I have survived my second annual thinning of the herd

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, I know at my dad's law firm, they always fire people very gently and in their experience such a system is just better for business. I suppose these things vary by industry.

[MikeH]

Someone I know was working at a big IT infrastructure company.

One shift someone swapped out a switch, and replaced it with the backup switch.

Little did he know that the backup switch wasn't configured correctly. £5m internal project to detect the fault + £8m as Cisco tried to replicated the environment before the fault was detected. IT director loses job over issue.

And that was a genuine mistake. Imagine the damage someone could do on purpose?

(the real failing there was process, not working out when the failure started and connecting it with what happened then...)

So people try and make the process as gentle as possible... but they still don't want to take the risk. Many other businesses want to remove access to protect their competitive data and client lists etc. from potential theft... Going quietly but taking all your best sales leads with you can be equally damaging.

[Asher]

Seems like it would be more in the company's interest to fire people more kindly. (RE: yellow pages)

Is yellow pages just a terrible company, or is that normal?

They are terrible. They are also French-Canadian.

Take a look at their stock if you want a laugh: http://www.google.ca//finance?chdnp=...TSE:YLO&ntsp=0

[DanS]

Congrats. I'm guessing that trading got hit pretty hard.

[Hauldren Collider]

They are terrible. They are also French-Canadian.

Didn't you just repeat yourself?

[KrazyHorse]

Congrats. I'm guessing that trading got hit pretty hard.

Less people = more money per cap

[Flubber]

Not sure how the US states work. But in Canada (or at least in Ontario where I specifically researched this), if you make a good case that they were trying to force you to quit, it's effectively the same as getting fired and treated as such under law. For example, giving them 1 hour a week...

They call it constructive dismissal-- It can apply even if hours and pay are the same-- for example if they told an engineer he needed to mop the floors etc etc

Now if someone is employed on a casual basis-- ie they have no guranteed hours, then there is really no dismissal payout since their hours just go to zero-- Some processin plants work this way. You work when you are called to work.


For salaried folk in Canada though there are statutory requirements for termination. They vary from province to province but the minimum is two weeks pay. IN reality, the entitlement of the person for notice is much higher and usually is calculated at 2-4 weeks per year of service depending on their type of position. If I was terminated now without cause, I would expect 5-6 months pay "in lieu of notice". For many roles it gets harder to get beyond 6 months regardless of years of service but long-term senior manager types can get into the 18 month to 2 year range

[DanS]

Am I correct in assuming that the low performers would have less payout anyway?

[Flubber]

Yeah but... you get paid for work. Paid FOR WORK. As in work done.

Paying people without them working is bizarre to me. I mean there's bonuses but those are advanced payments on work that will be done. This idea of paying people for work that will never be done is bizarre.

It's contrary to the entire spirit of capitalism and a work ethic.

You work. You get paid. You don't work. You're not entitled to pay.

Actually the Canadian concept is equally simple.

If you have a permanent position and do nothing wrong you are allowed to assume your job will continue. If your employer terminates you, they should give you some notice of that. The concept does not REQUIRE a payout-- it requires notice. IN practice though 99% of employers pay people out instead of having them work their notice period

technically most jurisdictions requires the EMPLOYEE to also give notice but again the practice is different since most employers will say 'go now if you want' of will not pursue it if someone says I quit and leave immediately

[Flubber]

When Canadian sandwich makers get laid off from McDonalds, how much severance pay do they get?

Irrelevent question-- NO one gets laid off at Mcdonalds. They are always hiring with a revolving workforce and I believe they are smart enough to have probationary periods

[Flubber]

He doesn't necessarily need to acknowledge it as long as there's evidence.

If there's no evidence of warnings, he can't be fired for cause. Period.

NOt quite correct -- There are matters that are significant enough that one occurance can warrant firing-- Many of these would also be criminal offenses like assault or rape in the workplace , or theft. Things like 'poor work performance" though would have to be documented.

Aknowledgement is irrelevent as long as you can show that "progressive discipline" was applied before termination

Oh and in a non union environment, you can always fire the person-- what we are really talking about is whether they are entitled to any notice or not--- For most shorter term employees, employers take the simpler route and pay-- its often easier and cheaper to give someone a months pay than to be ready to prove 'cause"

[Flubber]

Asher, what about seasonal lay-offs?

term employees-- perfectly allowed or they are hour wage earners who know from the outset that they are there as needed=-- no payouts required-- This makes sense since no one is getting fired, the job is exactly as they expected it to be-- But if that same 'seasonal outfit" hired a full time office person with a salary and a 40 hour week, firing that person would trigger the notice requirements

It depends on the job offered

[Flubber]

Am I correct in assuming that the low performers would have less payout anyway?

Not necessarily unless you are equating low performer with low level or low paid job. If two people made the same slary and had been with the outfit for the same length of time, their payout/ notice period should be identical regardless of performance unless ther low performance person was bad enough that they are terminated for cause and get no notice/ severance.

A higher performer might also have an argument for compensation for bonuses they lose out but I don't know how that might work -- I don't know if they would aggregate bonuses into a persons pay for the purpose of calculating the payout

[KrazyHorse]

Am I correct in assuming that the low performers would have less payout anyway?

to some extent, holding seniority and role constant (which is not necessarily true)...