Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. The law allows a person EI benefits while on compassionate leave. No costs to the small company. Same as for a big company.

What the law needs to restrict, is a person being fired (without cause) while on compassionate leave. It's a dick move, because now the compassionate leave is over and she goes on regular EI benefits while trying to take the kid in for treatment, in addition to adding the burden of finding a new job.



Perhaps she isn't sunshine and unicorn farts. Then there are other ways to get rid of her. Taking advantage of a sick child is not the best way to go about it. Anyone who said any press is good press never got dragged off bloody from a United Airlines flight.

   

I ran a 'small company' for like over 20 years. Between 1 and 8 employees. Maternity leaves, sick leaves, all that shit. No big deal.

You are the one without a clue, perpetuating bullshit by repeating goddam classic anti-worker cliches.
You know the biggest 'administrative cost' we ever had? Going to the HST and then back to separate taxes because the populist idiots 12% > 5% + 7% referendum.

   

Keep in mind we're talking about a non-profit that survives on donations.

If they're required to keep everyone on the books who goes on leave and the costs put them out of existence then what has been accomplished?

The woman with the sick kid still loses her job. And so does everyone else.

   

The only BS is that this story made news to pull at heart-strings of Canadians and to generate outrage.

That's what most media has become today...report stories that will incite a reaction and slant the story heavily to one side to ensure that takes place.

   

Once again, WHAT COST?
It doesn't cost anything to NOT enter hours in a payroll program, it actually takes a coupe minutes to issue an ROE like they did when they fired her. There's no medical deductions, EI, income tax or pension contributions to remit, if they work 0 hours they get 0 stat pay. You don't DO anything.

   

It's not a charity and doesn't appear to be funded by "donations."

It is the association of the local hotel industry snd appears to funded by dues paid by the local establishments and a "Destination Marketing Fee" which is 2% surcharge addrd to guests bills.

As for Herbies comments, hes right there is virtually zero cost and administration of letting someone take this UNPAID leave. It's just ideology of cruelty: "I don't HAVE TO help you therefore I won't help you even though it's barely a minor inconvenience"

   

Everything has a cost.

Having to interview multiple people comes with a cost.

Training that new person comes with a cost, and there's no guarantees that person will stay or work out. And what if that worker is 10x the team member who's off? Wait until she's back and then let her go?

This organization had the opportunity to rid themselves of a staff member within the law. Clearly, they didn't think very highly of her and she didn't think highly of them. I would suspect they've gone to great lengths to work with very valuable members of the team.

   

Yeah don't worry we know what Republicans think about women who complain about sexual harassment.

   

. Firing her doesn't eliminate any of those costs now does it? In fact it makes it worse because the stakes are higher if you're hiring a permanent vs a temp.


. Maybe, that's always on an employers right. But if she was fulfilling all of her duties then it shouldn't matter if the temp was better. The grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence.



I agree. I'm not saying they did anything illegal, just jerks. I wouldn't apply for a job there after reading this story.

. Why would you suspect that? Bu their own description they're a very small organization, those are usually the worst

If this had been in Ontario she would have been eligible for 8 weeks unpaid Family Caregiver Leave per year.

   

I'd rather higher a permanent over a temp. This way, we get him/her up to speed and we don't have to look back.




The employee has no rights in this situation.



I've been in situations like this. It's obvious to me that she wasn't valued, in fact, she was likely a pain in the ass.

There's nothing wrong with small organizations. I've been a part of family-owned businesses and large corporations. I'd rather work for a family/individual over a corporation any day of the week.

   

My comments were in response to your complaints about the time, money and risks to the business involved if she goes on leave and they have to hire a temp while she's gone. All of those costs and risks are much higher when you hire a permanent replacement.



I didn't say she did. In response to your post, I said it's not usual that employers will fire a good employee because the temp who replaced them was better. People go on leave all the time and usually don't lose their job to the temp that replaces them.


We don't know what she was like and shouldn't jump to conclusions, but I think we can agree on the first part - for whatever reason they didn't like her and wanted to be rid of her. Taking advantage of her kid's cancer to do so however is low.



Off topic but not me. They're often very unprofessional and poorly run, the owner often treats the company like his personal ATM instead of a business and rules the place like a dictator. By the latter I don't mean they treat workers poorly in fact small offices can often be like family, but instead of operating on guiding principles and best practices, the office operates like a little fiefdom on whatever decree the owner feels like issuing that day, which speaks to the lack of professionalism I mentioned earlier. They often have very tight budgets so everything including pay and benefits are often the very bare minimum and they can't even afford to hire a consultant to tell them what the best practices are, let alone follow them. There is a big difference between doing things right and doing things cheap and small/family businesses are usually in the latter column.

   

   

You're making the argument that the law doesn't force anyone to do anything and then you propose using the law to force someone to do something. Hmmm.

   

Gonna do all your shopping at Wal Mart from now on?

   

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next