They are doing this to people now, record everything.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (28).

[–] • 0 pt

Under the law, if they don't let you in, that is termination. There is no need for a formal termination letter. Official termination is window dressing.

Technically, any radical change in the terms and conditions of your employment is the same as termination. What constitutes "radical" is a grey area, but not that grey as far as the courts are concerned. This is usually the point of argument in a termination status disagreement.

Basically, employment is similar in may respects to contract law. You agree to certain terms and conditions when you enter into employment. If the employer radically changes those terms and conditions, and did not get your prior approval before doing so, that is about the same as a breach of contract in the eyes of the law - and you can no longer be held by the terms of your original agreement.

Now, if there are penalties in a given jurisdiction for termination, (usually there are not, but sometimes there are,) then the employer would have liability under those requirements. Being fired as opposed to quitting can affect things such as the ability to obtain unemployment insurance, etc. Again, this is jurisdictional.

Being terminated for cause, as opposed to not for cause, can also affect things, especially if there is a union contract in effect. A union contract is basically additional terms and conditions that are added to your default implied employment contract that exists in every legal jurisdiction. A union contract cannot, by law, override your minimum statutory state benefits. The contract can add to and or improve upon the basic benefits. You can get more holidays, but never less than the minimum. You cannot contract out of the minimum wage, things like that.

So depending on your local jurisdiction, your status as fired vrs voluntarily quit can affect what, if any, amount of additional monies you may receive.

Understand this, in nearly every jurisdiction in the Western world, an employer has the right to terminate the employment of any employee, at any time, and no absolutely reason is required. That is usually true even if their is a union contract in effect that stipulates otherwise. The employer can arbitrarily violate said contract clause. This is not illegal. However, a judicial body may find at a later date that a former employee is qualified for additional compensation as a result of an employer's refusal to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. This is also true if the employer violates your default state given minimal statutory benefits. No judicial body can force the employer to restore your previous employment status.

Notice this is similar to breaching a civil contract. You can do it, and the question then becomes how much extra, if anything, that breach may cost you. You cannot be forced to abide by a civil contract. You can be penalized for breaching one.

Under the law, if they don't let you in, that is termination. There is no need for a formal termination letter. Official termination is window dressing. Technically, any radical change in the terms and conditions of your employment is the same as termination. What constitutes "radical" is a grey area, but not that grey as far as the courts are concerned. This is usually the point of argument in a termination status disagreement. Basically, employment is similar in may respects to contract law. You agree to certain terms and conditions when you enter into employment. If the employer radically changes those terms and conditions, and did not get your prior approval before doing so, that is about the same as a breach of contract in the eyes of the law - and you can no longer be held by the terms of your original agreement. Now, if there are penalties in a given jurisdiction for termination, (usually there are not, but sometimes there are,) then the employer would have liability under those requirements. Being fired as opposed to quitting can affect things such as the ability to obtain unemployment insurance, etc. Again, this is jurisdictional. Being terminated for cause, as opposed to not for cause, can also affect things, especially if there is a union contract in effect. A union contract is basically additional terms and conditions that are added to your default implied employment contract that exists in every legal jurisdiction. A union contract cannot, by law, override your minimum statutory state benefits. The contract can add to and or improve upon the basic benefits. You can get more holidays, but never less than the minimum. You cannot contract out of the minimum wage, things like that. So depending on your local jurisdiction, your status as fired vrs voluntarily quit can affect what, if any, amount of additional monies you may receive. Understand this, in nearly every jurisdiction in the Western world, an employer has the right to terminate the employment of any employee, at any time, and no absolutely reason is required. That is usually true even if their is a union contract in effect that stipulates otherwise. The employer can arbitrarily violate said contract clause. This is not illegal. However, a judicial body may find at a later date that a former employee is qualified for additional compensation as a result of an employer's refusal to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. This is also true if the employer violates your default state given minimal statutory benefits. No judicial body can force the employer to restore your previous employment status. Notice this is similar to breaching a civil contract. You can do it, and the question then becomes how much extra, if anything, that breach may cost you. You cannot be forced to abide by a civil contract. You can be penalized for breaching one.

link

[–] • 0 pt

Thank you for providing this information, now kindly address a Employer forcing a Employee to take a Experimental Jab, which violates all 10 Nuremberg Rules , and what position does that leave the employer in ? TYIA

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Violations of the Nuremberg code are not part of Western labor law, per say. Just as murder, mass murder, genocide, etc, also are not part of labor law.

In fact, labor law has no impact whatsoever on an employer violating the Nuremberg code.

Crimes against humanity, re: violation of medical ethics, in the extreme, has been punished in the past through death by hanging, or prison terms of various lengths, as determined by an appointed tribunal of judges. There is no appeal.

In this case, one does not need an international tribunal. There is American law that covers all of the offenses involved. Obtaining justice through the existing legal system is another matter entirely, as the system has been corrupted. That is a big part of the problem.

Historically, it is customary for militaries to appoint their own tribunals on an ad hoc basis to deal with such issues as they arise. When a military organization has established military control over a given region, it then also has the defacto ability to appoint a legal tribunal to administer justice in that region, as they see fit.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

And this explains why Military Tribunals are justified. But the Employer could face a lawsuit for pushing the jab, this is why some offered 100 dollars to employees for taking the jab, that would release them from any liabilities they may face in the future.

parent
link