Time and a half for over 40 hours
notbob wrote:
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 All of the above may be true, but we don't live in a "truely capitalistic system" We have become more and more socialized over the course of my working life. (1956 - 1996) So, all bets are off..... |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 16:54:35 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: wrote: 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". But not for long. The Socialists are now in power...... Then say "thank you" and get back to the business of business. Don't make excuses. |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
|
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:30:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 19:35:57 -0400, wrote: Why should anything be mandatory? So you don't believe people should get paid for the hours worked, if they get fired, either? Where did I say that? I didn't. You don't think getting paid for vacation time earned should be mandatory. That *WAS* the subject, BTW. 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. But needs and wants vary. Some people like to take long vacations, others would rather have the money. No reason that the employee can't have some say in what they do and prefer. Sure, but why should the employer be able to steal vacation from someone who's earned it? That *WAS* the issue. 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? The fact that with a system of that sort, there is no overtime, no lateness, no sick days, no absenteeism, no pay variances, almost no limit on vacation time other than a 125 day maximum if you work it right. It empowers the employee to take care of business as he sees fit. Try following the discussion. |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
|
Time and a half for over 40 hours
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 19:35:57 -0400, wrote: Why should anything be mandatory? So you don't believe people should get paid for the hours worked, if they get fired, either? Where did I say that? I didn't. 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. But needs and wants vary. Some people like to take long vacations, others would rather have the money. No reason that the employee can't have some say in what they do and prefer. 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? The fact that with a system of that sort, there is no overtime, no lateness, no sick days, no absenteeism, no pay variances, almost no limit on vacation time other than a 125 day maximum if you work it right. It empowers the employee to take care of business as he sees fit. Sounds like socialism to me. "The poor employee is incapable of taking care of himself and making the right decisions in his life, so we will have to tell him what to do. How to live, when and what vacations to take, what benefits he should receive.... After all, we can;t have any of the ants in the colony just going off on their own, can we? |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
wrote You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Yes, and you can quit and still get unemployment. When asked why you quit, say you were "unable to fulfill requirements of employer". If the employer had ever chewed you out, or berated you in front of a witness, that qualifies as evidence, and they don't want to have that brought up in front of an investigative board, so most will not challenge the claim. DAMHIKT Steve |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
Thanks, comrade. I'm glad someone else other than me can see the socialism
going on around us. And fascism, too. .. Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. .. "Bill Graham" wrote in message ... Sounds like socialism to me. "The poor employee is incapable of taking care of himself and making the right decisions in his life, so we will have to tell him what to do. How to live, when and what vacations to take, what benefits he should receive.... After all, we can;t have any of the ants in the colony just going off on their own, can we? |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:25:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:56:10 -0400, wrote: Why should anything be mandatory? So you don't believe people should get paid for the hours worked, if they get fired, either? Where did I say that? I didn't. You don't think getting paid for vacation time earned should be mandatory. That *WAS* the subject, BTW. Sure, if earned and part of the employment agreement. If the vacation is based on time worked on a particular calendar date, you are SOL. You are supposed to know the terms of employment when you sign on. You're changing the subject, again. At many companies, you get a week after a year of employment. If you can canned at six months, no vacation pay for time worked. In many, you get so many hours per hour worked. Some of those don't pay accrued vacation time if you're canned, either. That's what we were discussing. Your statement was that nothing should be mandatory. I'm with you about 90% of the way but the above case is *clearly* in the other 10%. Sure, but why should the employer be able to steal vacation from someone who's earned it? That *WAS* the issue. Employer can only steal if time was on the books. see above example. Duh! Try following the discussion. The discussion has drifted to many areas or employment, few actually having to do with the subject line. You don't even bother to keep the discussion relevant to the article you're replying to. |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... ....and how is that a public policy problem? |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:25:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:56:10 -0400, wrote: Why should anything be mandatory? So you don't believe people should get paid for the hours worked, if they get fired, either? Where did I say that? I didn't. You don't think getting paid for vacation time earned should be mandatory. That *WAS* the subject, BTW. Sure, if earned and part of the employment agreement. If the vacation is based on time worked on a particular calendar date, you are SOL. You are supposed to know the terms of employment when you sign on. At many companies, you get a week after a year of employment. If you can canned at six months, no vacation pay for time worked. That's the beaty of the Canadian system. It is "accrued" vacation pay - which is separate from vacation time. You get the pay after 1 week, 6 months, or a year - 4% of total earned wages. You only get vacation time after 1 year unless you negotiate differently with the employer when hired. The employer cannot deny you the time off, but you can negotiate with the employer if you want to work 52 weeks per year and just take the cash. LEGALLY you are supposed to take the 2 weeks time off. Sure, but why should the employer be able to steal vacation from someone who's earned it? That *WAS* the issue. Employer can only steal if time was on the books. see above example. IN CANADA (at least in ONTARIO, unless you are one of the few exempt employers, you pay the vacation pay. Part time workers get it on their weekly cheque - $x dollars an hour times hours + 4% vac pay. Now I work on contract - so I only get paid what I invoice. No holiday pay, no benefits, no taxes witheld at source, and no unemployment insurance . So basically I'm paid like a Yankee, I guess. But I also get to set my hours (within limits). If the "boss" doesn't like my hours he is free to contract with someone else - and I'm out of a job with no recourse. I am "self employed" operating my own business selling my services to other companies. Try following the discussion. The discussion has drifted to many areas or employment, few actually having to do with the subject line. |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:01:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: Ed Pawlowski wrote: On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 19:35:57 -0400, wrote: Why should anything be mandatory? So you don't believe people should get paid for the hours worked, if they get fired, either? Where did I say that? I didn't. 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. But needs and wants vary. Some people like to take long vacations, others would rather have the money. No reason that the employee can't have some say in what they do and prefer. 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? The fact that with a system of that sort, there is no overtime, no lateness, no sick days, no absenteeism, no pay variances, almost no limit on vacation time other than a 125 day maximum if you work it right. It empowers the employee to take care of business as he sees fit. Sounds like socialism to me. "The poor employee is incapable of taking care of himself and making the right decisions in his life, so we will have to tell him what to do. How to live, when and what vacations to take, what benefits he should receive.... After all, we can;t have any of the ants in the colony just going off on their own, can we? Socialism my ass - that's just the plight of the "contract worker" - He sells 1030 hours of his time (services) to a company for a given number of dollars, to be delivered on his schedule. To be legal in Canada would require that he "invoice" for his time - and he would be paid as a "cvontractor " or "supplier" - not an employee. His pay does not come out of "payroll" That doge has been used up here by high-tech firms among others for years - but if proven by CRA that the "contractor" does not (or cannot) work for anyone else, and the "customer" dictates the starting time and work location of the "contractor", the "customer" can be demed an employer, and the "contractor" an "employee" for taxation purposes. That gets REAL expensive if either one is found guilty of "tax evasion" In a legitimate situation, the "contractor" gets to claim "business expenses" that he would otherwise not be able to claim and the "customer" gets to write off the payment as other than "wages" which can also be a benefit at tax time (and on statements to shareholders) |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... There is no "firing board" required in Ontario Canada. The immediate supervisor thinks you are slacking? He writes you up. He thinks you are incompetent? he writes you up. You've been written up twice - you are on notice. He writes you up one more time - you can be GONE - wih cause - no severance - no pogey. Works well for the employer - and is "fair" to the employee. Gross negligence or insubordination can also be used as "for cause" but is more difficult to prove. There are other "for cause" situations - criminal acts on the job, among others. |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:58:30 -0700, "Steve B" wrote:
wrote You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Yes, and you can quit and still get unemployment. When asked why you quit, say you were "unable to fulfill requirements of employer". If the employer had ever chewed you out, or berated you in front of a witness, that qualifies as evidence, and they don't want to have that brought up in front of an investigative board, so most will not challenge the claim. DAMHIKT Steve In Canada you need to give notice to leave in all but extreme circumstances.. Constructive dismissal is one. Charges of wronfull dismissal can be levied against the employer in this case - but you must quit soon after the incident in questio. You may have put up with the boss's BS several times - and then when it happens again you pack your bags, walk out, and notify the department of labour and/or your lawyer.. If he's been a prick for 2 years, then everything settles down for a few months, it would be hard to claim "constructive dissmissal" of you just decided you had had enough without a trigger event. For the "canadian"situation, see http://www.levittllp.ca/article-misconceptions Also see: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/...ermination.php |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... ...and how is that a public policy problem? If by, "public policy" you are talking about state created laws that force industries to all treat layoffs the same, then you are interfering with the ability of some smaller companies to be able to stay in business. but why are you binng so antagonistic? You can post about what you know and want to post about.... How about letting me do the same without your dumb questions? |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... There is no "firing board" required in Ontario Canada. The immediate supervisor thinks you are slacking? He writes you up. He thinks you are incompetent? he writes you up. You've been written up twice - you are on notice. He writes you up one more time - you can be GONE - wih cause - no severance - no pogey. Works well for the employer - and is "fair" to the employee. Gross negligence or insubordination can also be used as "for cause" but is more difficult to prove. There are other "for cause" situations - criminal acts on the job, among others. Fine. But I wasn't speaking of what is, "requireed by law". Some companies set up firing boards to protect their heavy investments in training employe3es and then having them fired by straw bosses for no good reason. these are not required by law, but a wise move by employers to protect their investments in skilled employees. |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:12:23 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... There is no "firing board" required in Ontario Canada. The immediate supervisor thinks you are slacking? He writes you up. He thinks you are incompetent? he writes you up. You've been written up twice - you are on notice. He writes you up one more time - you can be GONE - wih cause - no severance - no pogey. Works well for the employer - and is "fair" to the employee. Gross negligence or insubordination can also be used as "for cause" but is more difficult to prove. There are other "for cause" situations - criminal acts on the job, among others. Fine. But I wasn't speaking of what is, "requireed by law". Some companies set up firing boards to protect their heavy investments in training employe3es and then having them fired by straw bosses for no good reason. these are not required by law, but a wise move by employers to protect their investments in skilled employees. And sometimes it gets the "straw bosses" fired too - which can be a GOOD thing. |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:12:23 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... There is no "firing board" required in Ontario Canada. The immediate supervisor thinks you are slacking? He writes you up. He thinks you are incompetent? he writes you up. You've been written up twice - you are on notice. He writes you up one more time - you can be GONE - wih cause - no severance - no pogey. Works well for the employer - and is "fair" to the employee. Gross negligence or insubordination can also be used as "for cause" but is more difficult to prove. There are other "for cause" situations - criminal acts on the job, among others. Fine. But I wasn't speaking of what is, "requireed by law". Some companies set up firing boards to protect their heavy investments in training employe3es and then having them fired by straw bosses for no good reason. these are not required by law, but a wise move by employers to protect their investments in skilled employees. And sometimes it gets the "straw bosses" fired too - which can be a GOOD thing. Yes. Especially if it happens too often. but, I have to say, that bossing is a much different skill than doing the work, expecially in a highly technical job. I was a skilled worker, and I had several different bosses. Some of them were pretty bad. But they had a difficult job, (one that I wouldn;t want to do) so I gave them a lot of slack, and managed to put up with some of their failings. After all, this too is part of doing a difficult job. Even now that I am retired, I run into some band directors in persuing my hobby that I think could use a lot of improvement. But if I was asked to do their job, I would turn it down, so I put up with their failings too....:^) |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: | | [christmas presents] |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:03:12 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... ...and how is that a public policy problem? If by, "public policy" you are talking about state created laws that force industries to all treat layoffs the same, then you are interfering with the ability of some smaller companies to be able to stay in business. but why are you binng so antagonistic? You can post about what you know and want to post about.... How about letting me do the same without your dumb questions? How about you figuring out *what* you're talking about so we can have a discussion. You're constantly changing the subject. sheesh! |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:02:08 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: wrote: On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:12:23 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... There is no "firing board" required in Ontario Canada. The immediate supervisor thinks you are slacking? He writes you up. He thinks you are incompetent? he writes you up. You've been written up twice - you are on notice. He writes you up one more time - you can be GONE - wih cause - no severance - no pogey. Works well for the employer - and is "fair" to the employee. Gross negligence or insubordination can also be used as "for cause" but is more difficult to prove. There are other "for cause" situations - criminal acts on the job, among others. Fine. But I wasn't speaking of what is, "requireed by law". Some companies set up firing boards to protect their heavy investments in training employe3es and then having them fired by straw bosses for no good reason. these are not required by law, but a wise move by employers to protect their investments in skilled employees. And sometimes it gets the "straw bosses" fired too - which can be a GOOD thing. Yes. Especially if it happens too often. but, I have to say, that bossing is a much different skill than doing the work, expecially in a highly technical job. I was a skilled worker, and I had several different bosses. Some of them were pretty bad. But they had a difficult job, (one that I wouldn;t want to do) so I gave them a lot of slack, and managed to put up with some of their failings. After all, this too is part of doing a difficult job. Even now that I am retired, I run into some band directors in persuing my hobby that I think could use a lot of improvement. But if I was asked to do their job, I would turn it down, so I put up with their failings too....:^) I've been on both sides.And in the middle. In the middle is the most difficult!!! |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:34:28 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:03:12 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... ...and how is that a public policy problem? If by, "public policy" you are talking about state created laws that force industries to all treat layoffs the same, then you are interfering with the ability of some smaller companies to be able to stay in business. but why are you binng so antagonistic? You can post about what you know and want to post about.... How about letting me do the same without your dumb questions? How about you figuring out *what* you're talking about so we can have a discussion. You're constantly changing the subject. sheesh! Yep, IKWYABWAI *IS* the only argument you have. Typical lefty - dumb as a stump. |
Time and a half for over 40 hours
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:02:08 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:12:23 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:07:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:23:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:58:08 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 07:42:13 -0400, Meanie wrote: On 4/6/2013 12:51 AM, Bill Graham wrote: My point is simple. Unless you can prove that you were layed off for reasons unrelated to your job performance and or money restrictions, you can probably do nothing about it. Laid off or fired is irrelevant. If enough time elapse with the job, the ex-employee can collect unemployment compensation. Not if you are fired "with cause" in Canada - at least in Ontario. Doesn't it depend on the cause? If the job changes and you're now not qualified, it is a firing with cause (incompetency) but it's not something you can do anything about. True. And this happens to many people in this computer age. I was a high energy physics machind operator. They obsoleted my machind and transferred me to a new, much larger and more complicated machind when I was older and less able to memorize large quantities of information. They didnlt lay me off, but they instituted a, "geezer elimination program" (my descriotion) where they paid you two weeks salery for every year you had been with them (up to a maximum of a years pay.) Since I had been with them for 28 years, I g9ot a years pay to leave, so I retired at the age of 61, but didn't start collecting any social security until the following year, at 62. When I (was) retired (laid off, RIF'd, whatever - could have interviewed for a number of other positions but it was time to go) from IBM they paid me for 6 months, plus all vacation, and gave me a year's medical insurance, too (my retirement insurance picked up from there until I got a job with insurance). I started collecting my retirement immediately but will try to go another five years, until full SS age. Maybe longer, maybe not. Layoffs are certainly different from firings, though. Layoffs are common even states that are not "at will". Yes. I worked for IBM as a, "customer engineer" when I first left the US Navy in 1960. It was an interesting job, but a bit too structured for my blood. Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages to both. Huh? The issue is firing people. What does that have to do with perks (other than do they get paid the perks they've earned) How people are let go, whether at the whim of one3 person, or by a board that investigates and discusses the propos3d lay-off at length, together with hearings that both the prospective layed off employee and his manager can voice their objections, is just another "perk" that large corporations can afford, and small businesses cannot. You're not making any sense. Why should any employer be forced to have a "board", or "hearings" or any other such nonsense? If your boss doesn't think you're doing the work, gone. If you don't like the boss, you can fire him without so much as notice. Sure, but what you can do, and what most large corporations do do are two different things. Especially if they have to spend a lot of time and money training you to do whatever it is you do for them. They are not likely to just let some bozo fire people that they have invested lots of money in for any or no reason at all.... There is no "firing board" required in Ontario Canada. The immediate supervisor thinks you are slacking? He writes you up. He thinks you are incompetent? he writes you up. You've been written up twice - you are on notice. He writes you up one more time - you can be GONE - wih cause - no severance - no pogey. Works well for the employer - and is "fair" to the employee. Gross negligence or insubordination can also be used as "for cause" but is more difficult to prove. There are other "for cause" situations - criminal acts on the job, among others. Fine. But I wasn't speaking of what is, "requireed by law". Some companies set up firing boards to protect their heavy investments in training employe3es and then having them fired by straw bosses for no good reason. these are not required by law, but a wise move by employers to protect their investments in skilled employees. And sometimes it gets the "straw bosses" fired too - which can be a GOOD thing. Yes. Especially if it happens too often. but, I have to say, that bossing is a much different skill than doing the work, expecially in a highly technical job. I was a skilled worker, and I had several different bosses. Some of them were pretty bad. But they had a difficult job, (one that I wouldn;t want to do) so I gave them a lot of slack, and managed to put up with some of their failings. After all, this too is part of doing a difficult job. Even now that I am retired, I run into some band directors in persuing my hobby that I think could use a lot of improvement. But if I was asked to do their job, I would turn it down, so I put up with their failings too....:^) I've been on both sides.And in the middle. In the middle is the most difficult!!! Yes. That's where you get all the blame for things that happen over which you had little or no control. Its the exact opposite of being a building inspector, who has a lot of power, until something goes wrong, and then he takes no blame for the result. - But they can be sued. We had a new bus terminal develop cracks and be condemned here in Salem. The building inspectors passed it off before the damage was observed, and now they are being sued. - I love it.....:^) |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter