Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice
-
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
Sure, but that's the company's fault for not having been properly staff. There is still NOTHING to sue him over, he's done literally nothing wrong.
Well, his actions caused significant damage to the company. Obviously, there is rarely any point in pursuing such a claim because of the deeper pocket principle, but the fact that his direct actions caused damages remains.
No they did not. His's bosses actions caused the damage. The boss not having redundency in the person who left caused the failure to the company.. not the leaving. The company is always responsible for covering the situation.
What if he died from a bus accident? Are you saying the company could sue the bus company for killing their employee and costing the company millions? No way that would stand in the US.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
In many if not most job descriptions in the US, it includes "additional duties as assigned." So yes, that means they can ask - and require - you to clean toilets... is that somehow beneath you?
Yes it is, if that is not in my job description. I've done my bit of menial labour when I had to, but I didn't study and build a career in IT to do things that are not my direct responsibility.
That's why the US is more able to respond to changes. We can hire people to do anything. I hire you to work on Windows today, but we change to Linux, you can't refuse to work on that, instead. You are free to quit, to demand different money, whatever.
It's insane to think that changes in company need can't be reflected in the existing staff, that makes the staff dramatically less valuable.
Great point - so... in that situation what happens in Europe?
Today we have 5 IT people all supporting Windows. The company decides to switch to Linux. Does this mean that those 5 IT people are all fired? I mean the company is going to Linux, so they aren't really 'redundant', so what's it called?
Yes, in the UK that's called redundant. They don't use the dictionary definition, they use it to sound better than "unneeded", but it's poor English.
Ok thanks.
and wow - so they have to pay to get rid of employees they no longer need. Socialism at it's best!
That's nothing to do with socialism.
You don't think so? The companies paying people who don't work their anymore? OK split this and we can have another thread.
-
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
In many if not most job descriptions in the US, it includes "additional duties as assigned." So yes, that means they can ask - and require - you to clean toilets... is that somehow beneath you?
Yes it is, if that is not in my job description. I've done my bit of menial labour when I had to, but I didn't study and build a career in IT to do things that are not my direct responsibility.
That's why the US is more able to respond to changes. We can hire people to do anything. I hire you to work on Windows today, but we change to Linux, you can't refuse to work on that, instead. You are free to quit, to demand different money, whatever.
It's insane to think that changes in company need can't be reflected in the existing staff, that makes the staff dramatically less valuable.
Great point - so... in that situation what happens in Europe?
Today we have 5 IT people all supporting Windows. The company decides to switch to Linux. Does this mean that those 5 IT people are all fired? I mean the company is going to Linux, so they aren't really 'redundant', so what's it called?
Yes, in the UK that's called redundant. They don't use the dictionary definition, they use it to sound better than "unneeded", but it's poor English.
Ok thanks.
and wow - so they have to pay to get rid of employees they no longer need. Socialism at it's best!
That's nothing to do with socialism.
You don't think so? The companies paying people who don't work their anymore? OK split this and we can have another thread.
Correct, completely unrelated. The government paying people who don't work there may be tied to it, but not companies.
-
I live in Canada and I've never had a job where there was an expectation that I could refuse any duties assigned to me without getting fired (unless they were unsafe)
However we do have like a reverse 2 weeks notice rule. If your employer is going to fire you they either have to fire you or pay you out 2 weeks worth of work. Kind of weird, since I can't imagine anyone not paying out the 2 weeks. (This is after a 3 month probation period after being hired)
Often there is 2 weeks notice of quiting explicitly explicitly spelled out in contracts, but I don't think it is enforceable.
-
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
I live in Canada and I've never had a job where there was an expectation that I could refuse any duties assigned to me without getting fired (unless they were unsafe)
Same in the US. People are just delusional. They state "you can refuse to do work that isn't in your job description" but they ignore the "but they can fire you for doing it." It's the same as quitting. Of course you can quit your job if you don't want it anymore.
The US absolutely does not have anything like people are implying it has, not in the least. It is something being projected from union contracts where collective bargaining has made a strict scope of what someone is allowed to do, and they are thinking that somehow those contracts apply to non-union workers, which they do not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
I live in Canada and I've never had a job where there was an expectation that I could refuse any duties assigned to me without getting fired (unless they were unsafe)
The US absolutely does not have anything like people are implying it has, not in the least. It is something being projected from union contracts where collective bargaining has made a strict scope of what someone is allowed to do, and they are thinking that somehow those contracts apply to non-union workers, which they do not.
Yes, that kind of thinking is more up the union alley. And although Canadian labour laws have been influenced by unions, they are still vastly different workplaces. For example, in the trades, of you are non unionized there is often an expectation you will do work unsafely without reporting it, if it's what you need to do to get the job done. However, if you are unionized it is the complete opposite.
-
But I do know for a fact that it's not just union regulations that might trigger employers to post fake jobs in Canada, but there are certain government regulations that cause this too.
-
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
I live in Canada and I've never had a job where there was an expectation that I could refuse any duties assigned to me without getting fired (unless they were unsafe)
The US absolutely does not have anything like people are implying it has, not in the least. It is something being projected from union contracts where collective bargaining has made a strict scope of what someone is allowed to do, and they are thinking that somehow those contracts apply to non-union workers, which they do not.
Yes, that kind of thinking is more up the union alley. And although Canadian labour laws have been influenced by unions, they are still vastly different workplaces. For example, in the trades, of you are non unionized there is often an expectation you will do work unsafely without reporting it, if it's what you need to do to get the job done. However, if you are unionized it is the complete opposite.
In the US, unsafe work is never required. But lots of people in any sector, union or not, do it anyway because so many people literally don't care or some actually think that they have to. But mostly that's just an excuse, it's so clear everywhere that you can't be pressured into that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
I live in Canada and I've never had a job where there was an expectation that I could refuse any duties assigned to me without getting fired (unless they were unsafe)
The US absolutely does not have anything like people are implying it has, not in the least. It is something being projected from union contracts where collective bargaining has made a strict scope of what someone is allowed to do, and they are thinking that somehow those contracts apply to non-union workers, which they do not.
Yes, that kind of thinking is more up the union alley. And although Canadian labour laws have been influenced by unions, they are still vastly different workplaces. For example, in the trades, of you are non unionized there is often an expectation you will do work unsafely without reporting it, if it's what you need to do to get the job done. However, if you are unionized it is the complete opposite.
In the US, unsafe work is never required. But lots of people in any sector, union or not, do it anyway because so many people literally don't care or some actually think that they have to. But mostly that's just an excuse, it's so clear everywhere that you can't be pressured into that.
Right - OSHA - 'nuff said.
-
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
I live in Canada and I've never had a job where there was an expectation that I could refuse any duties assigned to me without getting fired (unless they were unsafe)
The US absolutely does not have anything like people are implying it has, not in the least. It is something being projected from union contracts where collective bargaining has made a strict scope of what someone is allowed to do, and they are thinking that somehow those contracts apply to non-union workers, which they do not.
Yes, that kind of thinking is more up the union alley. And although Canadian labour laws have been influenced by unions, they are still vastly different workplaces. For example, in the trades, of you are non unionized there is often an expectation you will do work unsafely without reporting it, if it's what you need to do to get the job done. However, if you are unionized it is the complete opposite.
In the US, unsafe work is never required. But lots of people in any sector, union or not, do it anyway because so many people literally don't care or some actually think that they have to. But mostly that's just an excuse, it's so clear everywhere that you can't be pressured into that.
Right - OSHA - 'nuff said.
OSHA generally isn't taken seriously. At least at a number of places I've worked at. Only 1 place actually cared and had qualified safety professional on hand to make sure that employees weren't put at risk.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
I live in Canada and I've never had a job where there was an expectation that I could refuse any duties assigned to me without getting fired (unless they were unsafe)
The US absolutely does not have anything like people are implying it has, not in the least. It is something being projected from union contracts where collective bargaining has made a strict scope of what someone is allowed to do, and they are thinking that somehow those contracts apply to non-union workers, which they do not.
Yes, that kind of thinking is more up the union alley. And although Canadian labour laws have been influenced by unions, they are still vastly different workplaces. For example, in the trades, of you are non unionized there is often an expectation you will do work unsafely without reporting it, if it's what you need to do to get the job done. However, if you are unionized it is the complete opposite.
In the US, unsafe work is never required. But lots of people in any sector, union or not, do it anyway because so many people literally don't care or some actually think that they have to. But mostly that's just an excuse, it's so clear everywhere that you can't be pressured into that.
Right - OSHA - 'nuff said.
OSHA generally isn't taken seriously. At least at a number of places I've worked at. Only 1 place actually cared and had qualified safety professional on hand to make sure that employees weren't put at risk.
that's because they haven't been audited by osha. They get audited and have to pay huge fines AND still fix the problems.. they'll pay attention.
If the employees aren't reporting the company to osha - well, that's those employees problems then.
-
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
well, that's those employees problems then
So it's the employees fault for being told to do something, and getting hurt while doing it and then failing to report it to OSHA?
You do realize it's the employer who is required to comply with OSHA and to not have the employee doing something that isn't safe.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
well, that's those employees problems then
So it's the employees fault for being told to do something, and getting hurt while doing it and then failing to report it to OSHA?
Employees who don't report things that they know are unsafe are definitely part of the problem. It's everyone's responsibility to say something when they see something.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
You do realize it's the employer who is required to comply with OSHA and to not have the employee doing something that isn't safe.
It's both. The employer has to comply by law, but the law only works when employees report.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
well, that's those employees problems then
So it's the employees fault for being told to do something, and getting hurt while doing it and then failing to report it to OSHA?
Employees who don't report things that they know are unsafe are definitely part of the problem. It's everyone's responsibility to say something when they see something.
That's a different talking point than what dash has mentioned.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
well, that's those employees problems then
So it's the employees fault for being told to do something, and getting hurt while doing it and then failing to report it to OSHA?
You do realize it's the employer who is required to comply with OSHA and to not have the employee doing something that isn't safe.
Yes - it's the employees fault for not refusing to do something unsafe - and then instantly reporting it to OSHA. That would not be a fireable offense - but of course - at will work in most states, so the company could let them go for any number of other reasons.. which is the real reason people don't turn their employers in.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
well, that's those employees problems then
So it's the employees fault for being told to do something, and getting hurt while doing it and then failing to report it to OSHA?
Employees who don't report things that they know are unsafe are definitely part of the problem. It's everyone's responsibility to say something when they see something.
That's a different talking point than what dash has mentioned.
No - it's not.
-
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
well, that's those employees problems then
So it's the employees fault for being told to do something, and getting hurt while doing it and then failing to report it to OSHA?
You do realize it's the employer who is required to comply with OSHA and to not have the employee doing something that isn't safe.
Yes - it's the employees fault for not refusing to do something unsafe - and then instantly reporting it to OSHA. That would not be a fireable offense - but of course - at will work in most states, so the company could let them go for any number of other reasons.. which is the real reason people don't turn their employers in.
It is not up to the employee to know what is and isn't safe. That is what safety officers are for and why business should have them.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
well, that's those employees problems then
So it's the employees fault for being told to do something, and getting hurt while doing it and then failing to report it to OSHA?
You do realize it's the employer who is required to comply with OSHA and to not have the employee doing something that isn't safe.
Yes - it's the employees fault for not refusing to do something unsafe - and then instantly reporting it to OSHA. That would not be a fireable offense - but of course - at will work in most states, so the company could let them go for any number of other reasons.. which is the real reason people don't turn their employers in.
It is not up to the employee to know what is and isn't safe. That is what safety officers are for and why business should have them.
Of course it is. Just like it's up to the government to know about it's laws - but without the media, etc keeping the government in check - just like the employees keeping the company in check by reporting to OSHA when a company fumbles - then the company will just say - awww screw it, I'm going to save money and not bother with safety things, because what's going to happen - oh yeah - NOTHING?
So, As Scott said - The companies are required to do it - but it's also up to the employees to keep them honest.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@DustinB3403 said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
well, that's those employees problems then
So it's the employees fault for being told to do something, and getting hurt while doing it and then failing to report it to OSHA?
You do realize it's the employer who is required to comply with OSHA and to not have the employee doing something that isn't safe.
Yes - it's the employees fault for not refusing to do something unsafe - and then instantly reporting it to OSHA. That would not be a fireable offense - but of course - at will work in most states, so the company could let them go for any number of other reasons.. which is the real reason people don't turn their employers in.
It is not up to the employee to know what is and isn't safe. That is what safety officers are for and why business should have them.
That's not logical or reasonable. Not all companies can have safety people. You need to try running your own business sometime. you can't possible have all of these specialty positions in a normal business. By that logic, you'd have like ten people on payroll without a single person actually working. Businesses can't sustain that way.
