance.

But deeper issues are also at play.  Bailout funds aside, the employment terms of corporate bigwigs and ordinary workers are starkly unequal, and not just when it comes to pay. High-ranking employees enjoy individually negotiated contracts for secure employment backed by promises of income continuity in the event they are let go.  Companies must pay severance, often in amounts equal to multiple years of earnings, if they choose to end the relationship without performance-based cause. 

In contrast, employers can lay off ordinary workers at will without pay and, except in narrow circumstances, without any advance notice.  That is because the U.S., unlike most other Western countries, does not mandate severance pay upon termination. Employers may choose to provide it – either as an act of benevolence or a risk management strategy – but unless a company binds itself to a contractual policy or is subject to a collective bargaining agreement, providing severance pay is purely discretionary. 

That is why so many Americans have found themselves out of work with no warning and only their final paycheck in hand. It is also why the public benefit system is at a breaking point.  Ordinary unemployment insurance, which typically imposes waiting periods and works search requirements, is designed to support dislocated workers who cannot find new employment.  It is not intended to be a remedy for lost employment and it cannot substitute for separation benefits.  The over forty million new benefits claims filed since March have overwhelmed the system’s administrative capacity and nearly exhausted its funds. This has left would-be recipients unable to make it through the filing process and in some cases not even bothering to try.   

Severance pay should be an employment right, not an optional practice.  Ordinary workers – even more so than elite earners – require a modicum of continued pay to support their transition to the next job or, if necessary, the public benefits system.  The legislative foundation for such a duty already exists.  Federal plant closure law requires large employers to provide sixty days’ notice of a foreseeable mass layoff or shutdown.  That law could be expanded to cover all economic-based terminations and require pay in lieu of notice where the need to reduce staff is unforeseen. This would ensure that when companies make termination decisions, the cost to affected workers is part of the calculus. 

Policymaking in a time of crisis is a dangerous thing.  Roiled by state shutdown orders, many companies are as much in need of government assistance as their workforce.  It can be difficult to imagine expanding their legal obligations at this moment.  But catastrophe exposes structural flaws that can inform future lawmaking. 

The federal COVID response — including paid sick days, childcare leave, and gig workers benefits – temporarily patches a few regulatory cracks. But those measures ignore the gaping absence of severance rights, an even more fundamental failure of the system.   When it comes time to forge enduring reforms, Congress should require employers provide an economic cushion to all laid off workers. That way ordinary workers can enjoy a measure of income security, much like the one percent who so richly benefit from their labor.

Rachel Arnow-Richman, “Severance rights for the 99%” Canadian Law of Work Forum (June 30 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=12785

0 comment
1
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
Rachel Arnow-Richman

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Uber v Heller and the Fairness of Employment Contract Terms
next post
Heller v. Uber: Ensuring the Vindication of Rights in Canada

You may also like

Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure...

February 24, 2021

Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers...

February 3, 2021

Does COVID Justify Longer Periods of Reasonable Notice?

January 25, 2021

Is “60 the New 50” in Assessing Length...

January 13, 2021

Would Rioting at Canada’s Parliament Building Be Grounds...

January 8, 2021

What is a Minority Union?

January 4, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

David Doorey on Jacobin: “Collective Bargaining Needs a...

December 16, 2020

“Autonomous Worker” Regulation

December 1, 2020

Reflecting on the Use of Neutrality Agreements in...

November 27, 2020

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
8h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
8h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
9h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.