On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
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.

Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two
different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money
training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to
just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for
any or no reason at all....

....and how is that a public policy problem?