How legal Is This

[KrazyHorse]

and then they bail because somebody offers them way over market value

Just a quibble.

"Things are worth what somebody is willing to pay for them"

[Ming]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Employee market is fickle, just like the market your sales side has to deal with. Why shouldn't your workers choose a job with more money? Why did you invest in them in the first place? Was it because you're a nice guy, or because you wanted to increase their skills and tie them to the company for the duration of training?

And that's the whole point... Employees can move at a moment's notice, and screw their company. Nobody here seems to have a problem with that, and neither do I. But some people are whining luck stuck pigs when the shoe is on the other foot. You can't have it both ways. Fair is Fair... and that's the point I'm making.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ming


Employees are generally pretty loyal... what are you smoking.

We can be paying somebody above fair market value, and then invest tons of money in presentation classes... management classes... writing classes... all things the employee wants... and then they bail because somebody offers them way over market value.

It's hardest with the new people who you think get shafted oh so often. They are the hardest to keep. They come and get an entry level job (get their foot in the door) and then bail for tons more money after WE have trained them. So I don't want to hear to the moans of those starting off... they are the least loyal of all.

I'm only hearing one side of the argument here, from you as an employer. I am in a limbo where I am on both sides, that of the employee who gets shafted and the employer who gets left high and dry...it's just not as simple as you state...

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ming
And that's the whole point... Employees can move at a moment's notice, and screw their company. Nobody here seems to have a problem with that, and neither do I. But some people are whining luck stuck pigs when the shoe is on the other foot. You can't have it both ways. Fair is Fair... and that's the point I'm making.

Well under the terms of employment there is a notice period involved which generally has to be followed unless mutually dissolved by both parties, which also forms part of statutory law in this country. So no, the employee can't just up and walk at a minutes notice and screw the employer either. I am agreed that that is grossly unfair, not just to the employer but to fellow employees too...even if it was allowed I would never do it as a matter of principle...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Well under the terms of employment there is a notice period involved which generally has to be followed unless mutually dissolved by both parties, which also forms part of statutory law in this country. So no, the employee can't just up and walk at a minutes notice and screw the employer either. I am agreed that that is grossly unfair, not just to the employer but to fellow employees too...even if it was allowed I would never do it as a matter of principle...

Here... it is "general practice" to give two weeks notice if you leave. That pretty much gives them time to turn stuff over, but nowhere near enough time to replace and train. So the employer gets screwed. But, people can and do just get up and leave with no notice.

And while you may not do it... others do. So this isn't the one way street that some people want to make it.
If you want stability... get a contract. That is fair to both sides. And without a contract, both sides have the same rights... fair is fair.

I guess people think it's ok to screw a company, but not a person. Yet people forget that a company is just a bunch of people. If you don't like it, you can always go someplace where the government controls all the jobs and employment. Enjoy

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed... sometimes employees just up and announce they are gone and the employer can't do anything about it. As you may know, I work for the government investigating pensions. A lot of the problems that do arise is because the person who was running the pension plan just decided to up and leave with little to no notice, and the company is scrambling (and not getting the money in timely because of it) until they can hire someone competant.

That's just one example. Due to our 13th Amendment (banning slavery or involuntary servitude), you can't force someone to stay with a company for a certain notice period. If they want to leave that day, they can leave that day and the only recourse an employer may have is giving a bad recommendation (thought chances are they won't be listed as one).

Hell, when I worked at CVS, we had people who didn't show up to work one day and when called, they said they quit, leaving the rest of the workers scrambling to cover for one less employee.

[-Jrabbit]

Loyalty is a human quality and as such, employees can have it. Companies cannot. I would suggest that what passes for "loyalty" is usually just inertia. Go long enough without making a change and one is tempted to think that employee and/or eimployer might be exhibiting loyalty. Don't be fooled. And don't fool yourself.

I strongly encourage everyone to keep your resume up to date. That especially includes people who work in management, like Ming. Because the closer you fly to the flame, the more likely it is you'll get burned. Don't ever deceive yourself into thinking you're indispensible.

Mrs. Tubes, I think you're handling your situation well. Keep letting them know that you're on top of it.

Oh, and sorry for my participation in the threadjacking.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Jr no prob ur not thread jacking at all. This is exactly what i want to hear. Everyone here has had a say on what they feel is right and wrong. MIng has a strong sense towards the employer and lots of other folks dont see it his way.
Imran I think all of us being in the work force that depends on anther body to come in to help with the work load has dealt with the callin in sick of a another employee. It sucks for me as a nurse in the or when someone does that cause nobody off the street can fill in for them. we suck it up and keep the work moving along. To be threatend about being fired when work is slow and they act liek they dont need ya is bull ****. cause the next day they will need ya and then no compliants are necessary till u have busted ur ass and the work load is done. I dunno but the nonchalant crap of ur replacable is bull till they have no one else willing to do the job.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Ming, I have a contract that is guaranteed me my job ffor the 13 weeks. If i dont follow the rules, the co knows they have to pay my contract to the end. I stil have to be there and be threatned and harrassaed abut the smell on my clothes that might be mine or not. Even a contract doesnt guarantee a comforatable workplace. I dont know how else i can say that. I work hard, stay late, comein early, and adjust my schedule for those who actually work for the company to cover them when they call in, and i get freaking harassaed for **** that is beyond my freaking control. i got the hint need to find a new contract. This still doesnt make it right for the employees that are with that company full time and they do the same thing

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ming


Here... it is "general practice" to give two weeks notice if you leave. That pretty much gives them time to turn stuff over, but nowhere near enough time to replace and train. So the employer gets screwed. But, people can and do just get up and leave with no notice.

And while you may not do it... others do. So this isn't the one way street that some people want to make it.
If you want stability... get a contract. That is fair to both sides. And without a contract, both sides have the same rights... fair is fair.

I guess people think it's ok to screw a company, but not a person. Yet people forget that a company is just a bunch of people. If you don't like it, you can always go someplace where the government controls all the jobs and employment. Enjoy

I am aware that some people don't complete their required notice period, alas it is hard to do anything about that...there is always legal action

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ming


Employees are generally pretty loyal... what are you smoking.

We can be paying somebody above fair market value, and then invest tons of money in presentation classes... management classes... writing classes... all things the employee wants... and then they bail because somebody offers them way over market value.

It's hardest with the new people who you think get shafted oh so often. They are the hardest to keep. They come and get an entry level job (get their foot in the door) and then bail for tons more money after WE have trained them. So I don't want to hear to the moans of those starting off... they are the least loyal of all.

Did you just lose a staff member you cared about? Want to talk about it? Here, have a tissue

[Flubber]

While in Canada, a non-union employee can be fired at any time, the employer has to give appropriate notice or more usually "pay in lieu of notice". The statutory minimum in most provinces is two weeks but the reality is that it is usually much more depending on length of service ( for higher level positions, one month per year of service is pretty common). Note that a legitimate "for cause" firing requires no notice

In these "at-will" states, is there any notice requirements? Or can you literally just fire people and give them nothing?

[rah]

Last week my company laid off 6 people. (rational was budget) All six were given one week pay for each year of tenure and were told that the company wouldn't contest unemployement. Most companies around here provide similar arrangement, but not required to by law.

A companies reputation of how it deals with employees can be quite important for attracting the best in the workplace. Free market at it's best. There is a value to treating employees with respect. Some companies don't understand this and will suffer in the long term.

[-Jrabbit]

But we're not in an at-will state.

I would contest Rah's suggestion that his company's actions amount to "respect" for the employees they terminate.
1. It's a corporation, not a person. Assigning it human qualities like "loyalty" and "respect" is convenient but totally inaccurate.
2. It's self-interest, not respect. The company exchanges cash and unemployment checks for the highly desired separation agreement (avoiding lawsuits).

I got a very nice separation package, and it does make it easier to talk to prospective employers and say we parted on good terms. But it's all bottom-line activity, nothing more. Pretending otherwise is convenient but delusional.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think the thing I dislike most about employees is they are not sincere to you. You can all complain about the boss but see how you feel about your staff when you are the boss.