this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
668 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

58260 readers
4687 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

X, the social network formerly known as Twitter, is facing 2,200 arbitration cases that ex-employees filed after Elon Musk took over the company, slashed headcount, and made other sweeping changes there. The filing fees alone for that volume of cases could amount to $3.5 million.

The arbitration numbers were revealed in a new filing out Monday as part of a lawsuit in a Delaware district court. The case is Chris Woodfield v. Twitter, X Corp. and Elon Musk (No. 1:23-cv-780-CFC).

As CNBC has previously reported, many large corporations require workers to sign an arbitration agreement upon employment wherever it is legal to do so. This means to speak freely in court, where their speech can become part of a public record, workers would first need to get an exemption from a judge.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 216 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I have no sympathy. Companies that require class action waivers and mandatory arbitration clauses don't get to complain when thousands of people file arbitration claims simultaneously.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

It would probably be more expensive for 2200 lawsuits, no?

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I've actually used arbitration to get my way in the past when I pointed out to the company that their filing fee for the arbitration was more expensive than just honoring their commitments, so even if I lost they'd be out several times what I wanted.

[–] 1bluepixel@lemmy.world 187 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I get a kick out of every time a journalist feels they need to specify "formerly known as Twitter" because X is such a generic, indistinguishable brand.

[–] Bread@sh.itjust.works 65 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think it would be better to say "Twitter, currently branded as X" it is both useful and makes it look like it is just a cringy phase a teenager might go through temporarily. So you should just ignore the change and it will eventually resolve itself.

[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The x.com URL just points at Twitter.com

[–] lemann@lemmy.one 25 points 1 year ago

IMO the whole renaming/redirecting/retheming situation with twitter looks like an unprofessional half hearted aquisition lol

[–] woodgen@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Both engineers are working on it.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"The site formerly known as Twitter"

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

The site still located at Twitter.com

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 49 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I continue to use “twitter” because Musk is a transphobe. If he feels obligated to deadname or misgender people, or defend those who do, I don’t see the need to follow what he wants to identify as, either.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Might as well just call it Twitter. The only people that go along with calling it "X" are chuds and Musk sycophants.

[–] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

and Musk sycophants

You already said chuds

All these venn diagrams make a circle.

[–] wrecking7416@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What a fantastic insult (I didn't mean that as sarcasm, I think it's hilarious).

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Currently x.com still redirects to Twitter.com, so I don’t see any issues with calling it Twitter.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago

99% sure there's to much code with logic checking for the Twitter domain (including in external dependencies!) that they don't know how to mirror the site correctly on x.com

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It is Twitter, and I'll be Twitter until it's shutdown. Only morons who are into crypto ponzi schemes call it X unironically, expecting Elon to be their friend somehow

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] radix@lemmy.world 88 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Musk is killing it!

("it" being whatever shred of reputation he had left before the last year or so)

[–] sndmn@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

X marks the spot where he killed twitter.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

X marks the spot for closing the tab

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh he's been burning that reputation for a good while. I feel like when he tried to send a useless sub and called some guy a pedo was probably the largest turning point for many. Since that point he's been less and less heralded as he was before hand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 17 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


X, the social network formerly known as Twitter, is facing 2,200 arbitration cases that ex-employees filed after Elon Musk took over the company, slashed headcount, and made other sweeping changes there.

Woodfield, a former senior staff network engineer who had worked at Twitter’s Seattle office, alleges in his suit that Musk’s Twitter (now known as X) had promised then failed to pay his severance, and later delayed alternative dispute resolution by failing to pay the necessary fees required for him to move ahead in the JAMS arbitration system.

The company’s lawyers have argued that it did not mandate employees to resolve any issues in arbitration, so it should not be on the hook for the larger portion of the filing fees.

As CNBC has previously reported, many large corporations require workers to sign an arbitration agreement upon employment wherever it is legal to do so.

Critics view arbitration as a secretive system that makes it harder for employees and prospective hires to find out how companies treat their workers, and what happened to people in previous related cases.

The Woodfield case against Musk’s X Corp. resembles another proposed class action filed in a San Francisco federal court.


The original article contains 431 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 56%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›