I'd think plausibly they facing a lawsuit where they probably owe 3% of everyone's wages for a few years?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47607988)

the innumerate and/or illiterate shitlawyer and union reps who negotiated a “match” of 3% of the first 6% for their clients, otoh…

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47607997)

I really doubt a judge is going to go "Yeah it was totally chill for the company to mimic standard language but twist it to only pay people 1/20th what a reasonable worker would assume based on industry standards without fully disclosing the diffference."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47608002)

Do we have a labor lawyer in the house?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47608060)

99.9% of companies offer something similar to a 50% match of an employees contributions up to 6% of their salary. They're clearly using an industry term and there was an error in drafting.

If this was truly their intent, and the company's attorney wasn't a full blown moron, then the next line has to say "By way of example, if an an employee makes $100,000 and contributes $6,000 to their 401k, employer will contribute $180.00 to the 401k.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47608108)

ski resort sneaks in "we have the right to fuck your wife at any time" in 6 font in the waiver

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47608252)

the "first 6%" of that contribution - $4.76

company matches 50% of that 6% - $2.38

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47608214)

Your math renders the entire formula moot.

It'd be like if you wrote a contract saying, "Buyer will be able to achieve an earnout equal to 1/2 times 1/4 divided by 6 times 11 multiplied by the 2026 revenue."

Why would you write it so stupidly?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47608230)

There's no logical reason to have the 50% of the 6% if they both refer to contributions...

It's clearly ambiguous and you look to what this phrasing means within the industry and its obvious that the intent is that they'll match 50% of your contributions up to 6% of your salary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47608220)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47610189)

normies will read that as 3% of your compensation (or 50% of your contribution), not 3% "on the first 6% of [your] contributions.", i.e., 3% of 0.06*paycheck. In other words, it's tricky wording to masquerade the order of operations. Half of 6% applied to your (((contribution))), rather than half of 6% applied to your compensation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47608871)

“And be grateful you get that much!”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521232&forum_id=2...id#47608856)