As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had been fired.

"Resigned by mutual agreement" is more likely.

I guess either a) he didn't fit in in the office, b) the job turned out to be not quite what he was expecting or c) he had some kind of major change of plan. None of those options really makes for a good rumour.

2009/10/31 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: Perhaps this is a wrong-side-of-the-pond issue. In the UK if an employer calls it redundancy when actually they just want to replace you they would get sued for wrongful dismissal in an instant.

2009/11/1 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service).

2009/11/1 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: Yes, that would generally result in genuine redundancies.

2009/11/1 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: Sure, but in this case there wasn't any duplication of roles between the offices, to the best of my knowledge.

2009/11/1 Anthony: If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service). If you are just using it as an excuse to get rid of someone you don't like, you'll get sued. If you want to fire someone they have to have done something either really seriously wrong or have received lots of warnings and not improved.

I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will >> no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to >> pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of >> service). If you are just using it as an excuse to get rid of someone >> you don't like, you'll get sued. If you want to fire someone they have >> to have done something either really seriously wrong or have received >> lots of warnings and not improved. >> > Employee protection and union rights are significantly weaker in the U.S. > than in most developed countries. Some states are significantly worse than > others. Protecting the rights of workers is on the slippery slope to > socialism, and that would damage the ideological purity of free enterprise. > > Employers in other countries need to be more creative in offering > undesirables solutions that they can't refuse. >

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: I agree with Pharos on this one. I don't take issue with one particular response, it's the whole thread. There are *much* better things we could argue about. Whether or not the sky is blue sounds like a better debate, even. -Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'm happy arguing about this. No-one is forcing you to do so. If you want to start another thread about the colour of the sky, go right ahead. Why can't people on this list learn how to ignore threads? It is very easy to do. You just don't click on them when they appear in your inbox. I'm not interested in everything that is discussed on this list, but I don't complain about other people discussing it; I just ignore it. Why can't people learn when a discussion is irritating other people, why