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".
These are exceptions even in at-will states. Note that they don't mean anything, though. A person can still be let go for no reason, just one of a few proscribed ones.
Nothing mandatory about vacation at all. Why should it be? The question whether any time accrued is paid upon termination. This is certainly jurisdiction and custom dependant.
Most companies to have a policy where vacation is accrued during the work year. Others though, do not and you get nothing if you leave before July 1 or whenever shutdown for vacation is.
Why should anything be mandatory? 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.
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.
My deal is even looser than that. I have no minimum time to work.
It isn't treatable in the sense that you can take something for it (sorry). Psychotherapy is about the only treatment with any science behind it. Obviously you can fire someone for stealing from you.
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)
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.
Well, my point is that you can carry, "bleeding heart liberalism" too far. At some point, you have to force people to be responsible for themselves, no matter how socialized the society.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.