thats a good company, at least its willing to pay severence to there employees not hiding like some companies.westfraser and tolko are both great in that way of paying people out.thanks a

Unfortunately there needs to be a law in place that states if a company shuts its doors for 6 months or more then they have to pay severance or at least give their employee's the opportunity to take severance.

Leaving your work force hanging around waiting for a decision is bad enough. You should have enough respect to treat them fairly.

No one on this planet should get severance. You should get paid only for what you do and nothing more. Stupid courts, stupid laws.

" Posted by: supertech on January 9 2011 7:05 PMNo one on this planet should get severance. You should get paid only for what you do and nothing more. Stupid courts, stupid laws."

Oh my god. I obviously dont know who you work for or what your circumstances are but believe me as you get older you will understand the term severance.
Severance is a payment that is based on years of service and basically gives the employee a chance to feed and house his or her family while they find alternative employment. This is not a handout or a gift it is a payment of respect for services rendered.

Why does there seem to be an automatic assumption that every Company that's forced into an extended shut down and has to lay off its workers due to circumstances beyond its control is still in a financial position to pay severance?

Many large Firms can handle such an eventuality, but they have access to credit lines not normally available in an economic downturn to smaller businesses. And can actually benefit by getting rid of more costly workers by replacing them with less costly ones when they start up again.

Many smaller Firms are often operating a lot closer to the line than ever nowadays, and having to shell out severance on top of all their other ongoing obligations in a downturn is just one more thing that pushes them closer to extinction. They often don't have the funds on hand, nor access to further bank credit to obtain them.

The employer, who has often risked everything he has to build a business is further penalised for creating employment for people who've risked nothing.

People who've already been fully paid for every hour expended, regardless of work accomplished or whether their employer has been, or continues to be, paid himself.

And then they're supposed to be owed 'more', just for having been there? Where would they have been otherwise? Who re-imburses the employer when the business goes under and he loses everything he had in it, plus whatever else he's pledged by way of a personal guarantee to a Bank to get a loan? Or do you all think that the corporate protection of "limited liability" applies to Bank loans too, when a smaller business fails?

It seems to me to be an awful lop-sided arrangement, and certainly a growing detriment towards ever wanting to hire anybody in the first place. Or making any effort towards trying to retain them for long.

The worker is not bound to the Company, if a better job comes along at a time his employer needs him, he's completely free to quit without having to reimburse his employer anything for any loss of business incurred while a replacement is found and trained.

Yet when the employer is already on the ropes financially he's supposed to pay something 'more' to people who've often already been well paid all the time he's managed to provide employment for them? I'm afraid I'm with supertech on this one, I don't agree with that either.