Leave a comment

Comments 3

bateleur July 4 2010, 04:49:18 UTC
Of course, in the case of most of your items on the list the reason would not be voiced. Instead, the employer would provide some utterly spurious (but valid under this law) reason such as "The employee repeatedly failed to conform to expected company culture".

Reply

onebyone July 4 2010, 14:28:50 UTC
Well, only if the real reason is problematic. If none of the above is banned as grounds for dismissal, why bother? If it's legal to sack someone for union activity, or for complaining to the police about a sexual assault by a manager, or slagging off the President company to the papers, or whatever, then other employees and the union are going to know what you've done, and react accordingly, regardless of what you actually say.

Reply

bateleur July 4 2010, 14:36:49 UTC
Well, only if the real reason is problematic.

There are different degrees of problematic. Particular grounds might be apparently legal, but a smart corporate legal team might smell trouble a mile off and decide the official reasons should be less controversial.

We live now in the age of "lie consistently and write nothing down". It is a rash corporation that protects its interests only with the fig-leaf of the law.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up