They don't appear to be without severance[1].
>Today is your last working day at the company, however, you will remain employed by Twitter and will receive compensation and benefits through your separation date of February 2, 2023.
>Within a week, you will receive details of your severance offer, financial resources extending beyond your Non-Working Notice period.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
I'd consider three months' pay borderline "generous". I see two weeks' as the baseline, and anything over six weeks as "good".
My understanding of the WARN Act is that it requires 60 days "notice". It sounds like Twitter is giving 90 days notice along 90 days of mandatory PTO, effective immediately.
Having been laid off relatively recently (~2 years ago) and actively involved in hiring today, I expect that's not going to be long enough to seamlessly move to a new position, but it should be enough time and money to cut things back and weather the transition without dipping into savings - assuming you have savings, of course.
How does that affect other employment? Does this mean you can't go get another job until Feb 2, otherwise you have to quit (and receive no more severance)?
And just to double check: if I was laid off "normally" tomorrow and got some severance package, that package still comes by way even if I got a new job on Monday? For this hypothetical let's place us in California.
You should tell your new employer what's going on - they'll almost certainly run a background check and see it. But absent some specific odd situation, they aren't going to care.
> if I was laid off "normally" tomorrow and got some severance package, that package still comes by way even if I got a new job on Monday?
Technically, this would be subject to whatever terms your former employer wrote into the severance terms. But again, absent a weird situation, they don't care, they're just trying to get rid of you.
It's possible that if you're in an at-will employment state they could fire you for cause and claim that working for another company violates something, but I think that would be legally a bit dicey.
Does anyone know if part of these agreements includes not seeking other employment (a typical clause these days)?
A more common clause in California employment contracts for salaried employees limits outside employment to work that does not interfere with one’s job responsibilities, based on the idea that as a salaried employee that job should be your primary job