|
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by MikeUK
(Post 8144176)
My experiance is that they're not even close, sorry
but much is weigthed in the favour of the employer here
Originally Posted by The Aviator
(Post 8144224)
Would not say that by any stretch. Employers have to give employees notice or wage in lieu, employees can just not turn up and there are no penalties.
One has to remember that employers create the business that makes the jobs. |
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 8144261)
I'm with Mike on this one. Canadian employment law and my runs in with it have definitely been on the side of the employer.
|
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by The Aviator
(Post 8144285)
As an employee or employer? I think if you ask any employer they would disagree that the law is in favour of them. Quite often when an employer does transgress few employees will take it further anyway if they are not unionised.
In the context of comparing UK law and Canadian law, there is a shift towards the employer here as opposed to the relative position of balance between the two parties in the UK In other word don’t look to the UK model for your answers, but if you do you’ll need to factor in a shift in the balance between employee and employer that more fairly reflects a employment market that exists next door to the US |
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by The Aviator
(Post 8144285)
As an employee or employer?
There are other examples too of course...contracted workers told they are "self employed" to avoid the employer paying tax at source for example...hell, just look at what dbd expects of his "sub contracted" employees;) Now, Im not saying its right or wrong, but it sure as hell isnt the same balance as in the UK. |
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 8144306)
There are other examples too of course...contracted workers told they are "self employed" to avoid the employer paying tax at source for example...hell, just look at what dbd expects of his "sub contracted" employees;)
|
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 8144365)
Not employees, of course. I think we'd be on thin ice firing employees who won't answer the phone while driving. Sub-contractors can be asked to do anything. Sub-contracting is very much the trend as it exempts the employer from even the limited responsibilities usually imposed under Canadian and Provincial laws; no paid holidays, no statutory holidays, no pay for being sick and so on.
|
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by Lorna999
(Post 8143231)
I too was planning to work full time for 1 year and struggle on, then go part time after 'doing my year'
Are you aware that it's not that easy to go part-time as it is nothing like part-time in the UK? You don't get paid holidays or sick time and usually don't get benefits through your employer. I have continued to work full-time as my husband doesn't have benefits with his job and they are very important to have if you have a family. I have just had thousands of dollars of dental work done but the majority of it was covered by my benefits through work, prescription drugs are also very expensive, the last lot of antibiotics my youngest daughter had were $150 as the cheaper ones didn't clear up the problem. |
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 8144395)
But on the other hand legally (So the MoL says) you cant tell sub contactors where to go or what time to be there, or tell them what they are going to be paid. or how to do their job..... So if you are doing any of those things (as a previous employer of my wife who tried that line found out) you are in fact employing employees. Anyway, wasnt my purpose to debate this, but it amply demonstrated some of the weaknesses of employment law here.
|
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 8144395)
But on the other hand legally (So the MoL says) you cant tell sub contactors where to go or what time to be there, or tell them what they are going to be paid. or how to do their job..... So if you are doing any of those things (as a previous employer of my wife who tried that line found out) you are in fact employing employees.
|
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by Gail
(Post 8144398)
You don't get paid holidays or sick time and usually don't get benefits through your employer. I have continued to work full-time as my husband doesn't have benefits with his job and they are very important to have if you have a family. I have just had thousands of dollars of dental work done but the majority of it was covered by my benefits through work, prescription drugs are also very expensive, the last lot of antibiotics my youngest daughter had were $150 as the cheaper ones didn't clear up the problem.
|
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by N1cky
(Post 8144155)
:huh:
Why haven't things worked out for me:confused: or have you replied to the wrong person? |
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 8144395)
But on the other hand legally (So the MoL says) you cant tell sub contactors where to go or what time to be there, or tell them what they are going to be paid. or how to do their job..... So if you are doing any of those things (as a previous employer of my wife who tried that line found out) you are in fact employing employees. Anyway, wasnt my purpose to debate this, but it amply demonstrated some of the weaknesses of employment law here.
* Investment required by the worker (usually who buys the tools and materials) * The ability of the worker to subcontract (i.e. is the nature of the agreement for service or services) * The element of risk and reward of the worker. No factor is conclusive, and in most situations they are contradictory, so it is a question of judgment. The above is the official line. Unofficially, the fact that you have more than one client is taken as an persuasive indicator that you are a self-employed contractor. If you only work for one client over an extended period of time then you will likely be deemed to be an employee. I see most of the pressure to be considered as self-employed comes from the workers as they believe they will be able to write-off a lot more of their personal expenses against tax. In reality, this isn't true if there is a carefully drafted employment contract in place. If an employer gets the employee / contractor judgment wrong the penalties are crippling and often terminal. So most employers that I deal with prefer to treat their workers as employees. |
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by Gail
(Post 8144398)
Are you aware that it's not that easy to go part-time as it is nothing like part-time in the UK? You don't get paid holidays or sick time and usually don't get benefits through your employer. I have continued to work full-time as my husband doesn't have benefits with his job and they are very important to have if you have a family. I have just had thousands of dollars of dental work done but the majority of it was covered by my benefits through work, prescription drugs are also very expensive, the last lot of antibiotics my youngest daughter had were $150 as the cheaper ones didn't clear up the problem.
I work 24hrs per week and that entitles me to be a 'full-time part timer'. I get all the benefits, holidays, pension, sick etc. |
Re: Refunding Relocation Costs to Employer on quitting
Originally Posted by JonboyE
(Post 8144456)
The right of control, that you describer above, is one of the factors that is used to determine if someone is an employee or a contractor. The others are:
* Investment required by the worker (usually who buys the tools and materials) * The ability of the worker to subcontract (i.e. is the nature of the agreement for service or services) * The element of risk and reward of the worker. No factor is conclusive, and in most situations they are contradictory, so it is a question of judgment. The above is the official line. Unofficially, the fact that you have more than one client is taken as an persuasive indicator that you are a self-employed contractor. If you only work for one client over an extended period of time then you will likely be deemed to be an employee. I see most of the pressure to be considered as self-employed comes from the workers as they believe they will be able to write-off a lot more of their personal expenses against tax. In reality, this isn't true if there is a carefully drafted employment contract in place. If an employer gets the employee / contractor judgment wrong the penalties are crippling and often terminal. So most employers that I deal with prefer to treat their workers as employees. Just to further confuse the issue there is also the designation of: "Dependant Contractors" "A recent Federal Court of Canada decision (Dynamex vs. Mamona: 2003) upheld the category of "dependent contractors" allowing workers in the courier industry to access the rights and protections of the Canada Labour Code while retaining their tax status as contractors." This allows a Dynamex Courier all the benefits of self-employment + belonging to a union, (The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) so getting holiday pay etc.,. Have Cake will Eat. Who said tax law was simple????? |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 1:21 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.