Justin Trudeau is Doing a Great Job

[02sled]

1 hour ago, mxzx121 said:

Any one know the difference between Paid vacation time vs Vacation pay?  How it will work next year?

Right know I get 4% of my yearly wage as vacation pay, plus my employer give me 1 paid week.  I work in the trades for a small business and get paid hourly.  My wife has a office job with a small business and get 5 weeks paid holiday.  She is on salary.

Are they getting rid of the 4% vacation pay?

4% is the equivalent of two weeks for a full time employee or 4% of the income for a part time employee allows the part time employee to take TWO WEEKS OFF AT THEIR AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS.

It seems what the province is doing is changing that 4% required vacation pay for employees who have been there 5 years or more to 6% which would be three weeks for the full time employee or the average weekly pay for a part time employee times 3. That would allow the part time employee with 5 years or more to have 3 weeks vacation at their average income.

It sounds as though in your case your employer is giving you three weeks vacation however they seem to want it known when they break it down by definition that you are getting two weeks legally required vacation pay and that they are giving you an extra week off that they aren't required to and want you to realize that.

Now comes the interesting part that will hit their bottom line profitability. They are okay with paying you for the required two weeks vacation pay = 4% plus another week paid. With the legal requirement going to 3 weeks for employees with 5 years or more, that will increase their legally required cost to 6% of your income rather than 4%.

When they give you your legal entitlement you will be getting 6% = 3 weeks which is the same amount of time and pay as you have now. They decide to maintain status quo and maintain their expense at 3 weeks of time off for you OR they may take an additional 2% hit to their operating expense and give you the 6% = 3 weeks required and still give you an extra 1 week paid for a total of 4 weeks.

Your small business employer may not be able to afford that extra 2% of labour cost for each employee.  

[mxzx121]

I was wondering if it would go to 6% in may case.  I haven't been able to find all the new rules yet,  just news head lines.

 

 

[02sled]

15 minutes ago, mxzx121 said:

I was wondering if it would go to 6% in may case.  I haven't been able to find all the new rules yet,  just news head lines.

 

 

take a look at this.... if you have been there 5 years or more it will be 6% = 3 weeks

https://news.ontario.ca/mol/en/2017/11/ontario-passes-legislation-to-create-fair-workplaces-better-jobs.html

 

[1trailmaker]

2 hours ago, mxzx121 said:

Any one know the difference between Paid vacation time vs Vacation pay?  How it will work next year?

Right know I get 4% of my yearly wage as vacation pay, plus my employer give me 1 paid week.  I work in the trades for a small business and get paid hourly.  My wife has a office job with a small business and get 5 weeks paid holiday.  She is on salary.

Are they getting rid of the 4% vacation pay?

What trade?  I hope you can get into the Union one day - whether you work for union shop or not doesn't matter pay your dues and enjoy the rewards.

Reading Ads for 5yr experienced carpenters @ 19$ an hour is pretty sad IMO

[Muskoka Rider]

3 hours ago, 02sled said:

You're obviously an employee and not an employer. There are a whole lot of costs in the background that the employee never sees that go into the fully burdened cost of labour.

Then there's the other costs that come into effect starting Jan. 1

• 10 days personal emergency time per year and at least two paid days per year for employees who have been employed for at least a week

Wow... work a whole week and you're entitled to 2 days off with pay - no abuse going to happen here or with 10 personal days. I wonder how many of those will be spent on the golf course. But of course none of that adds to the employers operating costs does it.

• ban employers from requiring a doctor's sick note from an employee taking personal emergency leave

No abuse there either. If you're sick, you're sick and you should stay home. How about the employee who gets conveniently sick on Mondays and Fridays only. Now you can't get them to validate they really were sick.

• 17 weeks off without the fear of losing their job when a worker or their child has experienced or is threatened with domestic or sexual violence, including paid leave for the first five days

For a significant matter like that a leave of absence to get your life in order is good. To make your employer pay for those 5 days on top of your vacation time isn't.

• at least three weeks' vacation after five years with the same employer

vacation should be negotiated with the employer - if you don't like what they offer in terms of vacation go work for someone who offers more. When the one employer can't get anyone to work for them due to vacation time, they will adapt and offer more (supply and demand)

• employees to be paid for three hours of work if their shift is cancelled within 48 hours of its scheduled start time

Always has been ten days protected leave, only change is 2 paid.

Employees have never had to have a doctors not, the law was family emergency, only change is it now clarifies this because many employers did not understand the law.

Ya, the 17 weeks off being written into law is causing a business to close before it experiences that situation, get a grip.

Most employers already give three weeks after five years of service. Not to mention it is deserved.

Previous law was employee must be paid a min of three hours, not at least they are not seeing shifts cancelled after commuting. Another change that has nothing to do with a small business closing.

It is clear that you hate the working poor and have no connection to the struggles they face trying to survive and have a life that is close to decent. 

None of these changes will kill any business that is run well and would not be on its way to a slow death prior.

 

 

[02sled]

2 minutes ago, Muskoka Rider said:

Always has been ten days protected leave, only change is 2 paid.

Employees have never had to have a doctors not, the law was family emergency, only change is it now clarifies this because many employers did not understand the law.

Ya, the 17 weeks off being written into law is causing a business to close before it experiences that situation, get a grip.

Most employers already give three weeks after five years of service. Not to mention it is deserved.

Previous law was employee must be paid a min of three hours, not at least they are not seeing shifts cancelled after commuting. Another change that has nothing to do with a small business closing.

It is clear that you hate the working poor and have no connection to the struggles they face trying to survive and have a life that is close to decent. 

None of these changes will kill any business that is run well and would not be on its way to a slow death prior.

 

 

Wrong on so much again.

Until now there wasn't a requirement to be paid for sick time. Paid sick leave was a company provided benefit. In some cases it was part of a union contract but never a legal requirement. The company had the option to require a doctors note for sick time and was most typically required only for extended absences or for those who were chronic abusers such as every Friday they were sick.

Under the ESA

If you are an employer of 50 or more employees, each worker is entitled to a leave of absence without pay for any of the following reasons:

• Personal illness
• Personal injury
• Personal medical emergency
• Related* persons’ death
• Related* persons’ illness
• Related* persons’ injury
• Related* persons’ medical emergency
• Related* persons’ urgent matter

Are you looking to compete with Fail for the dumb as a stump award. I didn't suggest that a 17 week leave of absence would cause a business to close. What I did say was that the first five days being paid would be a change and an impact to the businesses finances.

You're almost right on shift cancellations. In the past if you were scheduled to work, came in and were sent back home upon arrival or sent home after an hour or two you would be paid for the minimum 3 hours.

However if your employer found out the day before that there wouldn't be a need for your services and notified you of the cancellation you weren't paid. Now they will have to notify you at least 48 hours (2 days) in advance or pay you for the 3 hour minimum. That can and will be a financial impact to business. In the case of a day care in a town like Collingwood where there is a snow storm overnight shutting down traffic and the kids won't be showing up the business doesn't need the staff but will still have to pay them each for 3 hours. In the case of the Collingwood day care that is closing that would be $45 X 5 employees or $225 and at the same time not have any revenue to offset the expense.

It's painfully obvious that you have no concern or regard for the small business owner. Maybe you have a delusional concept that they are all wealthy and have lots of money to throw around. It's the small business owner that will see their personal income fluctuate sometimes dramatically while their employees have a regular stable income that doesn't fluctuate whether the business is doing well or poorly.

[1trailmaker]

9 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Wrong on so much again.

Until now there wasn't a requirement to be paid for sick time. Paid sick leave was a company provided benefit. In some cases it was part of a union contract but never a legal requirement. The company had the option to require a doctors note for sick time and was most typically required only for extended absences or for those who were chronic abusers such as every Friday they were sick.

Under the ESA

If you are an employer of 50 or more employees, each worker is entitled to a leave of absence without pay for any of the following reasons:

• Personal illness
• Personal injury
• Personal medical emergency
• Related* persons’ death
• Related* persons’ illness
• Related* persons’ injury
• Related* persons’ medical emergency
• Related* persons’ urgent matter

Are you looking to compete with Fail for the dumb as a stump award. I didn't suggest that a 17 week leave of absence would cause a business to close. What I did say was that the first five days being paid would be a change and an impact to the businesses finances.

You're almost right on shift cancellations. In the past if you were scheduled to work, came in and were sent back home upon arrival or sent home after an hour or two you would be paid for the minimum 3 hours.

However if your employer found out the day before that there wouldn't be a need for your services and notified you of the cancellation you weren't paid. Now they will have to notify you at least 48 hours (2 days) in advance or pay you for the 3 hour minimum. That can and will be a financial impact to business. In the case of a day care in a town like Collingwood where there is a snow storm overnight shutting down traffic and the kids won't be showing up the business doesn't need the staff but will still have to pay them each for 3 hours. In the case of the Collingwood day care that is closing that would be $45 X 5 employees or $225 and at the same time not have any revenue to offset the expense.

It's painfully obvious that you have no concern or regard for the small business owner. Maybe you have a delusional concept that they are all wealthy and have lots of money to throw around. It's the small business owner that will see their personal income fluctuate sometimes dramatically while their employees have a regular stable income that doesn't fluctuate whether the business is doing well or poorly.

With all the business owners on this site all saying right now they are doing really well, not one has posted the shit you seem to be so passion about.  Lets here from an actual owner here.  Will you disagree with them?  PeteZ just stated he is so busy he has work for the next 2 years

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by 1trailmaker

[ArcticCrusher]

49 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

What trade?  I hope you can get into the Union one day - whether you work for union shop or not doesn't matter pay your dues and enjoy the rewards.

Reading Ads for 5yr experienced carpenters @ 19$ an hour is pretty sad IMO

[ArcticCrusher]

2 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

With all the business owners on this site all saying right now they are doing really well, not one has posted the shit you seem to be so passion about.  Lets here from an actual owner here.  Will you disagree with them?  PeteZ just stated he is so busy he has work for the next 2 years

 

Why don't the non business owners anti-up, put some confidence in themselves and join the party?

[1trailmaker]

Just now, ArcticCrusher said:

Why don't the non business owners anti-up, put some confidence in themselves and join the party?

Dumb question/statement

Why doesn't every Teacher become a Principal? 

Why doesn't every worker become a Manager?

 

Are you expecting a person working at Wal-mart to pony up and open their own wal-mart  

[Muskoka Rider]

11 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Wrong on so much again.

Until now there wasn't a requirement to be paid for sick time. Paid sick leave was a company provided benefit. In some cases it was part of a union contract but never a legal requirement. The company had the option to require a doctors note for sick time and was most typically required only for extended absences or for those who were chronic abusers such as every Friday they were sick.

Under the ESA

If you are an employer of 50 or more employees, each worker is entitled to a leave of absence without pay for any of the following reasons:

• Personal illness
• Personal injury
• Personal medical emergency
• Related* persons’ death
• Related* persons’ illness
• Related* persons’ injury
• Related* persons’ medical emergency
• Related* persons’ urgent matter

Are you looking to compete with Fail for the dumb as a stump award. I didn't suggest that a 17 week leave of absence would cause a business to close. What I did say was that the first five days being paid would be a change and an impact to the businesses finances.

You're almost right on shift cancellations. In the past if you were scheduled to work, came in and were sent back home upon arrival or sent home after an hour or two you would be paid for the minimum 3 hours.

However if your employer found out the day before that there wouldn't be a need for your services and notified you of the cancellation you weren't paid. Now they will have to notify you at least 48 hours (2 days) in advance or pay you for the 3 hour minimum. That can and will be a financial impact to business. In the case of a day care in a town like Collingwood where there is a snow storm overnight shutting down traffic and the kids won't be showing up the business doesn't need the staff but will still have to pay them each for 3 hours. In the case of the Collingwood day care that is closing that would be $45 X 5 employees or $225 and at the same time not have any revenue to offset the expense.

It's painfully obvious that you have no concern or regard for the small business owner. Maybe you have a delusional concept that they are all wealthy and have lots of money to throw around. It's the small business owner that will see their personal income fluctuate sometimes dramatically while their employees have a regular stable income that doesn't fluctuate whether the business is doing well or poorly.

Related persons urgent matter. You are asserting an employer could demand a doctors note for an urgent matter that did not involve a doctor? Are you obtuse? Go to your doctor and ask for a note because you missed work for the reason of having to drive 4 hours to pick up your stranded son, see how long he laughs before he tells you to beat it. Not to mention the lunacy of demanding a person go to the doctor when the doctor can do nothing and going would make it worse, such as a migraine sufferer that finds relief in a quiet dark space, not driving to a doctors office or walk in and waiting 4 hours.  I clearly stated the only change was in that 2 of the ten days will now be paid.  BTW they also now have to notify you 48 hours if they add a shift, instead of calling you at 8 in the morning demanding you attend work at ten. You can now refuse, whereas prior they could punish you if you refused. Good.

 

You have very weak arguments, most of which that are simple fabrications and not even valid. 

[ArcticCrusher]

3 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

Dumb question/statement

Why doesn't every Teacher become a Principal? 

Why doesn't every worker become a Manager?

 

Are you expecting a person working at Wal-mart to pony up and open their own wal-mart  

No I don't, I'm just responding to dumb statements.  I don't pretend to know the balance sheets of most businesses or what they can afford to pay others.  I do know that someone who is currently making say $18/hr won't be too happy when MW hits $15 so it all get affected.  They are predicting significant job losses from these changes, will see what pans out.

[1trailmaker]

Just now, ArcticCrusher said:

No I don't, I'm just responding to dumb statements.  I don't pretend to know the balance sheets of most businesses or what they can afford to pay others.  I do know that someone who is currently making say $18/hr won't be too happy when MW hits $15 so it all get affected.  They are predicting significant job losses from these changes, will see what pans out.

as I said earlier an ad for experienced carpenters is an insult @19 an hour - this goes for many trades like electricians etals

I wouldn't be making decks for a company for less than 25$ an hour and that isn't even a trade

Times are changing, things are expensive - something has to be done before its too late.

[ArcticCrusher]

8 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

as I said earlier an ad for experienced carpenters is an insult @19 an hour - this goes for many trades like electricians etals

I wouldn't be making decks for a company for less than 25$ an hour and that isn't even a trade

Times are changing, things are expensive - something has to be done before its too late.

Its always easier to just do the work and not have to worry about how it came to be in the first place.  How about you get paid for the job instead of by the hour?  You OK with that?

Bold, No, that part pretty much stays the same.

[02sled]

15 minutes ago, Muskoka Rider said:

Related persons urgent matter. You are asserting an employer could demand a doctors note for an urgent matter that did not involve a doctor? Are you obtuse? Go to your doctor and ask for a note because you missed work for the reason of having to drive 4 hours to pick up your stranded son, see how long he laughs before he tells you to beat it. Not to mention the lunacy of demanding a person go to the doctor when the doctor can do nothing and going would make it worse, such as a migraine sufferer that finds relief in a quiet dark space, not driving to a doctors office or walk in and waiting 4 hours.  I clearly stated the only change was in that 2 of the ten days will now be paid.  BTW they also now have to notify you 48 hours if they add a shift, instead of calling you at 8 in the morning demanding you attend work at ten. You can now refuse, whereas prior they could punish you if you refused. Good.

 

You have very weak arguments, most of which that are simple fabrications and not even valid. 

There's a difference between being off sick and being off for a family emergency.

You skipped past the KEY POINT. THERE WASN'T ANY OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER TO PAY FOR SICK TIME OR PERSONAL ABSCENCE. if you were off sick you didn't get paid in many jobs, particularly the small business.

The employer that CHOSE to pay for sick time did so voluntarily. If the employer felt you were abusing their sick pay policy or for other reasons under THEIR policy they could require a doctors note to be paid for sick time.

There was never a requirement for employees to be paid for personal time. Now Wynnebag wants the employer to pony up for the first 5 days of personal time.

You come from a dream world, as clouded as Fails. You may have gotten sick pay under a company policy or a union contract BUT THERE WASN'T A REQUIREMENT TO PAY FOR SICK TIME.

Pretty obvious you have never had any experience managing people relative to actual Ontario labour laws and have as vivid an imagination as Fail

[ArcticCrusher]

25 minutes ago, Muskoka Rider said:

Related persons urgent matter. You are asserting an employer could demand a doctors note for an urgent matter that did not involve a doctor? Are you obtuse? Go to your doctor and ask for a note because you missed work for the reason of having to drive 4 hours to pick up your stranded son, see how long he laughs before he tells you to beat it. Not to mention the lunacy of demanding a person go to the doctor when the doctor can do nothing and going would make it worse, such as a migraine sufferer that finds relief in a quiet dark space, not driving to a doctors office or walk in and waiting 4 hours.  I clearly stated the only change was in that 2 of the ten days will now be paid.  BTW they also now have to notify you 48 hours if they add a shift, instead of calling you at 8 in the morning demanding you attend work at ten. You can now refuse, whereas prior they could punish you if you refused. Good.

 

You have very weak arguments, most of which that are simple fabrications and not even valid. 

So how does that work for supply teachers?

[Muskoka Rider]

4 minutes ago, 02sled said:

There's a difference between being off sick and being off for a family emergency.

You skipped past the KEY POINT. THERE WASN'T ANY OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER TO PAY FOR SICK TIME OR PERSONAL ABSCENCE. if you were off sick you didn't get paid in many jobs, particularly the small business.

The employer that CHOSE to pay for sick time did so voluntarily. If the employer felt you were abusing their sick pay policy or for other reasons under THEIR policy they could require a doctors note to be paid for sick time.

There was never a requirement for employees to be paid for personal time. Now Wynnebag wants the employer to pony up for the first 5 days of personal time.

You come from a dream world, as clouded as Fails. You may have gotten sick pay under a company policy or a union contract BUT THERE WASN'T A REQUIREMENT TO PAY FOR SICK TIME.

Pretty obvious you have never had any experience managing people relative to actual Ontario labour laws and have as vivid an imagination as Fail

I  did not miss that, and clearly acknowledged it earlier. I guess you just read what you want, and then respond to what in your own deluded head, thought you had read. If you want to debate me then you are going to have have another person read my replies, one that can comprehend the English language, as it is abundantly clear you cannot do so. the five days is for the 17 day leave when domestic abuse has been the reason for the absence. Obviously you have no compassion for a women and child trying to escape an abusive home. Five days of pay while they struggle to relocate, with perhaps no money at all might make a massive difference in their lives. The small amount of money to an employer is negligible. How often do you think this happens in the work place? I have never personally witnessed a women I was working with have to go through it, have you? 

[Muskoka Rider]

7 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

So how does that work for supply teachers?

They will come under their collective bargaining agreement. Normally a collective agreement is followed and takes the place of the ESA. Hope this helps.

[1trailmaker]

28 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Its always easier to just do the work and not have to worry about how it came to be in the first place.  How about you get paid for the job instead of by the hour?  You OK with that?

Bold, No, that part pretty much stays the same.

sure like a drywaller or taper, shingles    Piece work I wouldn't mind at all certainly make more money for myself.   Where working your nut off hourly makes the owner money and you stay the same. 

[1trailmaker]

28 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

So how does that work for supply teachers?

They have zero obligation to accept the job, much different than be told you must show up in one hour

[mxzx121]

2 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

What trade?  I hope you can get into the Union one day - whether you work for union shop or not doesn't matter pay your dues and enjoy the rewards.

Reading Ads for 5yr experienced carpenters @ 19$ an hour is pretty sad IMO

Marine/small engine tech

[1trailmaker]

28 minutes ago, mxzx121 said:

Marine/small engine tech

I hope you are getting flat rate   

good trade to be in

[ArcticCrusher]

1 hour ago, 1trailmaker said:

sure like a drywaller or taper, shingles    Piece work I wouldn't mind at all certainly make more money for myself.   Where working your nut off hourly makes the owner money and you stay the same. 

What happens during idle time?

[02sled]

2 hours ago, mxzx121 said:

Marine/small engine tech

A friend of mine works at Bayport in Penetang. They are indeed slower in the winter but still have work to do during the winter. It seems a number of customers want things done during the winter months so that they don't lose boating time during the summer. Instead of collecting O/T during the prime time (particularly launch and haul out) they can bank that money. Then they get to draw on it during the slower times so they have a full pay cheque year round.

I've heard there is lots of demand for qualified people.

[1trailmaker]

51 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

What happens during idle time?

when I can make 3 or 4 times the money    I think things would be okay.   You really don't know about trades and how it works do you? 

Make it now because its not long before the slow times