# Terminated without cause today



## Addy

Today I was terminated without cause. I'm more relieved than upset, as I was contemplating looking for another job. This way I will be able to claim EI until I find another suitable position, and I will have references from my employer (I hugged the VP in her office after she told me, and she had tears in her eyes). It's the first time I've ever been fired, so I think that's a bit unnerving for me, but other than that, I'm fine.

I'm curious if there's any training available for me through Employment Insurance services, so I have made an appointment already but it's not for another week and a bit. I know I do not qualify for the Second Career program as I was not laid off. Does anyone here know of any other programs or training through EI that I should ask about? I assume the EI counsellors know all this but I have no clue if they offer it to everyone or if I need to know what to ask about.


----------



## lb71

Did you get a severance? If so, that will affect your EI. If not and you have worked there for a while, you are entitled.

Some companies also provide services for terminated employees to help them final employment. You could ask the HR contact.


----------



## Eclectic12

I would have thought that being terminated without cause *is* being laid off. The employer is saying there wasn't anything wrong with what was being done but that the employee is no longer needed.

http://www.canadaone.com/ezine/feb02/employment_law.html


Cheers


----------



## showmethemoney45

If you got a severence don't sign it yet. Do all your research and find out if this is a fair amount. Anyone I know who has asked for more has got it just to avoid a legal fight. Contact a lawyer if need be.


----------



## Addy

showmethemoney45 said:


> If you got a severence don't sign it yet. Do all your research and find out if this is a fair amount. Anyone I know who has asked for more has got it just to avoid a legal fight. Contact a lawyer if need be.


I've thought about this, and will think about it some more, but since I was part time (two days a week for the most part) over the course of 16 months, I think the four weeks (two of which they have to give) severance is more than fair. I need a good reference from them more than I need a few days pay which at the most I would get, if that.


----------



## Addy

Eclectic12 said:


> I would have thought that being terminated without cause *is* being laid off. The employer is saying there wasn't anything wrong with what was being done but that the employee is no longer needed.
> 
> http://www.canadaone.com/ezine/feb02/employment_law.html
> 
> 
> Cheers


In my mind, it is being laid off, but in the terms of Employment Insurance, it is different. I think it has to do with laid off means lack of work (or something similar), which is not the case with me.


----------



## GOB

Eclectic12, that was my understanding as well. Curious to know what the difference is, if there is one.


----------



## donald

Sorry for your loss Addy
Not trying to be a ***!but did you not launch a scent dispute with hr etc and alienated others?
I seen this coming 
this the price you pay when you start rocking the boat with long standing established employee
At least you won't have that problem anymore


----------



## Addy

donald said:


> Sorry for your loss Addy
> Not trying to be a ***!but did you not launch a scent dispute with hr etc and alienated others?
> I seen this coming
> this the price you pay when you start rocking the boat with long standing established employee
> At least you won't have that problem anymore


No, and you are being an ***.


----------



## none

Addy said:


> No, and you are being an ***.


+1

Donald, I'm sure being terminated without cause is a rather frustrating and stressful event in ones life. It's terribly unbecoming ofyou to chime in with a misguided and smug "i told you so'. You suck.


----------



## indexxx

The same thing happened to me a few years ago, so I've been there. Yes, there is training through EI. There are qualifying criteria though; it's not an automatic ask. You have to prove through an unsuccessful job search that you are unable to find work in your area and then they will consider you for it. I think it's something like 100 or 200 jobs applied for, that you are qualified for, that you did not get. You have to track your job search including contact information, date, etc. You'll go through skills and personality assessment, job search training, and a bunch of other crap. I went through it all and then got in to their self-employment program as they approved a business idea I had; right before I was to start the program I landed my current position at the university.

The retraining is not geared towards higher-end occupations for the most part, meaning that they do not pay for schooling unless it's a trade college if I remember correctly. So you couldn't go in and expect university out of it. There are caps on their funding for each person. My feeing was that it's mainly designed for unskilled workers to transition out of menial jobs.

Their goal is to 'get you back to work as quickly as possible', so you are expected to take anything applicable to you within a certain percentage of your former salary range and within a specified commute distance (which is quite a large distance- they don't care about your commute). This percentage drops over time, meaning that the longer you are out of work, the less money you are expected to go back to work for.

Best of luck- despite souring negative above, for the right person it's a good program if you qualify.


----------



## donald

Lets be honest:that didn't exactly help Addy
My apologies but i am just saying i am not surprised
95% of the replies in that thread were 'raw raw' you go girl(ie:stir **** up)
Maybe that didn't have anything to do with it but even if it did not that was not the right approach on the scent 'issue'(i suspect it prob did to some degree)
Cause and effect


----------



## Ihatetaxes

I have fired a few people without cause. Usually because there was plenty of cause but it's a giant pain in the *** to prove it unless you want to create a paper trail for 3 months showing the issues and your attempt to correct it. Without cause you just say thanks and good bye and write a cheque. 16 months of part time will mean they can likely just give you 2-3 weeks pay unless they are feeling generous. I wouldn't waste your time and money with a lawyer unless they are offering you less than that.


----------



## sags

If a company terminates an employee without cause and then replaces the employee, they would be prime candidates for an unjust dismissal complaint.

No documentation of progressive discipline.......no stated reason on the EI termination papers........equals no defence against a complaint.

The OP says they don't want to pursue that avenue, because of the specific circumstances.

But in general, it is a really bad idea for companies to terminate employees for no cause, and hope they don't talk to a lawyer.


----------



## m3s

You don't get EI for quitting though, sags.


----------



## indexxx

sags said:


> If a company terminates an employee without cause and then replaces the employee, they would be prime candidates for an unjust dismissal complaint.
> 
> No documentation of progressive discipline.......no stated reason on the EI termination papers........equals no defence against a complaint.
> 
> The OP says they don't want to pursue that avenue, because of the specific circumstances.
> 
> But in general, it is a really bad idea for companies to terminate employees for no cause, and hope they don't talk to a lawyer.


I don't think this is correct. Termination without cause is just that, and you are compensating them with severance. You need to document this in your termination letter. It's when you lay someone off, and then hire someone for the same position that potential trouble arises. I work in a public institution, and we do everything 'by the book' in our HR department. We have terminated without cause when, as Ihatetaxes mentions, it's someone you want to get rid of but can't take the time and hassle to create a documented paper trail of contravention.

Sometimes you get employees that shine when first hired, they pass their probationary period, and then either things happen that are not 'quite' dismissible offences, or their attitude changes and becomes damaging (and potentially worrisome like suspected theft etc), and this person becomes a problem employee, sapping your energy and time and potentially damaging your business. It's better overall to terminate without cause (even though YOU have reasons, they may not be technically justifiable, pay them out, and hire a better fit to move forward.


----------



## indexxx

m3s said:


> You don't get EI for quitting though, sags.



You can, if you can prove just cause for quitting. An abusive manager, or being asked to do something illegal or compromising for example, or if your employer is breakage any laws and you will not be a part of it. I worked (extremely briefly) at a very nice and popular high-end restaurant in Dartmouth, NS, and discovered that the owner had a listening device behind the bar. I called Human Rights in Ottawa, they told me she was in violation, and I quit for that and other reasons. I got EI and told my case worker why I quit and he was totally supportive. Although, I had confronted that owner on the issue and she denied it, (even though all the staff knew it was true, and I had definitive evidence) but she put 'dismissed as not a suitable fit' on my ROE. 

But I do know that there are circumstances where quitting is justifiable for EI.


----------



## james4beach

Layoff and Termination without cause are two separate codes. The key thing is the code that shows up on the RoE - record of employment, I think it's called.

When I was laid off, it was marked as terminated without cause (or might have been called 'dismissed', I can't remember). They never told me why but it was clearly a layoff due to the group headcount being cut. I got a severance, and was still eligible for EI.

It depends on the terms of your employment contract but in general, employers can let someone go at any time without having to give a reason. I doubt you can sue anyone for unfair dismissal based on that.

Check to make sure that you have been given everything that is your right. Depending on the province you must receive X weeks of notice before being terminated, or X weeks of pay in lieu of notice (i.e. they can fire you on the spot, but they must then pay for X weeks as if they gave you notice). Your employment contract may specify you are owed more -- read it carefully. I believe the law also requires that you are paid out for remaining vacation days.


----------



## james4beach

Addy said:


> I've thought about this, and will think about it some more, but since I was part time (two days a week for the most part) over the course of 16 months, I think the four weeks (two of which they have to give) severance is more than fair. I need a good reference from them more than I need a few days pay which at the most I would get, if that.


Addy, I'm sorry to hear about the stress and hassle. But that *does* sound better than average. If the provincial minimum is 2 weeks payment in lieu of notice, and they're giving you 4 weeks, that's a nice and reasonable severance given that you only worked there 16 months. Severance is the amount they pay you above the required # weeks of notice.

The existence of severance is also somewhat proof that you are not at fault. If you did something horrible and they fired you due to it, they would give you the legal minimum. Then again if you were at fault it would be dismissal WITH cause.


----------



## sags

If the employment period is under 12 months, the only recourse for the employee is through the Employment Standards Act.

If the employment is for more than 12 months, the employee has the option of declining the severance and filing a claim of unjust dismissal through the Ministry of Labor.

It is within the context of an employee with 12 or more months of employment, that it becomes very clear the employer will be required to provide proper reasons and documentation for the termination.

http://www.labour.gc.ca/eng/standards_equity/st/pubs_st/unjust.shtml

None of this helps Addy, who I hope finds employment quickly. (but it may be of interest to others to know their options)


----------



## RBull

^Sags, yes there are laws prohibiting wrongful dismissal, and I understand your need to stand up for the working man. However, the key point you may be missing is adequate severance, which if I read correctly here was offered generously, considering the short employment time frame and part time nature of the work. However, I do not know the province of jurisdiction for specific regulations. 

If severance is generous it is unlikely to be worthwhile to pursue a law suit. The cost of a lawyer, discovery, a trial to end up proving that yes it was without cause and winding up with a judgement based on other precedents for the same amount of money or less makes little sense. You won't get the job back and will have blown a lot of or perhaps even more money than the severance was. IMHO, A lawyer may be able to pressure for a little more without discovery etc, but their fees will usually suck up more than any extra the employer may be willing to extend just to stop wasting any more of their time, unless it is a very senior role. 

Have you ever sued anyone for wrongful dismissal or been involved in a wrongful dismissal law suit? Unfortunately I have in both counts.


----------



## gladaki

Ummm...In calgary within last two days oil companies ended up letting 700 people go...cause was oil price..


----------



## james4beach

Offering severance (more compensation than the required X weeks of pay) as was done in the OP's case, is a show of good faith from an employer, and is also a polite way of saying -- "don't sue, OK? We're being nice".

At a previous job, many years ago, there were funky things going in with management and I ended up being fired after a dispute. Both of us (me and company) knew there was an element of wrongful dismissal here; clearly I could have brought lawyers into it. As a show of good faith, they offered 1/4 of a year worth of pay -- far more than the minimum, obviously!

I accepted their show of good faith and did not ever see a lawyer. Yes I felt I was wronged, but then I felt that I was compensated and I appreciated the company's acknowledgement in the form of money. It erased my motivation to sue. I also think it would have been ungentlemanly for me to sue after being offered that much severance.

My point is, severance pay in excess of the legal minimum is a show of good faith and it's a way of saying, please don't sue. You have to weigh how long you worked there. In the OP's case, the company is being a bit nice. The OP only worked there a little over one year; high severance is unlikely in those cases. Unless there was some very serious unfairness, this seems like a situation you should accept the money and walk away.


----------



## janus10

showmethemoney45 said:


> If you got a severence don't sign it yet. Do all your research and find out if this is a fair amount. Anyone I know who has asked for more has got it just to avoid a legal fight. Contact a lawyer if need be.


My wife and I lost our jobs within months of each other at the same employer. A simple letter to HR explaining why we deserved more netted us tens of thousands more. A couple of people signed right away and then sued once they found out other people getting more weeks per year. It literally consumed them for over a year and they suffered the whole time instead of moving on.


----------



## Eclectic12

indexxx said:


> ... Termination without cause is just that, and you are compensating them with severance. You need to document this in your termination letter.
> 
> It's when you lay someone off, and then hire someone for the same position that potential trouble arises...


At one company I worked at, a guy had a heart attack on the job and when he returned - the company terminated him without cause. When he obtained a copy of the job posting that showed a replacement being hired with identical responsibilities where only the job title changed, he got a lawyer involved.

As I understand it ... the argument that the termination without a cause was window dressing for getting rid of an employee with health issues/conflict with the manager. I didn't hear the amount of the settlement but he was happy plus able to retire early.


Cheers


----------



## Addy

This turns into a rather interesting and informative discussion. I plan to apply for EI and look for work over the summer, enough to satisfy EI. Then in the fall once my kids are back in school I will get serious about finding suitable employment. This is why I do not want to sue my former employer... I want a good reference from them, and I feel that when the VP said I could use her name as a reference, she meant it.

As you can tell from past posts on here, I wasn't happy in the work environment there. I am a usually fairly upbeat person who doesn't like to talk a lot (I do a little, I'm not perfect) about others, and this is something that I struggled with, listening to idle, meaningless, sometimes cruel gossip. I find it just gets me down. And the scent thing, Donald, as much of an *** as he was, was referring to a post where I became sick from a coworker spraying perfume. I went home, lost a half day's pay and it was handled very poorly by my supervisor (apparently it was supposed to be a WSIB claim but I didn't want to rock the boat, so I took the half day pay cut and never made mention of it again).

So, in the end, being terminated without cause will most likely allow me to claim a little (considering I only worked two days a week) EI and I will most likely receive a good reference from the employer. Not anything I'm going to complain about, taking into consideration the thought of quitting was looking more and more attractive for me.

The only thing is, I don't know how to explain in a job interview why I was terminated. There was no real reason given, other than budgetary restraints... I believe they are combining my part time position with another part time position, making one full time position, but I honestly don't know. Those who work in HR, any suggestions for me?


----------



## Plugging Along

Sorry to hear about your situation. My spouse has been throught this many times. The best thing is to keep a positive attitude and the fact that you get to spend extra time with the kids is great.

In terms of fairness of the package, it sounds pretty reasonable considering you were part time and the length of employment was short.


----------



## lb71

Addy said:


> The only thing is, I don't know how to explain in a job interview why I was terminated. There was no real reason given, other than budgetary restraints... I believe they are combining my part time position with another part time position, making one full time position, but I honestly don't know. Those who work in HR, any suggestions for me?


Say something similar to what you said. "They were reducing costs and my position, given it was part time, was at the top of the list to be cut. There were no performance issues, and as you can see my former VP has provided a reference."


----------



## Plugging Along

In terms of those suggesting wrongful dismissal and seeing, if it is not for human rights violations (that is a different altogether), if you are being offered severance for termination without cause, then it is perfectly legal and acceptable. The courts will not force an employer to hire someone back, it will be only financial compensation. That compensation is about 1 month per year (if it is a very strong suit), and there is a limitation to that too, one wouldn't expect more than that. In the case of the OP, she was working less than 50% for just over a year, if this would have gone to court, she would have received max 1 month, more realistically 2 weeks. 

My spouse recieved 6 weeks working there for 3 years in senior management.


----------



## rikk

Addy said:


> I'm curious if there's any training available for me through Employment Insurance services, so I have made an appointment already but it's not for another week and a bit. I know I do not qualify for the Second Career program ...
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to available services, my daughter forwarded me this link for my stepson who's returning home laid-off from Alberta, which looks to be the portal to Ontario services, e.g., "links to helpful resources" ... http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/index.aspx . I realize you're taking a break for now, good for you, may be worth browsing for future. All the best ...
Click to expand...


----------



## Just a Guy

Addy said:


> I plan to apply for EI and look for work over the summer, enough to satisfy EI. Then in the fall once my kids are back in school I will get serious about finding suitable employment.
> 
> As you can tell from past posts on here, I wasn't happy in the work environment there.
> 
> I went home, lost a half day's pay and it was handled very poorly by my supervisor (apparently it was supposed to be a WSIB claim but I didn't want to rock the boat, so I took the half day pay cut and never made mention of it again).
> 
> The only thing is, I don't know how to explain in a job interview why I was terminated.


Not meaning to be a jerk, though I'm sure to be called that, but look at your posting from an outsider's point of view...

1) you get fired and your first thought is to go on EI right away.
2) you'll use the system, doing the minimum required to maintain the benefits
3) you wanted the entire orgnization to change for you
4) you are the victim in all this

And you wonder why you may have been terminated? Maybe, from your point of view it's hard to see, but from a business owner's point of view, I can see a pattern.

My personal attitude in your situation, as I stated before, would have been to look for a new job as soon as I was unhappy, had I been laid off, my first thought would be to find a new job. My last thoughts would have been sue, how can I milk the system for as much as possible, or get an entire organization to change for my two day a week needs.

Maybe it's a generational thing, but I wasn't brought up to think like you and the reason for your termination seems pretty clear. 

Maybe you're not like you present yourself on these posting, but maybe you are and don't see it.


----------



## OptsyEagle

Addy said:


> and I will most likely receive a good reference from the employer.


How sure are you about this? If you ask a person to give you a reference they will almost always say they will, when talking to you directly, but when they are talking to a potential employer it may not work out like that. My concern is that it sounds like this was not a basic layoff, although I don't know what exactly it was. If they singled you out specifically then I would not be using them as my first reference, unless you feel a lot differently about it.

This is a serious question you need to ask yourself because you can have the best resume and experience in the world, but if the reference indicates at all that there may be problems after hiring you, you will be out of work for quite a long time. Just something to think about. Good luck to you.


----------



## Addy

I don't think you come off as a jerk, and as a business owner myself (electrical contracting company) I can see how you would view this, but you are wrong. I am a hard worker, always have been, ever since I was 12 (and I'm not talking babysitting jobs at age 12), often working two jobs and sometimes those two jobs along with attending school. I have no worries about my job skills nor my work ethic. I don't see why I would wait to go on EI, does anyone else? I thought you were supposed to apply right away, or have I missed something? I will satisfy the requirements, and if a suitable position comes posted of course I will apply. But until September, when my kids are back in school, why not take some time and relax and rejuvenate myself after 34 years of working and come back in September, ready and refreshed? I see nothing wrong with this, but at the same time, if you do then I'm okay with that too.




Just a Guy said:


> Not meaning to be a jerk, though I'm sure to be called that, but look at your posting from an outsider's point of view...


----------



## Addy

OptsyEagle said:


> How sure are you about this? If you ask a person to give you a reference they will almost always say they will, when talking to you directly, but when they are talking to a potential employer it may not work out like that. My concern is that it sounds like this was not a basic layoff, although I don't know what exactly it was. If they singled you out specifically then I would not be using them as my first reference, unless you feel a lot differently about it.
> 
> This is a serious question you need to ask yourself because you can have the best resume and experience in the world, but if the reference indicates at all that there may be problems after hiring you, you will be out of work for quite a long time. Just something to think about. Good luck to you.


You have hit on something I did wonder about, in my heart of hearts I believe she will, but you are right, in that there's no guarantees. They will give me a letter stating when I've worked, yada yada, so that will help, and I know a coordinator I worked under 75% of the time will give me a reference as well, so I think I have my bases covered. But, we will see when the time comes.


----------



## Davis

With regard to this comment, "3) you wanted the entire orgnization to change for you", I will just note that this is Just a Guy's view, and it is not the view of employment law. As was shown in the previous discussion on this issue, scent allergies are a recognized disability, and the employer has oligations to make reasonable accomodations for an employee's disability. I understand that Just a Guy does not like this, but it is he that is out of step with the working world in the 21st century on this, not you. 

With regard to "4) you are the victim in all this", _ad hominem_ attacks are never very good ways of convincing people, and they are indicators of behaving like a jerk (JAG's word, not mine).


----------



## Addy

Davis said:


> With regard to this comment, "3) you wanted the entire orgnization to change for you", I will just note that this is Just a Guy's view, and it is not the view of employment law. As was shown in the previous discussion on this issue, scent allergies are a recognized disability, and the employer has oligations to make reasonable accomodations for an employee's disability. I understand that Just a Guy does not like this, but it is he that is out of step with the working world in the 21st century on this, not you.
> 
> With regard to "4) you are the victim in all this", _ad hominem_ attacks are never very good ways of convincing people, and they are indicators of behaving like a jerk (JAG's word, not mine).


Interesting you bring this up. I suspect JAG and Donald are one and the same, they both seem to hone in on the same things, just using slightly different words. This is not the first time I've suspected this either. I may be off the mark, but it just seems to coincidental to me.

I'm not sure what the 'you're a victim in all of this' is all about, but just to be clear to anyone, I don't feel like a victim, in fact, I am truly more relieved than upset, and my questions have been answered in this post and for that I am thankful to all who took the time to respond.


----------



## Davis

Here is a link to support the statements I made above. Of course, rules will vary between provinces, and this is the Ontario link:

The Ontario Human Rights Commission says:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/iv-human-r...9-more-about-disability-related-accommodation



> n) Environmental sensitivities and nut allergies: An emerging issue in many workplaces involves accommodating the needs of employees with environmental sensitivities and serious allergies, for example to nuts. The Commission has previously stated that these may be considered disabilities. For example, if a person with asthma, environmental sensitivity or allergies found themselves disadvantaged in the workplace as a result, that person could be considered a person with a disability under the Code. Employers may therefore have a duty to accommodate these kinds of needs. This may include limiting, where possible, opportunities for workplace exposure to common substances that trigger asthma or allergies. For example, an employer may institute a “scent-sensitive” or “scent-free” workplace policy or designate the workplace as a “peanut-free zone.”


The employer's responsibility to accommodate is not unlimited: it does not have to accommodate if it would cause "undue hardship" to the employer. "Undue hardship" is usually a financial test, but designating a work place as being scent-free is virtually costless -- it is requires communicating the policy to staff and visitors. "Undue hardship" can also be argued where there are health and safety concerns with the proposed accommodation, but there are not reasonable arguments for saying that a scent-free workplace causes a health and safety issue. In fact, it resolves the health and safety issue.


----------



## Just a Guy

I can't believe the level of arrogance, now it's a conspiracy run by one person...

Why is it that there can only be one other person in the world to disagree with you? 

That would be like me sayin Addy and Davis are the same person. You both complain about allergy problems, both want to support laws that go to rediculous extremes in the name of "equality"...

Just because society made a law some people thing are good, doesn't make them good, or just, or even right...just ask a German Jew in the 1940's...there were many "progressive laws"

I admit I understand the allergy issue, as I suffer from it myself, though maybe not to the same extreme, but I just take it as a personal responsibility to deal with problems instead of the "legislate my needs, so I can live my life the way I want and who cares about everyone else, they're just insensitive dinosaurs..."

As to the playing the victim, it comes from the fact that you seem to think you are perfect, again more arrogance, and that you do nothing wrong...yet your statements imply you're arrogant, your lazy, you're willing to milk the system because it's your right, and that the entire world is totally insensitive to your needs...

Now, I admit, the above sentence is taking your statements to an extreme, but maybe then you'll see that you and your attitude may play a role in your problems.


----------



## Davis

More _ad hominem _attacks. Way to go. That really helps advance the discussion. Do you really think that you are going to convince anyone with that approach? 

Invoking the Holocaust for something as benign as this is another way of undermining your credibility. 

I am not going to try to convince you that the laws and policies on scent allergies are right or wrong - I know better than to open that can of worms again. I am only explaining what the law/policy is, at least in Ontario. Suggesting that Addy is being unreasonable and going to a ridiculous extreme on a principle that is recgnized in law and is in force in workplaces shows that it is you who does not understand the modern workplace. 

If you don't like it, you're better off writing to your MPP, who probably doesn't read this forum. You're not going to get the change you seek by writing angry missives here.

And for the record, I do not post on this forum under any other name.


----------



## sags

There are good employers and bad employers. There are managers who know and respect the companies policies and there are those who think they can do whatever they want.

It sounds to me like Addy needed to get out of that toxic environment. Rules or not.........polite people don't spray perfume around when they know a co-worker is suffering from it.

As to wrongful dismissal, it could very well have been, but whether to pursue it or not depends on the situation. In this case, the reward would not be worth the hassle.

After working for 40 years with glowing company references, my wife retired and then decided to get a part time job for something to do.

She was hired at a local Tim Hortons and worked for 1 day before the 3 month probationary period was up. She worked when others didn't want to ..........weekends and holidays.

She was fired and told she wasn't fast enough on the cash register. We suspect the firing had more to do with her asking for rubber gloves and a mask when cleaning the bathrooms, and for challenging some hygiene related practices in the store. She became an inconvenience to the manager, who wasn't doing her own job. 

She applied for another job in an upscale retirement home and has worked there ever since. She has received all kinds of rewards and thanks from the company for her perfect attendance and work ethic. She has really enjoyed working there, especially interacting with all the residents.

That was 8 years ago and she is approaching 69 (as old as some of the residents) and they are offering her full time openings...........LOL. 

She told them she is too old for that, and they are sorry she will inevitably soon be leaving.

So.............one door closes and another door opens.

Good luck Addy. I am sure you will find a place you enjoy and are appreciated. 

This time will become as distant a memory as my wife's time at Tim Hortons........the only blip in her 48 year work record.


----------



## Just a Guy

Davis,

You seem to think I'm stupid enough to think I can try and convince others to change their minds. Maybe I'm just not a good candidate for the Asch test...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

When the future poets write about this time period in a poem that maybe goes "first they came with a scent policy, but I said nothing..." I know they won't be talking about me.

At least you don't have to worry though, you can always tax people like me in the future to pay for your entitlements like EI, and support payments because I'm one of the evil people out there who are actually working and making money, accumulating wealth the old fashioned way. I'm the real problem with society, you should call your MPP and makes sure he taxes the rich and corporations more so you, your husband, and addy don't need to work anymore, you've all suffered so much, as that would be unfair...after all, or king two whole days a week, only allows for 5 days of complaining about the unfairness of the world, it must have been exhausting...

You seem bent on missing the fact that I admit my postings are intentionally extreme...I, at least, do not believe them...to bad others can't say the same.


----------



## james4beach

Addy said:


> The only thing is, I don't know how to explain in a job interview why I was terminated. There was no real reason given, other than budgetary restraints


This is a lot easier than you think. See this thread for my tips on what kinds of things to say
http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/33025-Interview-Question-Help

There's plenty of ready-to-go text there. See the reply from Erome for a nice general answer. Stay positive, *briefly* address the departure, but move on and "look forward".

Basically, give a generic reason. Stay positive, don't dwell on the past at your old company. The company has already helped you out with the generic reason: this is great. Just make sure your verbal answer is consistent with the paperwork.

Bigger picture... don't get caught up on it. New employers probably won't look into it. In other words this is for more likely to be your hangup then anyone else's.


----------



## james4beach

Addy: don't wait to apply for EI. This is a system you paid into to provide insurance against unforeseen job losses. It's insurance.

You have experienced an unforeseen job loss. This is what EI is for; this is what you paid into it for. It's a good system and helped me pay my critical bills while I found new employment. I also think the Conservatives are real a-holes for cutting back the EI system.

Ignore the criticisms about claiming EI, I don't think these people understand what this system is for. If you have car insurance and your car got smashed, would you not make an insurance claim? Silly


----------



## Davis

Some people seem to think that standing up for your legal rights in the workplace and claiming insurance you've paid for makes you *as bad as Hitler*, but I think it is best to ignore them.


----------



## Just a Guy

James,

The intension of EI was to bridge the gap between jobs, not to give you a paid vacation because you don't really want to look for a job...

Maybe it's not "these people" who don't understand the system, maybe it's the ones who abuse the system because they feel entitled to the money.

Davis,

Maybe you need to read about how the national socialists rose to power, they didn't come out with radical policies to start, it started with some innocuous policies, "for the good of the nation" (read select group), and then a little bit more, and more...

Do you know how to boil a frog?

If you don't like the German references, maybe read animal farm...you'll like the final rule, it's right up your alley.

Remember, none of those people thought what they were doing was wrong either...had no one opposed them, they wouldn't be considered wrong today either...


----------



## Davis

I've read _Animal Farm_, and read extensively about the rise of the Nazis (I recommend Victor Klemperer's diaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Klemperer and Richard J. Evans' Third Reich trilogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Reich_Trilogy). The Nazis were demonstrably wrong in blaming the Jews for Germany's situation, and unquestionably evil in their "solutions" to what they identified to be the problem. 

Scent-free workplace rules are not about persecuting or excluding people who wear choose to wear perfume. They are about including people with disabilities. Human rights codes protect people who are different from the majority because of their religious or political beliefs, disabilities, sexual orientation, race, etc. All of the things that the Nazis tried to extinguish. If you want to be the first to march or fight or die for the freedom to wear perfume, go right ahead. I doubt you will find many supporters for such an obscure cause.

I respect that you are standing up for your unusual and far-fetched ideas on this issue, but you are wrong to try marginalize and judge Addy for her complaint about scent in the workplace. 

And your personal attacks on her diminish this discussion and this forum.


----------



## Just a Guy

If you read them as selectively as you read my posts I can understand your lack of understanding...

Anyway, being the type of person who can change, without needing society to change around me, I can drop this and never have it bother me again...all hail the rise of the special interest groups! (Our salute can be the plugged nose). 

Society will be much better at the other extreme end I'm sure (sarcasm for the oblivious)...fortunately, sanity usually returns and we get back to the middle ground.


----------



## mrPPincer

JaG do you think someone should always rush into the first job available?

I think it often will pay to take some time if available to assess your options, especially if you have paid into insurance which allows you to do just so, besides, a brief sabbatical could actually be the best thing for both the OP and the taxpayer in the long run.

---

Addy, JaG and donald are not the same people, donald doesn't know how to use the space bar, and JaG spells worse (from my observation).

I do suspect that both of them love to coat themselves with Axe body spray before they go into enclosed environments and don't notice when other people are trying to hold their breath as they with watering eyes try to escape the stench, but maybe that's just me..

(donald and JaG I'm disappointed in your personal attacks on the OP, I know you think you're just being blunt, but maybe take a little time to reassess?)


----------



## Davis

Just a Guy said:


> If you read them as selectively as you read my posts I can understand your lack of understanding...
> 
> Anyway, being the type of person who can change, without needing society to change around me, I can drop this....


I do hope you see the irony of accusing me of selective reading when in the next sentence you suggest that Addy wants "society to change around her", when all she is asking for is that her co-workers not wear perfume in the workplace. In the grand scale of social change, that change just... isn't.


----------



## indexxx

Wish the workplace scent rules applied to people with bad body door as well. I'm not being sarcastic BTW. Ever work in a small office with someone who has 'that smell'- the one where it's just overpowering, dank, and starts to make you feel like telling them to go shower or buy some deodorant? Pretty rude to subject your coworkers to your lack of hygiene. I'd much rather have a nose full of perfume than that.


----------



## Davis

^ I get where you're coming from. I think your manager should address this issue with your co-worker. Bathing and using deodorant are reasonable requests to make. But does the B.O. give you a migraine headache that causes you to miss work? That is what happens to people with severe scent allergies. That is a different issue from bad smells.


----------



## Cdnwife

Having gone through this 18 months ago my perspective is this:

1. Apply for EI as soon as you are out the door. You have a window of about four weeks after your last day to file a claim after which you may be denied. So even if you are on severance, file and if you find a job in the meantime, all the power to you.

2. As part of my package I received career coaching. The big part after being laid off is developing your 'leaving story'. This is what you tell to people about your departure. Factual, positive and always end with how this is a good thing and you are looking forward to the next opportunity. It gives you the chance to outline what you are looking for and if people know of anything.

3. The amount of severance legally required is often less than you are offered. Severance amounts are often the basic legal amount plus 'common law'. This common law amount is determined by things such as age, level of the position, the duration in the position and the likelihood of finding a similar position w the same salary. These as you can imagine are subjective and as others have suggested may not be negotiating over unless there is a sticking point. In my case I requested additional weeks to be able to bridge my mat leave claim to have a safety net if I was not able to secure work. 

Regardless of what you opt to do, things will sort themselves out. Good luck to you.


----------



## Eclectic12

Cdnwife said:


> ... 3. The amount of severance legally required is often less than you are offered...


It is important to get an independent verification as to the going rates as well as the "it's not worth our time going to court over an extra week" factors an employer might be willing to pony up.

I'm not so sure how often it is less than legally required as all but one company I've worked for gave the legal minimum that the legislation required but a letter's lawyer bumped it up as those cases going to court were usually be granted more than the legal minimum.


Cheers


----------



## Mechanic

Addy, after skimming through this thread I have to wonder if you are eligible for EI. You say you own an electrical contracting company. My wife and I owned our own companies for many years but did not pay into EI for ourselves as we were ineligible as owners (directors)


----------



## donald

Mr P your entitled to your opinion(also thanks for pointing out my short comings in spelling or sentence structure)
I don't share the same mind-set as Addy
I come from a completely different work environment and culture and my views are vastly different

Here is a real world example in the work place I just went through(if I was in the public sector I don't even want to imagine what would of happen but likely I would be on a assistance/long term benefits and probably promoted but I am not so this is what it looks like in the small business private sector)

Last april I had a employee(apprentice)have a awful accident(he failed to take measures and neglected to use safety gear that was supplied and he had signed off he understood the risks with failure of using said equipment)

I was on-site and away from him and he fell 30 ft(failure to strap-in on a safety life-line)
I rushed to him and immediately noticed he was in a very bad condition(in and out of conciseness)
Called 911 and stayed with him for 30 mins telling him to be strong while I was on the phone with 911
I rushed to another site(5 min away) and alerted I needed help and for some one to direct ambulance.
He had snap his main vertebrate and had a rib bone puncture his left lung(he was grasping for life)
The 911 response team made it in time and he pulled through(lucky to be alive unfortunately he was left as a quadriplegic paralyzed from the neck down)

Now this is not about me here!but under the circumstances I feel like I did the best I could of done(I was found not guilty of anything by health and safety and had all proper workers comp etc in place...he will obviously be on disability for life and thankful my policy will fund this!

Now not only was this hard on me emotionally(ptsd)and I was having trouble coping with what happened,you know what my prime contractor did?(even though nobody was found at fault and there were no legal ramifications?)

They terminated my company(7 yrs working for them)The one time I needed help and needed a organization to step up and support me,they did the exact opposite and terminated me because they were 'worried' they would be implicated in some way

So not only did I go through a traumatic expierence(he was almost dying on me)they fired me--I was out of a job/contract and meet with their lawyer--zero support!
The family that owns said company as far as I am concerned are the scum of the earth

That's life though,it aint fair out there!
so yeah I don't side with Addy on her issues
8 weeks ago she made a stink about co-workers wearing perfume and stiring up **** and now wants to launch a lawsuit or whatever---poor addy!give me a break
Put on your big girl pants and move on Addy.


----------



## Davis

Donald, the last paragraph of your comments above are wrong and offensive. That sort of behaviour does not belong here. At no time during this discussion did Addy make any suggestion of launching a lawsuit. You should retract that claim and apologize. "Put on your big girl pants" is a juvenile comment. Not appropriate. And belittling someone for asking for accommodation for a disability, as the law provides, is offensive. There is no call for being so rude. I ask that you treat Addy and other editors with more respect in the future.


----------



## mrPPincer

Donald, my sympathies go out to your former employee, & I can't imagine anyone being in your shoes going through that without experiencing some level of PTSD, that's something that sticks with you until the day you die.

I also do contract work in the private sector, jobs which require a critical level of safety precautions & safety hyperawareness.
I've seen lots of close calls, and lots of injuries but nothing close to that level thank god.

As to Addy, her allergy problem from the other thread was not just about another employee wearing the perfume, the other employee was spraying the stuff in the air.

I personally think subjecting your indoor co-workers to that overpowered scent stuff is obnoxious, probably toxic as hell, and possibly a long term health & safety concern (allergy or no allergy) and don't think it should be allowed in indoor workplaces, or at least if there is a policy in place it should be enforced.

I see it similar to somebody walking into a library talking on a cellphone really loudly, makes me want to snatch it out of his hand, tell the other party 'he'll be right with you', toss it out the door and say 'go fetch' (kinda wish I had, almost, but better that I didn't).

Just my PoV :nonchalance:


----------



## donald

Davis I guess the difference is my path was and is a lot more gritter for a lack of better word than most here on cmf 
I am 36 soon with a net worth above 600k without a university education and that's liquid by the way
I came up in a tough blue collar way from the prairies (Winnipeg)
It's so foreign to me so of this politically correct stuff and yes Betty put in a extra squirt of Liz Claiborne or whatever is so utterly trivaily IMO 
That's all I will say
I haven't run to anyone on my life and human resources dept non exsistant in my "world"


----------



## donald

Forgive my spelling sentence structure I am a few rye's deep
I will also say I am not being harsh 
What advice would we give if addy was Doug?
Why do we have to handle addy with kid gloves?is it because she is female?
Serious question
What do you think Davis?


----------



## indexxx

Davis said:


> ^ I get where you're coming from. I think your manager should address this issue with your co-worker. Bathing and using deodorant are reasonable requests to make. But does the B.O. give you a migraine headache that causes you to miss work? That is what happens to people with severe scent allergies. That is a different issue from bad smells.


Actually, I am the manager, and it's one of my employees. However, being at a university, I really don't feel that I can address this without causing offence as there is nothing in the labour laws about body odour, unless I get advice from our HR department.


----------



## Davis

Donald: here is a life lesson for you. When you are wrong about something, you apologize for it. I didn't learn that in university. I learned that from my parents, who were high school graduates. A lack of postsecondary education or being drunk does not give you the right to be rude and abusive. Everyone is here to learn and share ideas. Personal attacks on other contributors make this scrappier place to be. I am sure you can express your ideas without being abusive. Give yourself more credit.


----------



## Davis

Indexxx: as a manager you do have to have to address this, as you would any behaviour that disrupts the workplace. If one person in the office were playing a loud radio at their desk, you'd talk to them. If someone were leaving food around that was attracting roaches or rats, you'd talk to them. Personal hygiene issues are 100 times more sensitive than those examples. You should talk to HR to get their advice on how to handle this you organization, but I also suggest that you do research on the internet because I am sure that you are not the first manager to have to deal with this. I bet there is good advice online. Good luck with it.


----------



## indexxx

Thanks Davis. Yes, of course I automatically address any disruptive behaviour- this is different as he may not even be aware that he has this issue, and nobody has complained to me. It could be that I am the only one offended by it. I've never understood how anyone can walk around knowing how bad their body odour is. Deodorant??


----------



## Davis

Maybe no one's complained about it because the situation is so very awkward? If it is that bad, it sounds like he may not be bathing regularly, and he's just used to the smell. Eesh. Glad it's you and not me.

I Googled "how to talk to an employee about body odor" and founds scads of articles from a variety if sources. There are a lot of managers in your shoes.


----------



## Just a Guy

While you're at it, could you talk to the people who don't park in the middle of their lines perfectly, it bothers people with OCD (diagnosed condition on many) which can lead to mental breakdowns. Then, could you stop children from using sidewalk chalk, alas people who walk over that pick up dust, and drag it into buildings which cause increased cleaning bills...also some people are allergic to the inert material (real complaint I've had submitted). Don't forget to ban bacon, based on religious reasons. Better still, can we make sure the cafeteria is vegan, as the one vegan employee thinks eating meat is cruel and goes against their morals.

Don't forget to rehire the entire workforce to ensure the company hires every religious, skin colour, cultural background, sexual orientation, sex, size, shape, and parental upbringing equally...

Then, make sure everyone gets to profit share, and only has to work no more than 40 hours (with plenty of breaks and all the latest and greatest gear).

Oh, don't forget to rebuild the building to ensure disabled people can have free access to the entire place, and you have hired a few of them too.

Make sure they all bathe. Perhaps install showers, in case a dispute arises during the workday. Unscented products of course. On site dentists to quickly deal with halitosis is, of course a must, and make sure we have a good variety to choose from, we wouldn't want people to be uncomfortable seeing one.

A team of dispute resolution specialists would be in order, not to forget the secret police to ensure no one violates the political correctness laws.

Oh, make sure you monitor Internet usage, and all correspondence going in and out of the building, wouldn't want the wrong word going out, it could affect the reputation of the company.

You have implemented your environmental protocols correct, we aren't using utilities derived from fossil fuels, as that contaminates the environment and harms children and animals. No products that were treated with any chemicals of course, for people with chemical sensitivity. 

Smokers are, of course, banned, but you can't fire them, that would be discriminatory, so just send them through the showers and have their clothes cleaned at every smoke break which is , of course, conducted in a well ventilated, structure that doesn't exist within any proximity to anything, but is close enought that they don't have to leave.

Better yet, let's hire a bunch of lobotomy specialist, grender reassignment specialist, skin graft experts, and just make everyone the same...then we'd live in the perfect society and everyone would be so happy until the Meds run out at least...


----------



## mrPPincer

Wow, that's an inspired vision of utopia Just a Guy!

All it's missing is a giant network of quantum computers and AI controlled robots to make sure it all runs smoothly, but of course those things are already in the development pipeline.

George Orwell would be amazed at the progress we're making


----------



## Just a Guy

We could name the computer Davis or Addy, I'm sure I could come up with a name with either acronyms, and they are the inspired dictators...

I was a little worried about wether the vaccinate or not, but the lobotomy should take care of any autism, so we're all good.

All animals can be modified to be equal...

He was close


----------



## Just a Guy

Maybe we should hire Mr. Wiggins...

http://youtu.be/DyL5mAqFJds

He has solved the issue of size and shape diversity.


----------



## mrPPincer

Not intended to offend any gluten intolerant people or anyone else, (including anyone participating in this thread) but here's another funny video in line with the humour this thread has taken..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798


----------



## m3s

mrPPincer said:


> here's another funny video in line with the humour this thread has taken..
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798


Haha that's perfect..


----------



## Davis

JAG, in the workplace of 2015 people are actually addressing problems like body odour - you can Google it yourself. And employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for disabilities, including scent allergies, and they do make these accommodations. You really do seem to be out of step with the times. I am sorry that reality does not conform to your world view. I can see how that upsets you, but in the battle between you and the world, bet on the world to win.


----------



## humble_pie

it was girlz 3, boyz 0 in the all-Star match refereed by the lobotomies until this am

when jag was able to turn the game around by scoring his championship goal post


----------



## Just a Guy

Davis, you seem confused. I'm not the one unhappy with the world...you're the one complaining that your special interest rules aren't being enforced. 

I'm also not the one complaining about coworkers, having been laid off, nor have I ever done so. 

I seem to be the one quite content with the world as it is. I'm not the one who wants the world to be how I'd like it. 

So, you seem to be declaring "victory" while at the same time complaining that you're losing, could you make up your mind?


----------



## Davis

I'm not complaining that I'm losing. I don't know where you get that from. I'm advising Addy and others readers how to protect themselves using modern policies and laws that apply to the workplace. The world has moved on from your view of it. Management deals with issues like body odour and scent allergies now, regardless of how you feel about it.


----------



## Just a Guy

Sorry, must have been a different Davis who ranted on about how the world was abusing her husband...

Of course, in your version of reality, everyone is following the rules, I'm the exception...along with my alternate login Donald. 

If they don't, you can always push to legislate mandatory lobotomies...once it's law it must be good.


----------



## crazyjackcsa

Clearly Just a Guy and Davis have two entirely different world experiences. I just left a place that paralleled what Just A Guy seems to have dealt with. 

In my experience, it's the troublemaker that gets shown the door. Right or wrong is beside the point unfortunately. If Addy was the only one bringing the issue to the forefront, it's easier to get rid of the whistle-blower than it is the problem. That axiom becomes more true as one person brings more and more issues forward.

I was shown the door from my place of employment in October. I got two weeks for every year. Could I have fought for more? Sure. I even had a case that they couldn't legally severe me. But I was so sick of the company I was ready to quit and get nothing. So when I got my severance I tap danced out the door.

Two months later I was hired by the competition. Two months after that the guy that made the decision to let me go was shown the door himself.

It might seem petty, but it feels good.


----------



## Davis

No Davis here has claimed that the world is abusing her or his husband. You and Donald have a real problem with reinterpreting what people here write. If you stick to what people actually write, I guess it is difficult to get in such a lather. It suits your argument to mis-state others' comments to make them seem extreme. 

And yeah, the law is good. It is about reasonable workplace accommodations for disabilities, which is something most people accept, and that is not going to lead to Nazi tyranny.


----------



## Davis

Here's a tip for Donald and Just a Guy: use the "reply with quote" button, then you can comment on what the other person actually wrote, and avoid derailing the discussion with incorrect or wildly exaggerated misrepresentations of what they wrote. That will make for more constructive discussions.


----------



## Just a Guy

Davis said:


> Just came across this thread. I am amazed at the bizarre arguments being thrown around here. At the core of this is that it is a very real health issue. The oiringal poster has made that very clear. My husband has the same condition, and I have seen him being physically ill from exposure to perfumes. A migraine is not something he would fake. It is not him being a hypochondriac or a ninny. He is not faking his need to be in a dark room under the covers for five hours in severe pain after exposure. there is lots of documentation on scent allergies being real. Is there any evidence that they are not? Or is it just personal prejudice? "I didn't hear about the 20 years ago, so it can't exist." The world changes - get used to it.
> 
> Why anyone would be so cruel as to choose to make a co-worker severely ill is beyond me. I understand that section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to wear perfume and cologne -- oh, wait a minute, it doesn't. There is no such right anywhere. There are, however, rights to reasonable accomodations for disabilities, which this is.
> 
> As a manager, I do not understand why any manager would allow staff to choose to wear perfume and make other staff sick. Sick time is lost time to the employer. Furthermore, in a public environment like a hospital, the needs of patients and visitors have to be considered. "Sorry, you can't come to our hospital in our small town because some of our staff like to smell pretty - you have to go to the next town."
> 
> Just a Guy's bizarre slippery-slope arguments show a lack of understand that this is a real health issue. Instead of dealing with teh reality of scent allergies, he seems to want to talk about telling people what to wear, what their political opinions should be, etc. If those things cause co-workers to be sick, sure, let's have rules about those, but if not, then we're talking about a completely different issue. Let's stick to the subject at hand.
> 
> If the OP's manager won't deal with the issue, then she should go to HR and/or the manager's superior. Or hire a lawyer. The hospital is in the wrong here.


Here's a tip for Davis...who thinks the "world is on her side" yet complains about it not following the rules...

Maybe you should remember what you post, or would you like me to quote the pages of your words in the other thread?

Oh wait, if you don't get your way, you want us to change the rules, I forgot.


----------



## Davis

So thanks for proving that your claim is bogus that I said that "the world is abusing my husband". As you can see, I was talking about two workplaces (my husband's and Addy's) where a few selfish people were putting their choice to wear perfume over the health and ability to work of a coworker. And as we can see, you continue to use slippery slope and reductio ad absurdum arguments instead of writing about the issue at hand.

I'm not asking for the rules to be changed. I have provided links to show that the rules support Addy and other people with this disability, and do not support your view that people with this disability have no place asking for a reasonable accommodation.

Also, for future reference, I am a man, not a woman, so "his" is the correct possessive pronoun for me, but you had no way of knowing that.


----------



## donald

One time I forgot my gloves for work in the winter and my abusive boss didn't let me go home and told me to suck it up
The world is so cruel!
My old boss was such a jerk!
I got frostbite!


----------



## Davis

When you can't come up with a good counter argument, go off topic, right?


----------



## Just a Guy

Davis, I don't believe I ever made mention of your gender, I believe I said "your husband", but that wouldn't be you trying to change the topic now would it?

As for the thread, it seemed pretty clear to me that you want people to follow the rules, when the world seems to be ignoring them...so which of us, exactly, is upset at the status quo and fighting the world? Which of us is getting upset with the status quo?

Personally, I think I've been pretty clear, what upsets me are special interest groups who want to regulate everything or they'll keep whining about life being unfair... I don't like extremists in any guise. I thought my message was fairly consistent on that.


----------



## Davis

You wrote: "Here's a tip Davis...who thinks " the world is on her side". This is not an issue for me. I was just clarifying it for you. Not a big deal for me.

I don't think the world ius ignoring the rules. We're talking about two workplaces that are. Lots of others respect the rules. What I object to is people belittling someone with a disability asking their workplaces to obey the law.

Calling people with a disability asserting their rights to reasonabke accommodation in their workplaces "special interest groups" and "extremists" is pretty out there. I think people who insist that wearing perfume, a wholy unnecessary matter of preference, should take priority over the health of a coworker and their ability to work, are a ver y selfish special interest group.


----------



## Just a Guy

Well, my definition of special interest group is a small minority which tries to assert its rights over that of the majority, oftentimes never satisfied with concessions, and nearly always advocating extreme desires. For example, forcing the entire world to use scent free products, and insisting people don't "smell" in their subjective opinion, because they may suffer.

Being sensitive to scents myself, I believe in personal responsibility and dealing with the problem myself, my solution would be to find a new job (you say there are many), start my own company, or whatever...it never occurs to me to whine, complain and run to someone else to fix the problem. Btw, thanks to my injuries, I'm also considered disabled, but I don't bother with handicapped parking, or ask for special devices to be installed for me. I learned to cope. While not a smoker, I also don't support the stupid rules being implemented today where smokers can't smoke out in open outside areas either. 

There is no way I can win an argument for someone who sees nothing wrong with wanting their entire lives regulated, with consideration for every possible need of people (which is impossible to accomplish by the way since what do you do with people who need exactly the opposite things), but then you do seem confused as to weather the world is for you or against you...

To get back to the original topic, I think addy proved pretty clearly that her view of the world is rather different from reality as well. I outlined previously several reasons why I think others may have laid her off. I've yet to hear one person who's been fired, laid off or whatever not say they felt they were a hard worker, good at their job, etc. Ever notice no one ever says they were lazy, looking to do the least amount of work they could get away with, never caused any issues...
Just like prisons are filled with innocent people, just ask them. 

As for the gender reference to you, I apologize, I usually try to avoid it, but sometimes it happens, however it doesn't change the issue one way or another.


----------



## Ihatetaxes

Worst thread ever thanks to brutal personal attacks. Whoever now owns this site why are there no mods to shut this sort of thing down pronto? Davis and Just A Guy you both need a time out to learn sometimes the best rebuttal is no rebuttal at all.


----------



## Davis

Ihatetaxes said:


> Worst thread ever thanks to brutal personal attacks. Whoever now owns this site why are there no mods to shut this sort of thing down pronto? Davis and Just A Guy you both need a time out to learn sometimes the best rebuttal is no rebuttal at all.


I really try to avoid personal attacks because I think that they detract from the discussion and bring the whole forum down. If I have made any personal attacks, I would appreciate it if you would identify them to me so that I can change my approach in the future. Thanks. 

But I think that no rebuttal is never going to be the best rebuttal. It's just no rebuttal.


----------



## Davis

Just a Guy said:


> Well, my definition of special interest group is a small minority which tries to assert its rights over that of the majority, oftentimes never satisfied with concessions, and nearly always advocating extreme desires. For example, forcing the entire world to use scent free products, and insisting people don't "smell" in their subjective opinion, because they may suffer.


Another definition of a special interest group is one that insists on choosing to wear perfume when doing so causes other coworkers to be too ill to work. They are clearly asserting their rights over those with a disability. Not being made sick with migraines and wanting to work in your own job is not an "extreme desire". It's everyday life. No-one here has suggested that the entire world be forced to use scent-free products. We're just talking about workplaces where people have scent-allergy disabilities. Not the whole world. 

And that's your choice. You're entitled to it. Addy came to this form to ask what her options were with respect to her job situation. Letting her know of her legal rights is providing useful information. Lecturing her about your own libertarian view of the world is really not useful for her. 



> There is no way I can win an argument for someone who sees nothing wrong with wanting their entire lives regulated, with consideration for every possible need of people (which is impossible to accomplish by the way since what do you do with people who need exactly the opposite things), but then you do seem confused as to weather the world is for you or against you...


At least we agree on something. I agree that it would be bad to have our "entire lives regulated, with consideration for every possible need of people". I think everyone here would, so I don't know why you bother to bring it up in a discussion about reasonable accommodations for a disability in the workplace (in the case of scent allergy) or someone lack of personal hygiene being disruptive to the workplace (in the case of the really bad body odour). 



> To get back to the original topic, I think addy proved pretty clearly that her view of the world is rather different from reality as well. I outlined previously several reasons why I think others may have laid her off. I've yet to hear one person who's been fired, laid off or whatever not say they felt they were a hard worker, good at their job, etc. Ever notice no one ever says they were lazy, looking to do the least amount of work they could get away with, never caused any issues... Just like prisons are filled with innocent people, just ask them.


We don't know why Addy was really laid off. We only know what she's told us, and she may not even really know. It sounds like there may have been more going on - she seemed to be happy and relieved about it. That's why I've tried to restrict my comments to the scent allergy issue since we don't know about the other stuff.



> As for the gender reference to you, I apologize, I usually try to avoid it, but sometimes it happens, however it doesn't change the issue one way or another.


There is no need for you to apologize. You didn't know, and I am not offended. It really is not a big deal.



> While not a smoker, I also don't support the stupid rules being implemented today where smokers can't smoke out in open outside areas either.


I realize that the reason we cannot even discuss this issue calmly is that we are talking at cross-purposes. I am focused on the the question of reasonable accommodations for a disability in the workplace under existing law (as I understand it, in Ontario). You are focused on the bigger societal issue of rules and the slippery slope to tyranny. I don't agree that rules like accommodating disabilities int he workplace lead to tyranny. I think that societies have always introduced rules to regulate interactions between people in order to reduce conflict. Any new rule is going to upset one party in order to benefit another. 

You probably know the saying, "your right to punch the air ends at the tip of my nose." The question is, how far does these rules go? You statement quoted above indicates that you disagree with rules that restrict smoking outside. How do you feel about rules that prevent smoking inside public buildings? Are those reasonable restrictions for society to impose? Or do they infringe on their rights of smokers? How about rules against loud, all-night parties in apartment buildings and residential neighbourhoods? Reasonable restrictions to allow people peaceful enjoyment of their homes? Or tyrannical restrictions on your right to parrrr-teeee? How about restrictions on carrying concealed weapons? Reasonable restrictions to protect public safety, or unfair restrictions on the right of people to protect themselves?


----------



## Just a Guy

I think the real problem is how we want to define the word extreme and exception.

For me, extreme includes things like when the needs of the one impose on the needs of the many for example. I have, for example, no issue with carrying a concealed weapon, I have an issue with a criminal carrying a concealed weapon. You break the law, you lose some rights. It annoys me when I hear of criminals demanding things which give them a better life than the victims they left behind...of course that doesn't mean they should have no rights but private phones, steak dinners, color tv, video games...

As for smoking inside, I didn't have an issue with it. When it was legal, I didn't frequent places where there was smoking, and never applied for jobs in places where they smoked either. If enough people did the same, businesses would start to cater to that "client opportunity". Do I appreciate the no smoking inside, of course I do, but I would never insist on it, unless it was my home or my business. On the flip side, I would be upset if someone insisted on being allowed to smoke in my house because it was not illegal to do so at the time (hypothetically speaking of course). 

The parties issues, as a landlord, I deal with quite often so again I see both sides...the "partiers" often feel it's their right to have a good time, the others around them don't. Which group do you side with, the minority or the majority? In my case, I'd tend to defend the majority.

If I look at your point of view, as presented, defending the rights of the minority then, by extension, you should defend the rights of smokers to smoke anywhere they like (what happens between the smoker and the scent people is an unwinable conflict), criminals should be allowed to carry concealed weapons if it were legal for all, partiers should be allowed to have fun, as long as they cause no medical harm (which would probably be how you justify your stance on smoking being banned), etc. 

Now, I realize that you don't actually support any of those ideas but you are making an "exception" argument when it comes to addy's case because you have a personal stake in the matter. That is the main difference between us, which is leading to the arguement I think.

In most of these examples, I too have a personal stake. I'm scent intolerant (not to the same extreme, but i personally don't wear scents and my family doesn't either), I'm technically disabled, I have tenants who want to party, I can't tolerate smoke...

In all these examples you give, heck even in addy's case, it would be in my best interests to support you and her, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. My needs do not outweigh the rights of others. The needs of society, like it or not, are more important in my opinion. I was raised to think that way, no exceptions for personal benefit. From what I've read, you seem to think the same way for the most part, except where you feel that, in your opinion, certain cases need an exception.

That is a slippery slope to go down because, once started, how can you stop it? You've seen all the rediculous examples I've given, and you yourself probably thought they were stupid and extreme but, to the people affected by whatever exception they come up with, it's probably very serious to them. Who judges which requests are justifiable and which aren't? 

Look at the mess marijuana is in right now...illegal in some states, but not others, can be uses for medical purposes, but not purchased, can be grown at home, but in restricted amounts and not givent to anyone else...it's becoming more and more difficult to enforce the law, people are getting into trouble where they shouldn't be, people are getting out of trouble that they shouldn't be...the whole thing is a mess. When it was illegal, it was clear, now there are exceptions galore and its a mess... I won't even get into the fact that prohibition has been proven multiple times not to work in the first place, but making a partial prohibition is downright stupid.

In general, I'm more for the use of common sense, which isn't all that common, less regulations, and personal responsibility. I try to avoid exceptions at all costs, and I'm also consistent even it it's not in my best interest.


----------



## yyz

Addy said:


> I plan to apply for EI and look for work over the summer, enough to satisfy EI. Then in the fall once my kids are back in school I will get serious about finding suitable employment.


I think this right here is what set this debate off with JAG.Addy seems to be implying that hey I'll just do the minimum and collect EI and enjoy the summer off.Sorta like a paid vacation.


----------



## Davis

Yes, I see the point there. EI is a support to help you get back to work. Addy does not seem to have a good attitude about this. But I chose not to get into that side of the issue.


----------



## Addy

Davis said:


> Yes, I see the point there. EI is a support to help you get back to work. Addy does not seem to have a good attitude about this. But I chose not to get into that side of the issue.


I can see why some have an issue with this, and I'm simply quoting Davis because he was the last post on this subject. However, it's not really fair to knock me for complying simply because you have an issue with the minimum requirements. If anyone has an issue with the minimum requirements to satisfy EI, they need to talk with EI, not the end users (ie me included) who are meeting EI's requirements.


----------



## james4beach

The argument being posed by some people in this thread is basically "stop complaining, because I had it tougher and I'm not complaining... and you shouldn't reap benefit X because I didn't".

I understand the emotions behind this but that's an illogical argument, and it's not valid. It strikes me as self-centric and is missing the point.


----------



## humble_pie

shhh james4 we ought to be more careful now, it looks like the attitude police are taking over


----------



## james4beach

lol, humble_pie, "attitude police" made me laugh


----------



## sags

Canadian workers faithfully pay into the EI fund every payday, 

Then have to meet the eligibility rules to qualify, spend any severance or vacation money first, wait two "unpaid" work weeks, and then maybe..........just maybe, they will be able to collect 50% of their income to a maximum of $524 a week for 40 weeks or so, depending on the unemployment rate where the person lives.

Whatever surplus that builds in the fund is scooped up by the government who say it is their money now..............because workers didn't spend it.

An "insurance" fund where the government contributes diddly squat, decides the amount of benefits and if they will be paid, and gets to keep any surplus.

I am glad that somebody is getting something out of it. They can have my share of 40 years of payments too.


----------



## protomok

Ihatetaxes said:


> Worst thread ever thanks to brutal personal attacks. Whoever now owns this site why are there no mods to shut this sort of thing down pronto? Davis and Just A Guy you both need a time out to learn sometimes the best rebuttal is no rebuttal at all.


Has anyone suggested allowing a few existing users to become moderators?

Clearly the new owners of this forum are failing/not interested in moderating. What if we allow interested individuals to volunteer to be moderators, then allow the users to vote such that we select say 3 moderators. I can think of a handful of users who I think could really benefit the forum if they were interested and given an opportunity to moderate.


----------



## Barwelle

Wow, you missed the forum drama a couple months back! You can read through this thread if you want to: http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/30530-The-New-Mod-Team-and-Site-Rules

But to catch you up to speed in a sentence, they tried that with two forum members... one, cainvest, has done a great job. The other, who I won't name, caused an uprising, and seems to have disappeared.

I'm sure cainvest would appreciate some help... but I think that's up to him and the owner mods to work out if they want to bring someone else onboard. In the meantime, if you see something you don't like, hit the report button (triangle at the bottom left hand corner of each post, if you don't know where it is) and that will send an alert to the mods. They'll act on it if they see fit.


----------



## mrPPincer

protomok said:


> Has anyone suggested allowing a few existing users to become moderators?
> 
> Clearly the new owners of this forum are failing/not interested in moderating. What if we allow interested individuals to volunteer to be moderators, then allow the users to vote such that we select say 3 moderators. I can think of a handful of users who I think could really benefit the forum if they were interested and given an opportunity to moderate.


protomok, lets not start that ball rolling again, it was someone suggesting exactly what you just did that resulted a few months ago in numerous popular threads being deleted, many users being banned for no apparent reason, many people's posts being altered or deleted, and a number of long term CMF members leaving the forum permanently.

Better to simply use the 'report post' button which was introduced since all that drama took place.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that the insulting comments by the two individuals here was ok but what happened was the community stood up in defence, and the drama was pretty minimal compared to the rampant stiffling of free speech that was happening a few months ago.
Besides people do _*love*_ to get their drama fix, this is the hottest thread going at the moment, with 6800 views in just 4.5 days..


----------



## Davis

Addy said:


> it's not really fair to knock me for complying simply because you have an issue with the minimum requirements. If anyone has an issue with the minimum requirements to satisfy EI, they need to talk with EI, not the end users (ie me included) who are meeting EI's requirements.


If you are meeting with minimum requirements, yes, you are doing legally enough. If it were me, I would use the time to look for work, which is the intent of the program, but it is your choice to make.


----------



## Davis

mrPPincer said:


> BTW, I'm not suggesting that the insulting comments by the two individuals here was ok but what happened was the community stood up in defence, and the drama was pretty minimal compared to the rampant stiffling of free speech that was happening a few months ago.
> Besides people do _*love*_ to get their drama fix, this is the hottest thread going at the moment, with 6800 views in just 4.5 days..


I agree that there has been a lot of drama here, and that there have been insulting comments. If I have been responsible for any of them in this discussion, I ask that someone let me know what those are. I think that personal attacks detract from the discussion, and I don't want to be that kind of contributor. (I let let things get away from me in a previous discussion, and probably said things there that I regret now, but I have tried to be more controlled and respectful this time around.)


----------



## Beaver101

mrPPincer said:


> protomok, lets not start that
> 
> BTW, I'm not suggesting that the insulting comments by the two individuals here was ok but what happened was the community stood ball rolling again, it was someone suggesting exactly what you just did that resulted a few months ago in numerous popular threads being deleted, many users being banned for no apparent reason, many people's posts being altered or deleted, and a number of long term CMF members leaving the forum permanently.
> 
> Better to simply use the 'report post' button which was introduced since all that drama took place.up in defence, and the drama was pretty minimal compared to the rampant stiffling of free speech that was happening a few months ago.
> Besides people do _*love*_ to get their drama fix, this is the hottest thread going at the moment, with 6800 views in just 4.5 days..


 ... a quickie post .. +1.


----------



## mrPPincer

Davis said:


> I agree that there has been a lot of drama here, and that there have been insulting comments. If I have been responsible for any of them in this discussion, I ask that someone let me know what those are. I think that personal attacks detract from the discussion, and I don't want to be that kind of contributor. (I let let things get away from me in a previous discussion, and probably said things there that I regret now, but I have tried to be more controlled and respectful this time around.)


^ Davis I'm not aware of any insulting comments you made in this thread, but I may be somewhat guilty in my initial comment responding to the aforementioned two individuals, although I think I was trying to cool things down a bit as well when it seemed the drama was overriding the initial topic.
I too will try to be more controlled and respectful in the future.


----------



## mrPPincer

Beaver101 I get what you you just did lol


----------



## protomok

Barwelle said:


> Wow, you missed the forum drama a couple months back! You can read through this thread if you want to: http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/30530-The-New-Mod-Team-and-Site-Rules
> 
> But to catch you up to speed in a sentence, they tried that with two forum members... one, cainvest, has done a great job. The other, who I won't name, caused an uprising, and seems to have disappeared.
> 
> I'm sure cainvest would appreciate some help... but I think that's up to him and the owner mods to work out if they want to bring someone else onboard. In the meantime, if you see something you don't like, hit the report button (triangle at the bottom left hand corner of each post, if you don't know where it is) and that will send an alert to the mods. They'll act on it if they see fit.


Wow, thanks for the link, I had no idea that so much happened and that people were temporarily banned  Glad to hear carverman and Beaver are back, I enjoy many of their posts!


----------



## Just a Guy

If we were driving on a single lane road and I was going the minimum speed required by law, for safety sake of course, I wonder if people would be as supportive?


----------



## Plugging Along

Just a Guy said:


> If we were driving on a single lane road and I was going the minimum speed required by law, for safety sake of course, I wonder if people would be as supportive?


I may not like it but since you are following the law and it is there for a reason, I wouldn't be flipping the bird to the person going the speed limit. If I really didn't like it, I would lobby the governement to change the speed limit. However, things like this don't really bother me, so I wouldn't spend the time to do it. I would not take it out on the driver.


----------



## Plugging Along

I am jumping on very late here as I didn't want to add fuel to the fire before.

Here's my few cents....

As far as I can see, Addy never said she was going to sue, she thought it was fair. It was someone else that brought up seeing (which I didn't agree with)

In terms of EI, she should apply right away, my spouse was laid off in Jan, and still hasn't received a payment yet. His severance ran out on the end of Feb. He applied beginning of Feb. He is at the unemployment office right now dealing with more paper work. 

The second week he was laid off at home, it worked out as our child care provider was away, and he was Mr. mom. He was still looking for work, but hoped that he wouldn't have to start RIGHT away, as then we wouldn't have had child care. He wasn't collecting EI at the time, but if he was, would that have been wrong? Of course he would have taken a job if offered, but he didn't work pound the pavement trying to start right away. 

I see Addy's view as she has been very positive in this whole scenario. THAT positive attitude is critical in getting through a layoff. She felt that she was treated fairly, she wasn't 'out for revenge', and she was looking at the positive that if she is still unemployed, she will get to spend a wonderful summer with the kids. 

I have supported my spouse through this many many times. I have seen when he is angry, or depressed or feels that he was wronged, and I have seen when he has been really positive. It makes a world of difference. There have been the occasional time where though he is my spouse, I think maybe he added to the situation. I can tell you, he already knew, and he didn't need me or anyone else to tell him so. When someone first loses their job, the first thing is not to say that you saw it coming or lay blame. It's just let them get over the initial shock. There is a time after job lose the person may take the time to reflect and see how they may have changed things, or maybe not. This was not the time. 

Would you say to someone who just had a heart attack while they are in emergency, 'Maybe you shouldn't had such an unhealthy lifestyle'? You wouldn't say to a an car accident victim 'maybe you shouldn't have been speeding' as they are getting wheeled off. It serves no purpose other than to make the other person feel bad.


----------



## Just a Guy

Just to be clear, I didn't say doing the speed limit, I said going the minimum required by law (and yes, I know there technically is no minimum).

Oh, and I also never said no one should apply for EI, or that someone was suing, or that I'd didn't apply for these things so no one else should...


----------



## Plugging Along

Just a Guy said:


> Just to be clear, I didn't say doing the speed limit, I said going the minimum required by law (and yes, I know there technically is no minimum).
> 
> Oh, and I also never said no one should apply for EI, or that someone was suing, or that I'd didn't apply for these things so no one else should...


Since the first scenario is totally hypotecal, it makes no sense to me then. How would I feel if someone made up their own minimum (not the speed limit), I would be wondering what the heck is going on. This can't be compared to someone following the actually minimums for EI. If there was the min you refer to, and some was following it, then I stand my first post back is, I would be fine with it, though a little annoyed. If someone just started making up mins, then there is no baring on this thread.

I didn't imply that you said anything, other than what I quoted. I was statng what I believed true Addy didn't impoy she was going to sue or was unhappy. That's why I did a second post, in general to say that I think that some posters may want to look at the timing of their posts, and is it really kind or helpful. That's all.


----------



## Davis

I've taken the philosophical discussion I was having with JAG into private messages to spare the rest of you from that.

On highway speed, dirvers should drive at the speed at which they feel safe, taking into consideration road conditions, lighting, speed and volume of other traffic. I've found myself at times want to drive slower than the rest of traffic for these reasons. In these cases, I pull over regularly so they don't have to sit behind me. That is common courtesy. A slow driver should not impose their speed on other drivers. Doing so is unsafe. And while there is no minimum speed, in Ontario (and I would expect in many other provinces), the Highway Traffic Act says,

"132. (1) No motor vehicle shall be driven on a highway at such a slow rate of speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic thereon except when the slow rate of speed is necessary for safe operation having regard to all the circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 132 (1)."


----------



## Plugging Along

^. The part about pulling over is greatly appreciated. It is this courtesy that I see some times we at a society are starting to lack. I think regardless if something is regulated or not, courtesy should be remembered. Just because one can and has a right to, doesn't mean they should . Sometimes I think we tend to focus on what is right rather than what is kind or how would I want to be treated. 

This is a hot topic in my house right now because my child is very black and white and very 'right'. She is factually almos always correct, and is a rules follower. However, sometimes her actions though right, may not be thinking about the other persons feelings. I am trying to teach her that sometimes being kind will have more of an impact than being right. Just my off topic bias right now.


----------



## Just a Guy

It actually happens quite a lot with senior drivers...my uncle never went above 50km/h ever, and rarely hit that. It's not hypothetical at all. Trust me, I don't think the honking and comments were very supportive of him.

And if you can't see a correlation between that scenario and a part time worker, who thinks there is nothing wrong with doing the minimum required (in fact thinks they are an excellent worker) and further wanted to enforce her needs over everyone else when you compare it to people who work hard, don't complain and only use supports when they need to. 

My uncle thought he had the right to drive at those speeds, that he was doing it for the greater good, and that others should follow his example...plus, he was breaking no laws. Didn't make him right. 

Btw, I also pointed out earlier that this is how I read the posts as presented and they've not really disputed that interpretation, which I freely admit may be wrong.

What I find amazing is others seem to put their own completely different life experiences in place of the original poster's. I'm not complaining about someone getting EI after 20 years of work. Im not saying we should blow perfume in people's faces (personal responsibility has two sides)...I also don't see where I may have "flipped the bird", metaphorically speaking to anyone.

I did say, I don't believe in legislating exceptions to rules as it leads to a slippery slope, and I also don't support people who complain to get their way.


----------



## Plugging Along

^. Sorry I misunderstood your example. I thought you were comparing the min law of when you are eligible to EI which their are rules for, not work effort. The whole thread over the needs to ME is immaterial to this thread, as none of us where there to actually see if the OP was working or infringing on other rights, or whatever. My posts have nothing to do with that, as I do not know the whole story. I can say there is a law for EI and the law doesn't say you need to work 20 years. Whatever happened at OPs work, is irrelevant to the minimum law if she was let go with out cause. We can speculate all we want, but it is only speculation and adds no value nor changes the outcome. I won't comment on the perfume or not as that has on bearing on if she gets EI or not. 

Actually, in AB you can get a ticket for going under 70 km on the highway (it might be 80KM I don't know). If it impedes traffic or is considered dangerous. I wouldn't honk at someone, but carefully pass them. If I couldnt I would call the polic on the hands free and they will deal with it. How do I know, my great uncle had this happen to him more than once where and officer found pulled him off the highway because some called. He got. I key, demerits, and eventually lost license. I actually think the person going on the highway on regular road conditions is considered unsafe so do the polic. I wouldn't berate, I would just call the police.

If people though the OP was inappropriate the call EI too.


----------



## Addy

Thanks everyone for the help. I am lax in applying for employment benefits, in part because of guilt and in part because I'm still not positive I'm entitled. This question came up on the application, and if you read my comments above, you can see why I'm not sure what the honest answer is:

Were you dismissed because your employer considered you unsuitable (skills, training, etc.) for the work you were hired or re-assigned to do?
1. Yes
2. No, I was dismissed for another reason.


----------



## andrewf

Shouldn't it say on your record of employment?


----------



## fraser

EI in Canada is simply another form of taxation.

One reason why the recently announced Harper budget was balanced in part because they took a huge amount of EI surplus funds . If Governments were serious and did not view it as a tax, they would operate in a similar fashion to CPP. Previous Governments have also done this.

I paid in to EI for 40 years. Never a claim until I was given the 'handshake'. One of the first things the lawyer who handled by case directed me to do was to immediately register for EI. I did.

After an extensive waiting period of almost 2 years, I was able to collect 38 weeks of EI. Mind you, a good portion of it was taxed back. But I was entitled to it so I took it. I simply followed the rules.


----------



## Numbersman61

fraser said:


> EI in Canada is simply another form of taxation.
> 
> One reason why the recently announced Harper budget was balanced is because they took $5million surplus for EI. If Governments were serious and did not view it as a tax, they would operate in a similar fashion to CPP. Previous Governments have also done this.
> 
> I paid in to EI for 40 years. Never a claim until I was given the 'handshake'. One of the first things the lawyer who handled by case directed me to do was to immediately register for EI. I did.
> 
> After an extensive waiting period of almost 2 years, I was able to collect 38 weeks of EI. Mind you, a good portion of it was taxed back. But I was entitled to it so I took it. I simply followed the rules.


In my 50 years in the work force, I paid into EI (except for 12 years when I was a partner in a CA firm).
Thankfully, I was never unemployed so never collected a dime. Not complaining - the reality is that it was available if needed.


----------



## none

Yes, EI is NOT welfare. You've either paid into it or will pay into it. It's insurance. Thinking of it like you shouldn't take it is like not collecting on a life insurance policy after you get hit by a bus (or your beneficiary at least).


----------



## andrewf

It is not true insurance in that the premiums paid do not reflect the risk undertaken. Workers in seasonal industries that collect EI every year after being laid off do not pay higher premiums than stably employed professionals, for instance (or government workers for that matter).


----------



## none

I don't see how premiums paid has to be linked to justify whether something is considered insurance or not. This is just poorly priced insurance.


----------



## james4beach

Addy said:


> Thanks everyone for the help. I am lax in applying for employment benefits, in part because of guilt and in part because I'm still not positive I'm entitled. This question came up on the application, and if you read my comments above, you can see why I'm not sure what the honest answer is:


You don't really have to ponder this too much, all the relevant information is on your Record of Employment. You can walk into an EI/govt center, take your RoE with you, and sit down with someone to look at the RoE together. I think they can help answer your questions based on the RoE paperwork.


----------



## andrewf

none said:


> I don't see how premiums paid has to be linked to justify whether something is considered insurance or not. This is just poorly priced insurance.


It's akin to saying that income taxes or HST are health insurance. Paying taxes does not make one eligible for health services. Nor does paying EI necessarily make you eligible for coverage. I paid it for years as a student while being ineligible.


----------



## sags

Yes Andrew, and that is the stupidity of the program.

The government scooped 3 Billion from the surplus while they made it more difficult to collect for those paying into it.

They are operating it like a travel health insurance company. Charge everyone a hefty premium.........deny benefits.........keep the money.


----------



## Addy

andrewf said:


> Shouldn't it say on your record of employment?


Under comments it only says "Without Cause". I don't want to pick the wrong thing and be tricked into being denied benefits. I tried phoning the EI office but it basically says "The line is busy, hang up and try your call again." - no matter what time of day I phone during office hours....!


----------



## Addy

andrewf said:


> It's akin to saying that income taxes or HST are health insurance. Paying taxes does not make one eligible for health services. Nor does paying EI necessarily make you eligible for coverage. I paid it for years as a student while being ineligible.


Thanks, I may have to do this. We don't have one in the town I live in, it's simply too small. The "local" one is an hours drive from where we live, so I was trying to avoid going there, but better to do what you suggest than risk putting down the wrong thing if I fill it out online myself.


----------



## Erome

FYI when calling EI canada - and they say they are busy and ask you to call again, hit 0, then 1, then 0 then 1, over and over and flip between the menus. You will eventually (within 15-30 seconds) end up triggering it to get you on hold for an agent.

Trust me this works.


----------



## Addy

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

This morning I tried completing the application online once again, and met another stumbling block. I'm being forced to choose one of the following, when really none apply, and I don't want to be dishonest and just "pick one" for fear that will make things bad for me with EI. (side note, I find it ironic a Canadian Federal Government agency spelled behaviour incorrectly!)

What reason best describes why you were dismissed/suspended?
My employer accused me of lateness or absenteeism.
My employer accused me of committing a safety violation and/or causing damage to machinery or property
My employer accused me of inappropriate dress and/or uniform and/or appearance. My employer accused me of theft.
My employer accused me of using alcohol and/or drugs.
I lost my driving license.
I refused to perform specific work, shift work, and/or overtime work.
My employer accused me of committing an act of violence and/or inappropriate behavior
My employer learned I was involved in a criminal offence.
My employer accused me of some form of misconduct other than what has been mentioned above.


----------



## Davis

Those are reasons for terminating someone with cause. You say you were terminated without cause. I think you're in the wrong section of the form.


----------



## Addy

Davis said:


> Those are reasons for terminating someone with cause. You say you were terminated without cause. I think you're in the wrong section of the form.


I think I need to go to the EI office then. I was directed to that section after selecting 2. on the previous page (which asked me this, below):

Were you dismissed because your employer considered you unsuitable (skills, training, etc.) for the work you were hired or re-assigned to do?
1. Yes
2. No, I was dismissed for another reason.


----------



## sags

Addy said:


> I think I need to go to the EI office then. I was directed to that section after selecting 2. on the previous page (which asked me this, below):
> 
> Were you dismissed because your employer considered you unsuitable (skills, training, etc.) for the work you were hired or re-assigned to do?
> 1. Yes
> 2. No, I was dismissed for another reason.


It sounds like number 1 would be the correct response.

"Unsuitable" covers everything that isn't a defined reason...........which is what EI are asking you since you picked number 2.

Terminated without cause often means the company is restructuring jobs and in the process will eliminate some positions.

Since the company didn't state a specific reason for the termination........you could assume restructuring was the reason.


----------



## fraser

The sooner you get it straightened out, the sooner you will get your EI payments. You paid for this insurance. You should not be shy to claim on the policy.

My one and only interaction with the EI folks was a few years ago. I found them very good to deal with. They determined what my waiting period was because of my severance and let me know how to move forward on the claim after that period.

You might try phoning first if the office is not in your city.


----------



## nobleea

Random EI-related question.

I was laid off, with severance, a couple months ago. According to my ROE, my severance runs til April 2022 (even though it was paid lump sum). After that period, I can claim EI if I am still unemployed, that part is pretty clear.

What about in the ensuing time frame? Say I get a job and work for 8-10 months. If I quit, or it was a temporary position, does my claim to EI still hold true after April 2022? Do I forfeit any EI since I took another job and was not laid off?

What if I am laid off from said short term job - would the new ROE replace the old ROE from my original job (that went to Apr 2022), or would they take the worse case EI-eligible date from both ROEs and use that for EI eligibility?


----------



## Beaver101

^ I think you should ask the EI folks for the official answers to your random EI-related questions. 

But in my logic based opinion, the answers are,

1. If you quit (regardless permanent or temporary), you don't get EI.
2. If you get a new job (temporary or permanent), then you forfeited EI because one of the requirement for EI is that you should be looking for a job.
3. If you're laid off from your new job, then you can apply for EI again. However, say your new job doesn't meet the 700/900 hours (can't recall exactly), then what? You should check with EI on this. Maybe they will take consideration of your previous job in meeting the EI-eligibility requirements.


----------



## milhouse

Pretty similar to what B101 says (and don't take this as gospel) but the missus says if you get a new job, temp or permanent, EI is then based on parameters surrounding this second job. 
So a corresponding question might be (at least I was curious) then, why take the risk of taking a new job that might be iffy during your severance period of your original job? For people near/closer to retirement age, it's likely not worth the risk. But for younger people, the risk is to your career progression: gap in your resume, not staying on top of industry development/changes, not continuing to develop skills, etc.


----------



## Plugging Along

nobleea said:


> Random EI-related question.
> 
> What about in the ensuing time frame? Say I get a job and work for 8-10 months. If I quit, or it was a temporary position, does my claim to EI still hold true after April 2022? Do I forfeit any EI since I took another job and was not laid off?
> 
> 2. What if I am laid off from said short term job - would the new ROE replace the old ROE from my original job (that went to Apr 2022), or would they take the worse case EI-eligible date from both ROEs and use that for EI eligibility?


If you find a new job before your severances runs out, you do not qualify to for EI. If you quit, you do not get EI. If it is a short temporary position, depending how short, they will will take the most current ROE and see if it meets the qualification for EI (Hours, $, etc) and if it was short enough, they will consider the previous ROE. Its a combination. 

I know if you start collecting EI, then you get laid of shortly, and don't have enough hours or timeframe to requalify, you can 'pause' your EI for this short period resume for the remainder of the EI (it doesn't start over).


----------

