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
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
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)
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".
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
I partly agree. First, the government should not be telling me how to
run my business and what I must give for benefits.
Well run smaller business are profitable and pay good salary and
benefits. Some smaller business could afford to give better benefits
if they charge appropriately for their services. I've seen many small
employers try to increase their customer base by offering low, low
prices. OK, if you want to work cheap fine with me, but don't
complain you are not making enough money.
If you want to attract the best employees, you have to offer at least
equal to what the competition offers. If I want to offer a better
product than my competition, I have to have the best material and best
people working with it. You get a different labor pool to choose
workers from at $8 an hour, $10 an hour, $25 an hour.
Payroll has a lot to do with attitude. I was at a meeting with two
small business owners. At the end, one said to the other, now I have
to go back and do what I hat the most, payroll, and give a way a lot
of money. The other said, that is the best time of the week. I know
that if I'm paying a lot of money to employees, they are making money
for me too.
But there is a conundrum. We tried the let business do anything it wants
(Vanderbilt/Rockefeller/Morgan) and they showed how badly some can
behave once they obtain control. I want minimal government involvement
but I also recognize where it needs to be involved. We only need to look
at the FSU to see the other side of the coin with total government
management. Moral of the story? Extremes are never good.
Our current "free market" is just a fantasy thing often spouted by the
extreme right. If it were an "free market" if you screw up you take it
on the chin and in recent times that would simply mean that many banks
and brokerages would simply be gone. Our current capitalist profit
socialist loss system is just plain wrong.
Exactly, size has little to do with it. The ethics of the owner(s) is
the determining factor.
I worked for a small company and received excellent benefits and profit
sharing. In return I managed as if I was the owner and made a good
income for him. The owner did not have heirs so he decided to sell the
business. We produced a great product, had a great reputation and
customers were treated well and kept coming back. It was bought by a
much larger company whose attitude was that employees were a burden and
clearly not as smart as the owner. Little by little the key people left.
The place lasted 3 more years before it was bought cheap by a competitor.
Its that greed thing. Some is good and excessive greed where you think
you are the most important person and everyone else is dirt is wrong.
Yes. Qnd some small growing businessesw offer their own stock as part of the
salery package, so the employees becomd owners with a continuously growing
percentage of the company. this gives them another incentive to work hard
and make the company money.
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....
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?
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.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.