[VZF74G0M]

It depends what you mean by severance pay. It's illegal to tell somebody "you're fired, go home and never return" then only pay them time worked. You'll always need to pay more, unless it's for cause or they're in a probationary period.

What about wage-earners? Couldn't you just dodge that by cutting their hours down?

Alby: Thanks for clarifying.

[Patabeamn]

But they are stupid, so perhaps they deserve it

It seems to me that if you are careful with your money most people who are above entry-level should be able to save a decent amount of their income. Then again, what the hell do I know, I'm still a kid.

HC, remember the median income in America is not that much and half of America lives below that. You talk about above 'entry-level' but entry-level what? College grads?

[ViagraPriceBuying]

What about wage-earners? Couldn't you just dodge that by cutting their hours down?

Alby: Thanks for clarifying.

Not sure how the US states work. But in Canada (or at least in Ontario where I specifically researched this), if you make a good case that they were trying to force you to quit, it's effectively the same as getting fired and treated as such under law. For example, giving them 1 hour a week...

[Discus]

It depends what you mean by severance pay. It's illegal to tell somebody "you're fired, go home and never return" then only pay them time worked. You'll always need to pay more, unless it's for cause or they're in a probationary period.

Here there is always a required "period of notice", except for casual employees. If you just tell somebody to get lost you need to pay out the notice period.

[Assauraarguck]

Yeah that's definitely not so in America

How do people get paid for work they didn't do?

Because you're required to give the workers X weeks notice (depending how long they've worked there). Most of the time, when you fire someone you don't say "you have two more weeks of work". You just send them home. And because of the notice-requirement, at the very least you need to give them money equivalent of the notice time not provided.

[KuznehikVasaN]

HC, remember the median income in America is not that much and half of America lives below that. You talk about above 'entry-level' but entry-level what? College grads?

You make his point for him. The income distribution is broad enough that expenses just can't justify not saving for most people.

[ApporpSothe]

Alby, remember that we have government run unemployment insurance here, which is similar in function to the Canadian law (I think?).

[Attaniuri]

Well there IS unemployment compensation anyway for those who live paycheck to paycheck. Granted, it's about 50-60% of their normal income so if they were truly broke, they'd still be in trouble, but it is something to prevent instant destitution upon termination.

[mpxricyNimb]

Because you're required to give the workers X weeks notice (depending how long they've worked there). Most of the time, when you fire someone you don't say "you have two more weeks of work". You just send them home. And because of the notice-requirement, at the very least you need to give them money equivalent of the notice time not provided.

Yeah that does not exist in the USA. Not by law at least. It could be company policy though.

[gkihueonhjh]

[Glamyclitlemi]

Best high school in the nation, folks

[SkHukV3N]

Best high school in the nation, folks

Not the best. Just above the median.

[discountviagraman]

The PA law sounds bizarre to me.

We've got so many more protections here in Canada, it seems absurd not to have it. You guys are getting screwed.

And don't tell me it increases the cost of doing business in Canada. If it was more expensive to do business in Canada, there wouldn't be countless nearshore consulting firms.

[toreesi]

Yeah but... you get paid for work. Paid FOR WORK. As in work done.

Paying people without them working is bizarre to me. I mean there's bonuses but those are advanced payments on work that will be done. This idea of paying people for work that will never be done is bizarre.

The idea is to provide a disincentive for firing perfectly good workers without cause. If paying people without them working is bizarre to you, then that's the point. If you can't fire them for cause, they should keep working.

[Ervins Dervish]

The idea is to provide a disincentive for firing perfectly good workers without cause. If paying people without them working is bizarre to you, then that's the point. If you can't fire them for cause, they should keep working.

It's for cause... the business needs changed so fewer workers are required.

[mtautomoscow]

Are you equally perplexed about the concept of vacation pay?

Hell, I get 3 days off of my choosing every quarter (in addition to vacation days + personal days). I get paid fully not to work those days as well.

Vacation pay is not legally mandated in the USA. Is it in Canada?

See if this is part of a compensation package provided by the employer, yeah it makes sense. Vacation days are part of your compensation. I guess a severance package would be that same sort of implicit compensation for work that has been done distributed over the course of employment but paid out at termination.

However, there's a fine difference between employers voluntarily offering such compensation and the State mandating it. That is what is bizarre to me.

The Canadian government says companies, pay these people for not working.

[G778G9P0]

When Canadian sandwich makers get laid off from McDonalds, how much severance pay do they get?