Is having a job a right?

[Notorious Honey Badger]

I want to clarify more what the question actually is. When it comes to workers rights, and managements rights, when do and when SHOULD issues cross into rights? When there are bad management and ownership rules and regulations I often hear fair conservative minded people say "if you don't like it, don't work there". But working is a must. We have to work to earn a living to pay for the basics, food, shelter and so on. Law has recognized that some thing's can't be left to management such as the right to 3 weeks holidays and overtime rules. Should these rules even exist? Should more regulation exist?

If a company is allowed to introduce unreasonable policies, is it fair to simply tell the workers "find another job"? What if that policy spreads and the majority of employers now choose to implement them? For example let's say that a company decides that under no circumstance besides emergencies will they ever allow time off without pay, no matter the time in advance given. Is this a reasonable policy? Should it even be allowed? Feel free to come up with some examples.

[Nufy]

Aren't most issues like that covered by Labor Laws ?

If company policies are deemed unacceptable then they are finde, sanctioned, etc...

Its up to the employee to pursue it isn't it ?

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by Nufy

Aren't most issues like that covered by Labor Laws ?

If company policies are deemed unacceptable then they are finde, sanctioned, etc...

Its up to the employee to pursue it isn't it ?

I'm talking about issues that fall outside the labour code, not within them. Like my example of unpaid time off. Or perhaps dress code. That kind of thing.

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

If a company is allowed to introduce unreasonable policies, is it fair to simply tell the workers "find another job"? What if that policy spreads and the majority of employers now choose to implement them? For example let's say that a company decides that under no circumstance besides emergencies will they ever allow time off without pay, no matter the time in advance given. Is this a reasonable policy? Should it even be allowed? Feel free to come up with some examples.

I think the context is very important. I think Canadian labour laws are very reasonable as a general rule. Anything else really depends on the situation.

Let's take the time off without pay outside of emergencies as an example.

Let's say Jarome Iginla wanted to take the month of March off, and he gave this notice to the Flames well in advance. Even before the regular season started. Should they grant it? I think it is reasonable that they wouldn't outside of an emergency situation. If he wanted the flexibility to be able to take this time off, he should not be a professional hockey player.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by jtfrogger

I think the context is very important. I think Canadian labour laws are very reasonable as a general rule. Anything else really depends on the situation.

Let's take the time off without pay outside of emergencies as an example.

Let's say Jarome Iginla wanted to take the month of October off, and he gave this notice to the Flames well in advance. Even before the regular season started. Should they grant it? I think it is reasonable that they wouldn't outside of an emergency situation. If he wanted the flexibility to be able to take this time off, he should not be a professional hockey player.

fyp

[TurdFerguson]

People pick the jobs they work at - I'm in the boat of, if you don't like it, find something else. I would tend to believe that if the employers policies were that unreasonable it wouldn't take long for them to have a employee attraction and retention issues which should negatively impact there ability to do business, thus encouraging them to right the problem themselves.

[Rathji]

A company can set whatever policies it wants as long as it does not violate labour laws.

I think the policy you mentioned should be allowed, but I don't think it is a good long term solution for a typical job.

For example, I am the only in house system admin at my company. If I took 2 months off then there are a lot of things that would not get done. My boss can do some of it, and does when I take my vacation etc, but it cuts into what he needs to do as part fo his job. If I am taking extra time on top of my vacation and personal days then it stands to reason that not only would it be detrimental to our systems (since he obviously isn't doing everything that I do, or as well) but it would cut into his productivity a lot. Bringing in a contractor to do the work would be extremely inefficient, and probably cost upwards of twice as much.

Now, that isn't the case where I work and if it needed to happen, it would happen, but it is a clear example of a situation where could be really hard on a company for someone to leave.

Another example, on the other side of the coin: Wife worked at Shaw. She tried to take a 3 month LOA to deal with our family situation which changed and they refused , as a matter of company policy. However, because they didn't want to give her a LOA, she doesn't work there any more and she was by far the most experienced person who was working in her department. In a situation like that, its not like they wouldn't have managed if 19 people were doing the job instead of 20 (making up numbers).

I guess the bean counters decided that enough people would be on leave at any given time that if they allowed it at all, then it would impact their workforce more than the people who would quit because of such a policy. Just a guess though.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

I want to clarify more what the question actually is. When it comes to workers rights, and managements rights, when do and when SHOULD issues cross into rights? When there are bad management and ownership rules and regulations I often hear fair conservative minded people say "if you don't like it, don't work there". But working is a must. We have to work to earn a living to pay for the basics, food, shelter and so on. Law has recognized that some thing's can't be left to management such as the right to 3 weeks holidays and overtime rules. Should these rules even exist? Should more regulation exist?

If a company is allowed to introduce unreasonable policies, is it fair to simply tell the workers "find another job"? What if that policy spreads and the majority of employers now choose to implement them? For example let's say that a company decides that under no circumstance besides emergencies will they ever allow time off without pay, no matter the time in advance given. Is this a reasonable policy? Should it even be allowed? Feel free to come up with some examples.

Typically in my history if the employee is reasonable in their request then they have granted the time off without pay. If it is not granted where you work, and the request is reasonable, then I would suggest you should be looking at a different company for employment.

I will say that historically I have experienced employees trying to abuse the system and then complaining about unfair practices. In other words, problem employees usually find problems with policies.

Recognize that as employees take time off without pay, this isn't typically accounted for when an organization decides its employee compliment. Basically, the employee taking time off without pay is making their coworker's job more difficult.

Just my opinion based on personal experience with office employees.

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Typically in my history if the employee is reasonable in their request then they have granted the time off without pay. If it is not granted where you work, and the request is reasonable, then I would suggest you should be looking at a different company for employment.

I guess that's my point tho why should people choose between a job they want to keep and something important in their lives?

[KeepCalmCarryOn]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

I guess that's my point tho why should people choose between a job they want to keep and something important in their lives?

... Because this isn't communist Russia? If you have something important in your life that requires more than what the law says, then adios amigo. If you're a good enough employee, an employer will find a way to make it work. If they say no, then you're not good enough to bend for.

Seems to make sense to me...

[Barnet Flame]

Or the emplorer could be a dbag, in which case you should and owe it to societydrop him in the most crap possible without it coming back to bite you in the bum.

[REDVAN]

It's a free world man...

If you don't like your job, or your workplace, whatever, then you need to find a new one. Life is too short to worry about things that are out of your control.

I'm going to assume there is more than one company doing what your company does. Work for the other guys- when they ask you in an interview why you left, say it's because XYZ company introduced some new policies I didn't like: example example.

Having a job is not a right. You have to deserve to get it and thenkeep it, but it works both ways. If they aren't treating you in a way you want to be treated, say goodbye.

[mykalberta]

You have the right to leave a company at any point and the company can change policy at any point.

Example - The company has the rights to change things to meet is business goals. If it was a casual slacker office where you wore jeans all the time and the company decided to make the office into a more sales/presentation office than they have the right to change the dress code and the employee has the right to either ask for a clothing allowance or find another job if they dont think they are compensated.

[Devils'Advocate]

I work for the federal government (IT project manager). As you probably know they are in the middle of a layoff period. I thought about getting out ahead of the curve and finding a new job before the layoffs hit. However, when I got to thinking, it was, like, I *enjoy* my job. How many people can say that they get paid a good salary for doing something that they *enjoy*. If I won the lottery, I'd consider doing his job for free.

So, given the layoffs, I got to thinking about this topic. Nobody has a "right to a job". You can't say "I got in the door, so now you have to pay me for life.". HOWEVER, I did not like the way that they are doing these layoffs. Very good people are being let go while people deserving of being given the boot get to stay, just based on the luck of the draw. I think people that do damn good work deserve more job protection. You might say that that typically comes naturally... a company would WANT to keep those that do good work. Well, not always. I've have a friend who was let go because the business owner disagreed with his politics despite the employee being the most dedicated and responsible staff member. Owner just said "Business is slow so I had to cut somebody", but a month after dropping my friend the guy hired someone new to replace him. And they had had heated discussions in the past about political issues. So my friend put 2 and 2 together.

People brought up that we have good labour laws. And to that end, I agree. However, the problem I have seen is the APPLICATION of those laws. In many cases people find it easier to accept that they need to find a new job than to fight the injustice of losing the old job. In 2000 I worked for a consulting company in Halifax and the regional office head made a policy that everyone had to work 20 hours overtime per month until we were caught up on the workload. My project manager told a colleague that he could be exempt from the policy because he was caring for sick parents and couldn't work the time. The office head fired her for contradicting his policy on the grounds that if you give one exemption, others are going to complain that their circumstances merited an exemption as well. We had a going away party with this project manager and we asked her if she was going to fight her dismissal.... all of us workers backed her point of view. We were all sympathetic to our co-worker's situation with his parents. Anyhow, the project manager said that she had seen a lawyer and figured that it wasn't worth the fight, particularly since other companies had already approached HER to work for them.

It really bothers me when I see the good employees get the boot and not the bad. Or even when we see examples from the Mattell factory down in the U.S.. They had a system in place that attracted the most productive factory work force and they boasted about their company's ability to produce their product at low cost because their workers were just so much more dedicated than in other similar factories. The company turned a huge profit, and used that money to shut down the factory and move it overseas. So, in part due to their strong work ethic, the workers were now unemployed.

I guess in all things, the world is not just.