Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Time and a half for over 40 hours

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......
  #82   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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.....

  #83   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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.

  #84   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default 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.
  #86   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,105
Default 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.
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,105
Default 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.
  #89   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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?

  #90   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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....



  #91   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,954
Default 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


  #92   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 922
Default 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?



  #93   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,105
Default 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.
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,105
Default 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?

  #95   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default 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.




  #96   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default 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)
  #97   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default 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.
  #98   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default 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
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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?

  #100   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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.



  #101   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default 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.
  #102   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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....:^)

  #104   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,105
Default 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!
  #105   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default 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!!!


  #106   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,105
Default 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.

  #107   Report Post  
Posted to misc.legal,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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.....:^)

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should a pool light bulb be touching water only halfway (half in, half out)? Terra Arcane Home Repair 0 July 4th 10 07:43 AM
D*am forte, it has been down for 1 and a half hours. Wes[_2_] Metalworking 10 February 2nd 10 03:56 AM
Bluetooth Headset, 200 Hours of Standby Time [email protected] Electronics Repair 0 April 9th 08 03:35 PM
Jos completed this weekend so far -1, time in A&E 2.5 hours. NeedforSwede2 UK diy 16 April 25th 06 02:40 PM
Mixer shower only working half the time Red UK diy 0 July 27th 05 12:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"