On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:11:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is
working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has almost
no job experience. She says her boss does not pay time and a half
for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just quit
telling her to come in. What is the best way to address this
problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out for a
while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases. After
the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my wife decided
she could not work there because of the owners constantly barking
dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told her she
does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a week
later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour laws.

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost anything.
There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and know why he wants
to keep some people and fire others, and he can come up with a
number of reasons to get rid of most anyone. (if he has half a
brain) So, there is little one can do unless one has some written
proof or recorded proof that ones boss has it in for them for some
reason other than job performance. This is true of even top
executives. As a matter of fact, it is more true of top executives
than it is of underlings....

IN CANADA, a boss needs to write you up 3 times, giving you the
written notice, before he can fire you "with cause" Firing "without
cause" costs him money. He has to pay severence - and you get to
collect employment insurance if you have worked enough hours to
qualify.

Don't know how it is in the USA.

I don't know either, but suppose the company is going out of business, and
the, "boss" can't pay you another dime because he, and his company are dirt
broke? What then, pussycat? Do you get to pluck some bucks from that money
tree in Washington DC?

Ever hear of "bankruptcy" and "stand in line"?

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is
working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has almost
no job experience. She says her boss does not pay time and a half
for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just quit
telling her to come in. What is the best way to address this
problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out for a
while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases. After
the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my wife decided
she could not work there because of the owners constantly barking
dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told her she
does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a week
later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour laws.

Since you mentioned "labour" laws, I'll assume you're not a
left-pondian. In the US, it's not considered OT until 40hrs in one
week. ...and that doesn't necessarily include vacation/holiday time (8
hours holiday + 44hrs work = 48hrs straight pay + 4hrs OT).

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost anything.
There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and know why he wants
to keep some people and fire others, and he can come up with a
number of reasons to get rid of most anyone. (if he has half a
brain) So, there is little one can do unless one has some written
proof or recorded proof that ones boss has it in for them for some
reason other than job performance. This is true of even top
executives. As a matter of fact, it is more true of top executives
than it is of underlings....

That's jurisdiction dependant, here. Some states are "at will"
states. Anyone can be fired for any reason (other than the typical
discrimination of protected classes), or no reason. Others make it
(only) slightly more difficult for employers.

In a truely capitalistic system, no company would want to get rid of a
productive employee that they have hired and trained to do their job and who
does it acceptably well. Most companies have a review board that that
oversees requests to let individuals go. but in small businesses, the only
review board is the owner of the business, so if he wants to rid himself of
you, you have little choice but to leave.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:27:55 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is
working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has almost
no job experience. She says her boss does not pay time and a half
for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just quit
telling her to come in. What is the best way to address this
problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out for a
while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases. After
the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my wife decided
she could not work there because of the owners constantly barking
dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told her she
does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a week
later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour laws.

Since you mentioned "labour" laws, I'll assume you're not a
left-pondian. In the US, it's not considered OT until 40hrs in one
week. ...and that doesn't necessarily include vacation/holiday time (8
hours holiday + 44hrs work = 48hrs straight pay + 4hrs OT).

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost anything.
There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and know why he wants
to keep some people and fire others, and he can come up with a
number of reasons to get rid of most anyone. (if he has half a
brain) So, there is little one can do unless one has some written
proof or recorded proof that ones boss has it in for them for some
reason other than job performance. This is true of even top
executives. As a matter of fact, it is more true of top executives
than it is of underlings....

That's jurisdiction dependant, here. Some states are "at will"
states. Anyone can be fired for any reason (other than the typical
discrimination of protected classes), or no reason. Others make it
(only) slightly more difficult for employers.

In a truely capitalistic system, no company would want to get rid of a
productive employee that they have hired and trained to do their job and who
does it acceptably well.

That's true in a not so truly capitalistic system.

Most companies have a review board that that
oversees requests to let individuals go.

Most? Hardly. Most are small businesses that don't bother with any
such thing.

but in small businesses, the only
review board is the owner of the business, so if he wants to rid himself of
you, you have little choice but to leave.

As you should, if he's not happy with your performance for *WHATEVER*
reason. It *is* his business. If he's a fool, he'll shortly find
that out, too.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:27:55 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is
working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has almost
no job experience. She says her boss does not pay time and a half
for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just quit
telling her to come in. What is the best way to address this
problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out for a
while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases. After
the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my wife decided
she could not work there because of the owners constantly barking
dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told her she
does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a week
later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour laws.

Since you mentioned "labour" laws, I'll assume you're not a
left-pondian. In the US, it's not considered OT until 40hrs in one
week. ...and that doesn't necessarily include vacation/holiday time (8
hours holiday + 44hrs work = 48hrs straight pay + 4hrs OT).

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost anything.
There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and know why he wants
to keep some people and fire others, and he can come up with a
number of reasons to get rid of most anyone. (if he has half a
brain) So, there is little one can do unless one has some written
proof or recorded proof that ones boss has it in for them for some
reason other than job performance. This is true of even top
executives. As a matter of fact, it is more true of top executives
than it is of underlings....

That's jurisdiction dependant, here. Some states are "at will"
states. Anyone can be fired for any reason (other than the typical
discrimination of protected classes), or no reason. Others make it
(only) slightly more difficult for employers.

In a truely capitalistic system, no company would want to get rid of a
productive employee that they have hired and trained to do their job and who
does it acceptably well. Most companies have a review board that that
oversees requests to let individuals go. but in small businesses, the only
review board is the owner of the business, so if he wants to rid himself of
you, you have little choice but to leave.
" Twenty some years ago I decided if I was going to work for a
jackass I'd work for one I liked."

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:11:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is
working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has
almost no job experience. She says her boss does not pay time
and a half for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just quit
telling her to come in. What is the best way to address this
problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out for a
while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases. After
the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my wife decided
she could not work there because of the owners constantly barking
dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told her
she does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a week
later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour laws.

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost anything.
There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and know why he
wants to keep some people and fire others, and he can come up with
a number of reasons to get rid of most anyone. (if he has half a
brain) So, there is little one can do unless one has some written
proof or recorded proof that ones boss has it in for them for some
reason other than job performance. This is true of even top
executives. As a matter of fact, it is more true of top executives
than it is of underlings....

IN CANADA, a boss needs to write you up 3 times, giving you the
written notice, before he can fire you "with cause" Firing "without
cause" costs him money. He has to pay severence - and you get to
collect employment insurance if you have worked enough hours to
qualify.

Don't know how it is in the USA.

I don't know either, but suppose the company is going out of
business, and the, "boss" can't pay you another dime because he, and
his company are dirt broke? What then, pussycat? Do you get to pluck
some bucks from that money tree in Washington DC?

Ever hear of "bankruptcy" and "stand in line"?

Of course. but conversely, have you ever heard of letting somebody go
because you can't afford to keep them? There are many reasons for letting
employees go. It is not always a matter of choice.

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:27:55 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is
working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has
almost no job experience. She says her boss does not pay time
and a half for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just quit
telling her to come in. What is the best way to address this
problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out for a
while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases. After
the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my wife decided
she could not work there because of the owners constantly barking
dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told her
she does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a week
later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour laws.

Since you mentioned "labour" laws, I'll assume you're not a
left-pondian. In the US, it's not considered OT until 40hrs in one
week. ...and that doesn't necessarily include vacation/holiday time
(8 hours holiday + 44hrs work = 48hrs straight pay + 4hrs OT).

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost anything.
There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and know why he
wants to keep some people and fire others, and he can come up with
a number of reasons to get rid of most anyone. (if he has half a
brain) So, there is little one can do unless one has some written
proof or recorded proof that ones boss has it in for them for some
reason other than job performance. This is true of even top
executives. As a matter of fact, it is more true of top executives
than it is of underlings....

That's jurisdiction dependant, here. Some states are "at will"
states. Anyone can be fired for any reason (other than the typical
discrimination of protected classes), or no reason. Others make it
(only) slightly more difficult for employers.

In a truely capitalistic system, no company would want to get rid of
a productive employee that they have hired and trained to do their
job and who does it acceptably well.

That's true in a not so truly capitalistic system.

Most companies have a review board that that
oversees requests to let individuals go.

Most? Hardly. Most are small businesses that don't bother with any
such thing.

but in small businesses, the only
review board is the owner of the business, so if he wants to rid
himself of you, you have little choice but to leave.

As you should, if he's not happy with your performance for *WHATEVER*
reason. It *is* his business. If he's a fool, he'll shortly find
that out, too.

Yes. I have known businesses that were only in business, apparently, to
spend their benefactor's money, and expected to go out of business. (The
owner was cheating his backers) And, of course we all know about drug
sellers who operated businesses as a front for their drug selling
operations.

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:27:55 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is
working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has
almost no job experience. She says her boss does not pay time
and a half for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just quit
telling her to come in. What is the best way to address this
problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out for a
while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases. After
the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my wife decided
she could not work there because of the owners constantly barking
dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told her
she does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a week
later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour laws.

Since you mentioned "labour" laws, I'll assume you're not a
left-pondian. In the US, it's not considered OT until 40hrs in one
week. ...and that doesn't necessarily include vacation/holiday time
(8 hours holiday + 44hrs work = 48hrs straight pay + 4hrs OT).

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost anything.
There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and know why he
wants to keep some people and fire others, and he can come up with
a number of reasons to get rid of most anyone. (if he has half a
brain) So, there is little one can do unless one has some written
proof or recorded proof that ones boss has it in for them for some
reason other than job performance. This is true of even top
executives. As a matter of fact, it is more true of top executives
than it is of underlings....

That's jurisdiction dependant, here. Some states are "at will"
states. Anyone can be fired for any reason (other than the typical
discrimination of protected classes), or no reason. Others make it
(only) slightly more difficult for employers.

In a truely capitalistic system, no company would want to get rid of
a productive employee that they have hired and trained to do their
job and who does it acceptably well. Most companies have a review
board that that oversees requests to let individuals go. but in
small businesses, the only review board is the owner of the
business, so if he wants to rid himself of you, you have little
choice but to leave.
" Twenty some years ago I decided if I was going to work for a
jackass I'd work for one I liked."

Yes. Some burrows are very sweet, and make good pets......

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:55:13 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:11:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is
working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has
almost no job experience. She says her boss does not pay time
and a half for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just quit
telling her to come in. What is the best way to address this
problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out for a
while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases. After
the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my wife decided
she could not work there because of the owners constantly barking
dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told her
she does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a week
later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour laws.

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost anything.
There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and know why he
wants to keep some people and fire others, and he can come up with
a number of reasons to get rid of most anyone. (if he has half a
brain) So, there is little one can do unless one has some written
proof or recorded proof that ones boss has it in for them for some
reason other than job performance. This is true of even top
executives. As a matter of fact, it is more true of top executives
than it is of underlings....

IN CANADA, a boss needs to write you up 3 times, giving you the
written notice, before he can fire you "with cause" Firing "without
cause" costs him money. He has to pay severence - and you get to
collect employment insurance if you have worked enough hours to
qualify.

Don't know how it is in the USA.

I don't know either, but suppose the company is going out of
business, and the, "boss" can't pay you another dime because he, and
his company are dirt broke? What then, pussycat? Do you get to pluck
some bucks from that money tree in Washington DC?

Ever hear of "bankruptcy" and "stand in line"?

Of course. but conversely, have you ever heard of letting somebody go
because you can't afford to keep them? There are many reasons for letting
employees go. It is not always a matter of choice.

Of course. The issue then becomes "who".

The generally accepted term is "layoff", but why are you stating the
obvious?

On 4/4/2013 12:48 AM, richard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:30:00 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:38:13 -0400, Metspitzer
wrote:

http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is working
in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has almost no job
experience. She says her boss does not pay time and a half for over
40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just quit
telling her to come in. What is the best way to address this problem?

Don't let her work nights in a convenience store. Ever.
Or days, unless they have no stickups in the area.
She has to see how it plays out. Maybe the store policy is simply
"Nobody works over 40 hours because we don't want to pay time and a
half."
That can play out differently too. The boss might demand that certain
things be done before you clock out, but you have to clock out at 8
hours. If you "forget" to clock out and work an extra hour to meet
the demands he set up, it's not counted as overtime, or even straight
time, because he told you that policy is an 8 hour day.
Some people actually put up with this because they need that job.
Others just walk away.
There are also certain "exceptions" to get around the "+40 hour week
equals overtime" with swing shifters. So you might work 48 hours one
week and 32 hours the next week and get no overtime.
So you have to check the laws in detail.
Just tell her not to ask the boss these questions unless she feels
comfortable enough to walk if she doesn't like his answers.

When I worked at a ski resort, part of my job was to keep track of employee
hours in the department.
Once you got your 40 hours in, you're done. You go home.
"We don't pay overtime" usually means you'll never see it.


That was my thought too. At my job, if we go over 40, we don't get paid.
"Overtime is NOT authorized". Fine with me. I'm used to 50 or 60 hour
weeks (management).

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:55:13 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:11:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is
working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has
almost no job experience. She says her boss does not pay time
and a half for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just
quit telling her to come in. What is the best way to address
this problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out for a
while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases.
After the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my
wife decided she could not work there because of the owners
constantly barking dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop
in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told her
she does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a
week later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct
amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour laws.

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost
anything. There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and
know why he wants to keep some people and fire others, and he
can come up with a number of reasons to get rid of most anyone.
(if he has half a brain) So, there is little one can do unless
one has some written proof or recorded proof that ones boss has
it in for them for some reason other than job performance. This
is true of even top executives. As a matter of fact, it is more
true of top executives than it is of underlings....

IN CANADA, a boss needs to write you up 3 times, giving you the
written notice, before he can fire you "with cause" Firing
"without cause" costs him money. He has to pay severence - and
you get to collect employment insurance if you have worked enough
hours to qualify.

Don't know how it is in the USA.

I don't know either, but suppose the company is going out of
business, and the, "boss" can't pay you another dime because he,
and his company are dirt broke? What then, pussycat? Do you get to
pluck some bucks from that money tree in Washington DC?

Ever hear of "bankruptcy" and "stand in line"?

Of course. but conversely, have you ever heard of letting somebody go
because you can't afford to keep them? There are many reasons for
letting employees go. It is not always a matter of choice.

Of course. The issue then becomes "who".

The generally accepted term is "layoff", but why are you stating the
obvious?

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.

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.

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.

Maybe where you live, but not every place. Fired for cause is fired
and no money.

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.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:51:39 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:55:13 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:11:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is
working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has
almost no job experience. She says her boss does not pay time
and a half for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just
quit telling her to come in. What is the best way to address
this problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out for a
while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases.
After the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my
wife decided she could not work there because of the owners
constantly barking dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop
in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told her
she does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a
week later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct
amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour laws.

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost
anything. There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and
know why he wants to keep some people and fire others, and he
can come up with a number of reasons to get rid of most anyone.
(if he has half a brain) So, there is little one can do unless
one has some written proof or recorded proof that ones boss has
it in for them for some reason other than job performance. This
is true of even top executives. As a matter of fact, it is more
true of top executives than it is of underlings....

IN CANADA, a boss needs to write you up 3 times, giving you the
written notice, before he can fire you "with cause" Firing
"without cause" costs him money. He has to pay severence - and
you get to collect employment insurance if you have worked enough
hours to qualify.

Don't know how it is in the USA.

I don't know either, but suppose the company is going out of
business, and the, "boss" can't pay you another dime because he,
and his company are dirt broke? What then, pussycat? Do you get to
pluck some bucks from that money tree in Washington DC?

Ever hear of "bankruptcy" and "stand in line"?

Of course. but conversely, have you ever heard of letting somebody go
because you can't afford to keep them? There are many reasons for
letting employees go. It is not always a matter of choice.

Of course. The issue then becomes "who".

The generally accepted term is "layoff", but why are you stating the
obvious?

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.

There is no reason you *should* be able to "do" anything about it.
What are you proposing to "do" about it?

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.

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:51:39 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:55:13 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:11:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She
is working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She
has almost no job experience. She says her boss does not
pay time and a half for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just
quit telling her to come in. What is the best way to address
this problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out
for a while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases.
After the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my
wife decided she could not work there because of the owners
constantly barking dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop
in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told
her she does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a
week later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct
amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour
laws.

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost
anything. There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and
know why he wants to keep some people and fire others, and he
can come up with a number of reasons to get rid of most anyone.
(if he has half a brain) So, there is little one can do unless
one has some written proof or recorded proof that ones boss has
it in for them for some reason other than job performance. This
is true of even top executives. As a matter of fact, it is more
true of top executives than it is of underlings....

IN CANADA, a boss needs to write you up 3 times, giving you the
written notice, before he can fire you "with cause" Firing
"without cause" costs him money. He has to pay severence - and
you get to collect employment insurance if you have worked
enough hours to qualify.

Don't know how it is in the USA.

I don't know either, but suppose the company is going out of
business, and the, "boss" can't pay you another dime because he,
and his company are dirt broke? What then, pussycat? Do you get
to pluck some bucks from that money tree in Washington DC?

Ever hear of "bankruptcy" and "stand in line"?

Of course. but conversely, have you ever heard of letting somebody
go because you can't afford to keep them? There are many reasons
for letting employees go. It is not always a matter of choice.

Of course. The issue then becomes "who".

The generally accepted term is "layoff", but why are you stating the
obvious?

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.

There is no reason you *should* be able to "do" anything about it.
What are you proposing to "do" about it?

I'm not propowint to do anything about it. Someone else was worried that his
wife's or girlfriends boss would let her go for some non job related reason
and was asking what he or she could do about it. I havfe been retired for 16
years now and don't have those kinds of problems anymore... but, in the
past, I have had similar problems with idiotic bosses..... I usually found
that the best thing to do was leave and find another job. Even if one were
to bring their case to court and win, then they are going to have to work
under a ****ed off boss for the reat of time. IOW, there is no good solution
to the problem. In the old days, things were a lot worse than they are now.
I let it slip to a prospective employer once who I had worked for before,
and he contacted that person, who (of course) told him not to hire me. You
live and learn....:^)

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.

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:38:37 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:51:39 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:55:13 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:11:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She
is working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She
has almost no job experience. She says her boss does not
pay time and a half for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just
quit telling her to come in. What is the best way to address
this problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out
for a while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases.
After the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my
wife decided she could not work there because of the owners
constantly barking dog and crying baby (and this was in a shop
in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the woman
asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The woman told
her she does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a
week later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct
amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour
laws.

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost
anything. There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and
know why he wants to keep some people and fire others, and he
can come up with a number of reasons to get rid of most anyone.
(if he has half a brain) So, there is little one can do unless
one has some written proof or recorded proof that ones boss has
it in for them for some reason other than job performance. This
is true of even top executives. As a matter of fact, it is more
true of top executives than it is of underlings....

IN CANADA, a boss needs to write you up 3 times, giving you the
written notice, before he can fire you "with cause" Firing
"without cause" costs him money. He has to pay severence - and
you get to collect employment insurance if you have worked
enough hours to qualify.

Don't know how it is in the USA.

I don't know either, but suppose the company is going out of
business, and the, "boss" can't pay you another dime because he,
and his company are dirt broke? What then, pussycat? Do you get
to pluck some bucks from that money tree in Washington DC?

Ever hear of "bankruptcy" and "stand in line"?

Of course. but conversely, have you ever heard of letting somebody
go because you can't afford to keep them? There are many reasons
for letting employees go. It is not always a matter of choice.

Of course. The issue then becomes "who".

The generally accepted term is "layoff", but why are you stating the
obvious?

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.

There is no reason you *should* be able to "do" anything about it.
What are you proposing to "do" about it?

I'm not propowint to do anything about it. Someone else was worried that his
wife's or girlfriends boss would let her go for some non job related reason
and was asking what he or she could do about it.

That question was about OT, not layoffs.

I havfe been retired for 16
years now and don't have those kinds of problems anymore... but, in the
past, I have had similar problems with idiotic bosses..... I usually found
that the best thing to do was leave and find another job.

Certainly right.

Even if one were
to bring their case to court and win, then they are going to have to work
under a ****ed off boss for the reat of time. IOW, there is no good solution
to the problem. In the old days, things were a lot worse than they are now.
I let it slip to a prospective employer once who I had worked for before,
and he contacted that person, who (of course) told him not to hire me. You
live and learn....:^)

Why should you even be able to sue? It's their job. If you're not
the right person for it, for *whatever* reason, why should you be
there? It's *not* your property.

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.

There is an interesting story (and kind of nice one, too) about the above
program. We had an older guy nick-named, "Zack", who had been with us longer
than I had. He was a carpenter in the research yard, if I recall
correctly.One Friday, Zack told his boss that his wife was sick with cancer,
and it was getting harder and harder for him to care for her, so he was
going to have to leave. His boss comiserated with him and said, "OK Zack.
You don't have to work the normal two weeks. Just come in on Monday and pick
up your two weeks severance pay and go back home to take care of your wife."
Well, neither Zack nor his boss knew that they had just instituted their,
"geezer elimination program" that weekend, so when Zack showed up Monday
morning, they cut him a check for 26 times what he expected. Zack looked at
the check, and said, "There must be some mistake. You guys are paying me 26
times more money than you should." The accounting supervisor looked at the
check and said, "No mistake. You've been here over 26 years, so you get a
years pay for severance."

wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:38:37 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:51:39 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:55:13 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:11:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She
is working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She
has almost no job experience. She says her boss does not
pay time and a half for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just
quit telling her to come in. What is the best way to
address this problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out
for a while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases.
After the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my
wife decided she could not work there because of the owners
constantly barking dog and crying baby (and this was in a
shop in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the
woman asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The
woman told her she does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a
week later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct
amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour
laws.

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost
anything. There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and
know why he wants to keep some people and fire others, and he
can come up with a number of reasons to get rid of most
anyone. (if he has half a brain) So, there is little one can
do unless one has some written proof or recorded proof that
ones boss has it in for them for some reason other than job
performance. This is true of even top executives. As a
matter of fact, it is more true of top executives than it is
of underlings....

IN CANADA, a boss needs to write you up 3 times, giving you
the written notice, before he can fire you "with cause"
Firing "without cause" costs him money. He has to pay
severence - and you get to collect employment insurance if
you have worked enough hours to qualify.

Don't know how it is in the USA.

I don't know either, but suppose the company is going out of
business, and the, "boss" can't pay you another dime because
he, and his company are dirt broke? What then, pussycat? Do
you get to pluck some bucks from that money tree in Washington
DC?

Ever hear of "bankruptcy" and "stand in line"?

Of course. but conversely, have you ever heard of letting
somebody go because you can't afford to keep them? There are
many reasons for letting employees go. It is not always a matter
of choice.

Of course. The issue then becomes "who".

The generally accepted term is "layoff", but why are you stating
the obvious?

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.

There is no reason you *should* be able to "do" anything about it.
What are you proposing to "do" about it?

I'm not propowint to do anything about it. Someone else was worried
that his wife's or girlfriends boss would let her go for some non
job related reason and was asking what he or she could do about it.

That question was about OT, not layoffs.

I havfe been retired for 16
years now and don't have those kinds of problems anymore... but, in
the past, I have had similar problems with idiotic bosses..... I
usually found that the best thing to do was leave and find another
job.

Certainly right.

Even if one were
to bring their case to court and win, then they are going to have to
work under a ****ed off boss for the reat of time. IOW, there is no
good solution to the problem. In the old days, things were a lot
worse than they are now. I let it slip to a prospective employer
once who I had worked for before, and he contacted that person, who
(of course) told him not to hire me. You live and learn....:^)

Why should you even be able to sue? It's their job. If you're not
the right person for it, for *whatever* reason, why should you be
there? It's *not* your property.

Well, as a libertarian, I sort of agree with you. but if they fired you
because of your skin color, (for example) they would be in big trouble. So
there are exceptions, and many of these came about during my working life,
which started back in the 60's when I got out of the Navy.

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.
It is "constructive dismissal" in Canada - and is NOT "with cause".
The employer pays

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.
It is "constructive dismissal" in Canada - and is NOT "with cause".
The employer pays

You speak as if it were a law. In Canada, it may well be a law. Here there
is no such law. If your employer wants to get rid of some people, he just
lets them go, but pays them for their accumulated vacion time. When I left
Stanford University, they didn;t even pay for ones accumulated sick leave. I
had around 6 months sick leave on the books, (I was almost never sick) and
didn;t get paid for that. Smaller businesses here in those days, didn;t pay
for vacations or holidays, either. Bsck in the mid 60's I worked for a place
that fixed shipboard radars, and one day, my boss said, "Tomorrow.s the 4th
of July, so you guys don;t have to come in". We all thought we would be
paid, but when we got our checks a couple of weeks later, we only got paid
for 4 days that week...:^)

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 18:35:32 -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.
It is "constructive dismissal" in Canada - and is NOT "with cause".
The employer pays

You speak as if it were a law. In Canada, it may well be a law. Here there
is no such law. If your employer wants to get rid of some people, he just
lets them go, but pays them for their accumulated vacion time. When I left
Stanford University, they didn;t even pay for ones accumulated sick leave. I
had around 6 months sick leave on the books, (I was almost never sick) and
didn;t get paid for that. Smaller businesses here in those days, didn;t pay
for vacations or holidays, either. Bsck in the mid 60's I worked for a place
that fixed shipboard radars, and one day, my boss said, "Tomorrow.s the 4th
of July, so you guys don;t have to come in". We all thought we would be
paid, but when we got our checks a couple of weeks later, we only got paid
for 4 days that week...:^)
Accumulated sick leave is a perk that is generally regulated by your
employment contract - if non-union it usually does not exist. Many
unions are having to let that "bonus" go. I say good riddance. Not
sure how it is in the USA, but since the sixties here in Ontario
vacation pay has been mandatory in all but a few select job classes
(education, police service, and a few others). It differs from
province to province. 4% of total earnings from day one, and 2 weeks
time off after one year - 6% and 3 weeks after 5 years in Ontario.
Statutary holidaysvary depending whether you are in a provincially or
federally regulated industry - some stats are provincial, some are
federal.

Again - this is Canada (and Ontario) specific. We are a "socialist"
society - The "american way" may differ.

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".

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 18:17:28 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:38:37 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:51:39 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:55:13 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:11:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:46:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ned Flanders wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html

My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She
is working in a convenient store that also sells gas. She
has almost no job experience. She says her boss does not
pay time and a half for over 40 hours.

I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just
quit telling her to come in. What is the best way to
address this problem?

It seems her hands maybe tied if she wants to stick it out
for a while.
My wife went in to a business for a shift on a trial bases.
After the one 9 hour shift (she was asked to stay extra) my
wife decided she could not work there because of the owners
constantly barking dog and crying baby (and this was in a
shop in a mall?)...

Two weeks later she had not been paid so she emailed the
woman asking for her 8 hours pay and one hour OT. The
woman told her she does not pay OT.

My wife emailed her back with a copy of the labour laws... a
week later she received a cheque in the mail for the correct
amount.

Sometimes owners or managers need a reminder of the labour
laws.

Almost anyone at almost any time can be fired for almost
anything. There is no way to get inside your boss's mind and
know why he wants to keep some people and fire others, and he
can come up with a number of reasons to get rid of most
anyone. (if he has half a brain) So, there is little one can
do unless one has some written proof or recorded proof that
ones boss has it in for them for some reason other than job
performance. This is true of even top executives. As a
matter of fact, it is more true of top executives than it is
of underlings....

IN CANADA, a boss needs to write you up 3 times, giving you
the written notice, before he can fire you "with cause"
Firing "without cause" costs him money. He has to pay
severence - and you get to collect employment insurance if
you have worked enough hours to qualify.

Don't know how it is in the USA.

I don't know either, but suppose the company is going out of
business, and the, "boss" can't pay you another dime because
he, and his company are dirt broke? What then, pussycat? Do
you get to pluck some bucks from that money tree in Washington
DC?

Ever hear of "bankruptcy" and "stand in line"?

Of course. but conversely, have you ever heard of letting
somebody go because you can't afford to keep them? There are
many reasons for letting employees go. It is not always a matter
of choice.

Of course. The issue then becomes "who".

The generally accepted term is "layoff", but why are you stating
the obvious?

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.

There is no reason you *should* be able to "do" anything about it.
What are you proposing to "do" about it?

I'm not propowint to do anything about it. Someone else was worried
that his wife's or girlfriends boss would let her go for some non
job related reason and was asking what he or she could do about it.

That question was about OT, not layoffs.

I havfe been retired for 16
years now and don't have those kinds of problems anymore... but, in
the past, I have had similar problems with idiotic bosses..... I
usually found that the best thing to do was leave and find another
job.

Certainly right.

Even if one were
to bring their case to court and win, then they are going to have to
work under a ****ed off boss for the reat of time. IOW, there is no
good solution to the problem. In the old days, things were a lot
worse than they are now. I let it slip to a prospective employer
once who I had worked for before, and he contacted that person, who
(of course) told him not to hire me. You live and learn....:^)

Why should you even be able to sue? It's their job. If you're not
the right person for it, for *whatever* reason, why should you be
there? It's *not* your property.

Well, as a libertarian, I sort of agree with you. but if they fired you
because of your skin color, (for example) they would be in big trouble. So
there are exceptions, and many of these came about during my working life,
which started back in the 60's when I got out of the Navy.

These are exceptions even in at-will states. Note that they don't
mean anything, though. A person can still be let go for no reason,
just one of a few proscribed ones.

On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 6:38:13 PM UTC-4, Metspitzer wrote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6734806_geo...ours-work.html



My niece just started working for a company yesterday. She is working

in a convenient store that also sells gas. She has almost no job

experience. She says her boss does not pay time and a half for over

40 hours.



I am assuming that if she says anything, the boss will just quit

telling her to come in. What is the best way to address this problem?

Beat the piece of **** to death. The department of labor needs to be destroyed.

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 22:27:43 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 18:35:32 -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.
It is "constructive dismissal" in Canada - and is NOT "with cause".
The employer pays

You speak as if it were a law. In Canada, it may well be a law. Here there
is no such law. If your employer wants to get rid of some people, he just
lets them go, but pays them for their accumulated vacion time. When I left
Stanford University, they didn;t even pay for ones accumulated sick leave. I
had around 6 months sick leave on the books, (I was almost never sick) and
didn;t get paid for that. Smaller businesses here in those days, didn;t pay
for vacations or holidays, either. Bsck in the mid 60's I worked for a place
that fixed shipboard radars, and one day, my boss said, "Tomorrow.s the 4th
of July, so you guys don;t have to come in". We all thought we would be
paid, but when we got our checks a couple of weeks later, we only got paid
for 4 days that week...:^)
Accumulated sick leave is a perk that is generally regulated by your
employment contract - if non-union it usually does not exist. Many
unions are having to let that "bonus" go. I say good riddance. Not
sure how it is in the USA, but since the sixties here in Ontario
vacation pay has been mandatory in all but a few select job classes
(education, police service, and a few others). It differs from
province to province. 4% of total earnings from day one, and 2 weeks
time off after one year - 6% and 3 weeks after 5 years in Ontario.
Statutary holidaysvary depending whether you are in a provincially or
federally regulated industry - some stats are provincial, some are
federal.

Nothing mandatory about vacation at all. Why should it be? The
question whether any time accrued is paid upon termination. This is
certainly jurisdiction and custom dependant.

Again - this is Canada (and Ontario) specific. We are a "socialist"
society - The "american way" may differ.

Thankfully.

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 00:20:59 -0400, wrote:




Nothing mandatory about vacation at all. Why should it be? The
question whether any time accrued is paid upon termination. This is
certainly jurisdiction and custom dependant.


Most companies to have a policy where vacation is accrued during the
work year. Others though, do not and you get nothing if you leave
before July 1 or whenever shutdown for vacation is.

Why should anything be mandatory? Really, if you pay people enough
they can take care of the "benefits" as they see fit. Except that
most people don't have the willpower to save.

Some work schedules are other people dependent, such as an assembly
line or food service. Other people work independent of each other and
can be more flexible. I know a fellow that worked for a software
company. The rule was: you have to work 240 eight hour days a year.
This is what your pay will be every month.

My deal is even looser than that. I have no minimum time to work.

In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:


Which opens up a whole new bag of worms.... Is Kleptomania a treatable
disease? And, if so, can you be fired for contracting a treatable disease?

It isn't treatable in the sense that you can take something for it
(sorry). Psychotherapy is about the only treatment with any science
behind it.
Obviously you can fire someone for stealing from you.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 18:35:32 -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.
It is "constructive dismissal" in Canada - and is NOT "with cause".
The employer pays

You speak as if it were a law. In Canada, it may well be a law. Here
there is no such law. If your employer wants to get rid of some
people, he just lets them go, but pays them for their accumulated
vacion time. When I left Stanford University, they didn;t even pay
for ones accumulated sick leave. I had around 6 months sick leave on
the books, (I was almost never sick) and didn;t get paid for that.
Smaller businesses here in those days, didn;t pay for vacations or
holidays, either. Bsck in the mid 60's I worked for a place that
fixed shipboard radars, and one day, my boss said, "Tomorrow.s the
4th of July, so you guys don;t have to come in". We all thought we
would be paid, but when we got our checks a couple of weeks later,
we only got paid for 4 days that week...:^)
Accumulated sick leave is a perk that is generally regulated by your
employment contract - if non-union it usually does not exist. Many
unions are having to let that "bonus" go. I say good riddance. Not
sure how it is in the USA, but since the sixties here in Ontario
vacation pay has been mandatory in all but a few select job classes
(education, police service, and a few others). It differs from
province to province. 4% of total earnings from day one, and 2 weeks
time off after one year - 6% and 3 weeks after 5 years in Ontario.
Statutary holidaysvary depending whether you are in a provincially or
federally regulated industry - some stats are provincial, some are
federal.

Again - this is Canada (and Ontario) specific. We are a "socialist"
society - The "american way" may differ.

Oh, not to worry. We are catching up. We are getting more and more
socialized every year. I hate it, because it cripples the free enterprise
system, but I am only one small voice in an ocean of shouting. When money is
plentiful, the socialism seems to work pretty well. But when a small
business is going under, these laws just serve to sink it faster. (which may
not be a bad thing)

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.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:


Which opens up a whole new bag of worms.... Is Kleptomania a
treatable disease? And, if so, can you be fired for contracting a
treatable disease?

It isn't treatable in the sense that you can take something for it
(sorry). Psychotherapy is about the only treatment with any science
behind it.
Obviously you can fire someone for stealing from you.

Well, my point is that you can carry, "bleeding heart liberalism" too far.
At some point, you have to force people to be responsible for themselves, no
matter how socialized the society.

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




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.

I partly agree. First, the government should not be telling me how to
run my business and what I must give for benefits.


Well run smaller business are profitable and pay good salary and
benefits. Some smaller business could afford to give better benefits
if they charge appropriately for their services. I've seen many small
employers try to increase their customer base by offering low, low
prices. OK, if you want to work cheap fine with me, but don't
complain you are not making enough money.

If you want to attract the best employees, you have to offer at least
equal to what the competition offers. If I want to offer a better
product than my competition, I have to have the best material and best
people working with it. You get a different labor pool to choose
workers from at $8 an hour, $10 an hour, $25 an hour.

Payroll has a lot to do with attitude. I was at a meeting with two
small business owners. At the end, one said to the other, now I have
to go back and do what I hat the most, payroll, and give a way a lot
of money. The other said, that is the best time of the week. I know
that if I'm paying a lot of money to employees, they are making money
for me too.

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:19:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 18:35:32 -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.
It is "constructive dismissal" in Canada - and is NOT "with cause".
The employer pays

You speak as if it were a law. In Canada, it may well be a law. Here
there is no such law. If your employer wants to get rid of some
people, he just lets them go, but pays them for their accumulated
vacion time. When I left Stanford University, they didn;t even pay
for ones accumulated sick leave. I had around 6 months sick leave on
the books, (I was almost never sick) and didn;t get paid for that.
Smaller businesses here in those days, didn;t pay for vacations or
holidays, either. Bsck in the mid 60's I worked for a place that
fixed shipboard radars, and one day, my boss said, "Tomorrow.s the
4th of July, so you guys don;t have to come in". We all thought we
would be paid, but when we got our checks a couple of weeks later,
we only got paid for 4 days that week...:^)
Accumulated sick leave is a perk that is generally regulated by your
employment contract - if non-union it usually does not exist. Many
unions are having to let that "bonus" go. I say good riddance. Not
sure how it is in the USA, but since the sixties here in Ontario
vacation pay has been mandatory in all but a few select job classes
(education, police service, and a few others). It differs from
province to province. 4% of total earnings from day one, and 2 weeks
time off after one year - 6% and 3 weeks after 5 years in Ontario.
Statutary holidaysvary depending whether you are in a provincially or
federally regulated industry - some stats are provincial, some are
federal.

Again - this is Canada (and Ontario) specific. We are a "socialist"
society - The "american way" may differ.

Oh, not to worry. We are catching up. We are getting more and more
socialized every year. I hate it, because it cripples the free enterprise
system, but I am only one small voice in an ocean of shouting. When money is
plentiful, the socialism seems to work pretty well. But when a small
business is going under, these laws just serve to sink it faster. (which may
not be a bad thing)
I love it. It ENABLES the free enterprize system. It sets standards
that both the employer and employee can depend on. The employer knows
what his responsibilities are, and between the employer and the
employee most of the responsibilities are pree-paid and pre-funded.
Without unwelcome surprises, business can concentrate on business - .

But this is the Canadian System - which you yanks call "socialist" -
and consider the first step towards "communism". Yes, it has some
socialist charachteristics - but it is a very capitalistic system in
all other ways.

You can have your "ameican way".

"Bill Graham" wrote


Well, my point is that you can carry, "bleeding heart liberalism" too far.
At some point, you have to force people to be responsible for themselves,
no
matter how socialized the society.

Trouble is, as society "advances", it always heads towards liberalism, and
"taking care" of those "less fortunate" than us. It is a sign of a highly
developed "society."

Rome aimed at taking care of its citizens, providing free entertainment,
both theatrical and Christian make a wish and pull, and other various odd
things. And then it became top heavy and toppled.

Just like California.

Steve

On 2013-04-05, Bill Graham wrote:

In a truely capitalistic system, no company would want to get rid of a
productive employee that they have hired and trained to do their job and who
does it acceptably well.

Jay-sus, are you ppl ever naive.

A company will often fire the highest paid employee simply cuz they
have to pay him/her more. In high tech, I've often seen the best and
brightest let go for merely earning too much. In fact, it's a long
established tradition to let go employees with tons of experience and
replace them with 1-2 newbie boobies. High tech literally invented
the concept.

Other points are equally inaccurate. The feds typically default to
state labor laws. For years, CA had OT for anything over 8 hrs.
Republican gov Pete Wilson signed a law changing it to 1.5X for over
40 hrs. I was working up to 10-12 hrs day with no OT. Succeeding gov
Grey Davis changed it back to 8 hr OT.

The Federal Labor Relations Board is a joke. I once discovered my
temp agency was not paying me the legally required $0.36 hr I was due.
I complained to the FLRB. The finally got back to me and said that,
yes, my temp employer was, indeed, in violation of two federal laws.
I said, "I knew that. When do I get my $600 back pay?". The feds
replied, "Oh, there is no penalty or requirement they reimburse. We
jes consider it an administrative infraction". So, a law with no
penalty. No wonder almost every temp employment agency in CA ignored
it and withheld the money owed to workers.

Every single time I've taken a labor issue to the state or the feds,
they both sided with the company. I've seen too often over 45 years as
both a blue and white collar worker.

nb

On 4/7/2013 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:




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.

I partly agree. First, the government should not be telling me how to
run my business and what I must give for benefits.


But there is a conundrum. We tried the let business do anything it wants
(Vanderbilt/Rockefeller/Morgan) and they showed how badly some can
behave once they obtain control. I want minimal government involvement
but I also recognize where it needs to be involved. We only need to look
at the FSU to see the other side of the coin with total government
management. Moral of the story? Extremes are never good.


Our current "free market" is just a fantasy thing often spouted by the
extreme right. If it were an "free market" if you screw up you take it
on the chin and in recent times that would simply mean that many banks
and brokerages would simply be gone. Our current capitalist profit
socialist loss system is just plain wrong.



Well run smaller business are profitable and pay good salary and
benefits. Some smaller business could afford to give better benefits
if they charge appropriately for their services. I've seen many small
employers try to increase their customer base by offering low, low
prices. OK, if you want to work cheap fine with me, but don't
complain you are not making enough money.

Exactly, size has little to do with it. The ethics of the owner(s) is
the determining factor.

I worked for a small company and received excellent benefits and profit
sharing. In return I managed as if I was the owner and made a good
income for him. The owner did not have heirs so he decided to sell the
business. We produced a great product, had a great reputation and
customers were treated well and kept coming back. It was bought by a
much larger company whose attitude was that employees were a burden and
clearly not as smart as the owner. Little by little the key people left.
The place lasted 3 more years before it was bought cheap by a competitor.



If you want to attract the best employees, you have to offer at least
equal to what the competition offers. If I want to offer a better
product than my competition, I have to have the best material and best
people working with it. You get a different labor pool to choose
workers from at $8 an hour, $10 an hour, $25 an hour.

Payroll has a lot to do with attitude. I was at a meeting with two
small business owners. At the end, one said to the other, now I have
to go back and do what I hat the most, payroll, and give a way a lot
of money. The other said, that is the best time of the week. I know
that if I'm paying a lot of money to employees, they are making money
for me too.

Its that greed thing. Some is good and excessive greed where you think
you are the most important person and everyone else is dirt is wrong.

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 01:23:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 00:20:59 -0400, wrote:




Nothing mandatory about vacation at all. Why should it be? The
question whether any time accrued is paid upon termination. This is
certainly jurisdiction and custom dependant.


Most companies to have a policy where vacation is accrued during the
work year. Others though, do not and you get nothing if you leave
before July 1 or whenever shutdown for vacation is.

Why should anything be mandatory?

So you don't believe people should get paid for the hours worked, if
they get fired, either?

Really, if you pay people enough
they can take care of the "benefits" as they see fit. Except that
most people don't have the willpower to save.

Vacation is a benefit to the employer, as well.

Some work schedules are other people dependent, such as an assembly
line or food service. Other people work independent of each other and
can be more flexible. I know a fellow that worked for a software
company. The rule was: you have to work 240 eight hour days a year.
This is what your pay will be every month.

OK, what's that got to do with the discussion?

My deal is even looser than that. I have no minimum time to work.

So is mine. I have no maximum that I can work. ;-)

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)

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




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.

I partly agree. First, the government should not be telling me how to
run my business and what I must give for benefits.


Well run smaller business are profitable and pay good salary and
benefits. Some smaller business could afford to give better benefits
if they charge appropriately for their services. I've seen many small
employers try to increase their customer base by offering low, low
prices. OK, if you want to work cheap fine with me, but don't
complain you are not making enough money.

If you want to attract the best employees, you have to offer at least
equal to what the competition offers. If I want to offer a better
product than my competition, I have to have the best material and best
people working with it. You get a different labor pool to choose
workers from at $8 an hour, $10 an hour, $25 an hour.

Payroll has a lot to do with attitude. I was at a meeting with two
small business owners. At the end, one said to the other, now I have
to go back and do what I hat the most, payroll, and give a way a lot
of money. The other said, that is the best time of the week. I know
that if I'm paying a lot of money to employees, they are making money
for me too.

Yes. Qnd some small growing businessesw offer their own stock as part of the
salery package, so the employees becomd owners with a continuously growing
percentage of the company. this gives them another incentive to work hard
and make the company money.