On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie
wrote:

On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote:


My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed
off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money
restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it.

Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the
job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation.
Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in
Ontario.

Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now
not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's
not something you can do anything about.

True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a
high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and
transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind
when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of
information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer
elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks
salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a
years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years
pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start
collecting any social security until the following year, at 62.

When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have
interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go)
from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a
year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up
from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting
my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years,
until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not.

Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are
common even states that are not "at will".

Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left
the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too
structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these
perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making
laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those
who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek
out a living without government interference. One can always choose
where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in
my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to
both.

Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with
perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned)

How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board
that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together
with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager
can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations
can afford, and small businesses cannot.

You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to
have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your
boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like
the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice.