DIYbanter - View Single Post

Bill Graham

wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:12:23 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
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....
There is no "firing board" required in Ontario Canada. The
immediate supervisor thinks you are slacking? He writes you up. He
thinks you are incompetent? he writes you up.
You've been written up twice - you are on notice. He writes you up
one more time - you can be GONE - wih cause - no severance - no
pogey.

Works well for the employer - and is "fair" to the employee.
Gross negligence or insubordination can also be used as "for cause"
but is more difficult to prove. There are other "for cause"
situations - criminal acts on the job, among others.

Fine. But I wasn't speaking of what is, "requireed by law". Some
companies set up firing boards to protect their heavy investments in
training employe3es and then having them fired by straw bosses for
no good reason. these are not required by law, but a wise move by
employers to protect their investments in skilled employees.
And sometimes it gets the "straw bosses" fired too - which can be a
GOOD thing.

Yes. Especially if it happens too often.
but, I have to say, that bossing is a much different skill than doing the
work, expecially in a highly technical job. I was a skilled worker, and I
had several different bosses. Some of them were pretty bad. But they had a
difficult job, (one that I wouldn;t want to do) so I gave them a lot of
slack, and managed to put up with some of their failings. After all, this
too is part of doing a difficult job. Even now that I am retired, I run into
some band directors in persuing my hobby that I think could use a lot of
improvement. But if I was asked to do their job, I would turn it down, so I
put up with their failings too....:^)