The slow death of free speech

[Malthus]

In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.

Really?  My understanding was that "just cause" simply allowed one to be fired without notice or compensation.  Can a terminated employee (who receives proper notice or compensation) really sue for termination if the employer cannot, in addition, provide "just cause?"

If he or she can, then your point is apt.  If he or she cannot, then your point is invalid.

You are correct, but I do not understand why you say this undermines my point - which is that the employer would be sued if he alleged "just cause" when he did not, in fact, have "just cause". Naturally, an employer could just pay up and avoid being sued.

If an employee in an "at will" state says or believes something his or her employer finds obnoxious, they can be terminated and the employer doesn't have to pay anything; if in a "just cause" jurisdiction, assuming always what the employer said didn't itself form a basis for 'just cause', the employer would be on the hook for paying compensation - which could be substantial, depending on how the employee is situated. The 'rule of thumb' I've heard is one month per year employed, but this is not my area and I defer to guys like CC who know it - in any event, it can be a lot of money (enough to be worth litigating over).

Therefore, it is easier, in that it has less costs, terminating an employee where you don't have to pay to do so, then where you do. I'm not sure why this is controversial. No doubt you will enlighten me on that point.

[grumbler]

You are correct, but I do not understand why you say this undermines my point - which is that the employer would be sued if he alleged "just cause" when he did not, in fact, have "just cause". Naturally, an employer could just pay up and avoid being sued.

If an employee in an "at will" state says or believes something his or her employer finds obnoxious, they can be terminated and the employer doesn't have to pay anything; if in a "just cause" jurisdiction, assuming always what the employer said didn't itself form a basis for 'just cause', the employer would be on the hook for paying compensation - which could be substantial, depending on how the employee is situated. The 'rule of thumb' I've heard is one month per year employed, but this is not my area and I defer to guys like CC who know it - in any event, it can be a lot of money (enough to be worth litigating over).

Therefore, it is easier, in that it has less costs, terminating an employee where you don't have to pay to do so, then where you do. I'm not sure why this is controversial. No doubt you will enlighten me on that point.

Your argument was that an employee terminated n Canada for distasteful speech could sue his employer for lack of "just cause," and I am pointing out that you are incorrect.  The employer deciding to terminate for distasteful speech would have to give notice in Canada while he may not have to in the US, but the distinction isn't that significant given that many jobs in the US have contracts stipulating just what Canadian law requires.  I've always had such a contract with such a clause, for instance.

[crazy canuck]

I read Malthus' statement as meaning that if an employee in Canada was terminated for just cause for what they believed the employee would likely succeed in a case for wrongful dismissal as it is very likely such an allegation of cause would ever succeed.  If that is what he meant he is correct.   Grumbler is also correct that any employer can terminate a contract pursuant to its terms without having to allege cause.  I dont think the two of you are disagreeing.

[Malthus]

You are correct, but I do not understand why you say this undermines my point - which is that the employer would be sued if he alleged "just cause" when he did not, in fact, have "just cause". Naturally, an employer could just pay up and avoid being sued.

If an employee in an "at will" state says or believes something his or her employer finds obnoxious, they can be terminated and the employer doesn't have to pay anything; if in a "just cause" jurisdiction, assuming always what the employer said didn't itself form a basis for 'just cause', the employer would be on the hook for paying compensation - which could be substantial, depending on how the employee is situated. The 'rule of thumb' I've heard is one month per year employed, but this is not my area and I defer to guys like CC who know it - in any event, it can be a lot of money (enough to be worth litigating over).

Therefore, it is easier, in that it has less costs, terminating an employee where you don't have to pay to do so, then where you do. I'm not sure why this is controversial. No doubt you will enlighten me on that point.

Your argument was that an employee terminated n Canada for distasteful speech could sue his employer for lack of "just cause," and I am pointing out that you are incorrect.  The employer deciding to terminate for distasteful speech would have to give notice in Canada while he may not have to in the US, but the distinction isn't that significant given that many jobs in the US have contracts stipulating just what Canadian law requires.  I've always had such a contract with such a clause, for instance.

Then you misunderstood what I was saying, as CC pointed out to you. And, as usual, you are now doubling down on that misunderstanding, despite my carefully explaining it to you. Good luck with that. 

The only area of legitimate disagreement is whether having a "just cause" system is a significant distinction. You claim it isn't, because so many people have nice contracts, and I doubt you are correct. I'd require a greater sample than one to make that determination, though.

[grumbler]

Then you misunderstood what I was saying, as CC pointed out to you. And, as usual, you are now doubling down on that misunderstanding, despite my carefully explaining it to you. Good luck with that. 

I understood what you said (after you clarified that my understanding was, in fact, correct, and yours was not).  Good luck with now trying to say that my clarification of the issue was unnecessary.

The only area of legitimate disagreement is whether having a "just cause" system is a significant distinction. You claim it isn't, because so many people have nice contracts, and I doubt you are correct. I'd require a greater sample than one to make that determination, though.

Your point was that there was a significant distinction between the US and Canada in this regard, and my point was that there probably is not.  The burden of proof is not on me.  Good luck trying to shift it to me. 

[Malthus]

I understood what you said (after you clarified that my understanding was, in fact, correct, and yours was not).  Good luck with now trying to say that my clarification of the issue was unnecessary.

Wait, my understanding of what *I* said was incorrect? 

Now, that's chutzpah.

Your point was that there was a significant distinction between the US and Canada in this regard, and my point was that there probably is not.  The burden of proof is not on me.  Good luck trying to shift it to me. 

Simple. "At will" employment doesn't require cause by definition - does this really require proof? You claim that enough people have contracts that vary that, so that the actual default rule isn't significant. You cite yourself as evidence. I'm afraid you can't just claim this, with no better evidence, and be persuasive. You can try, of course. 

[Jacob]

I read Malthus' statement as meaning that if an employee in Canada was terminated for just cause for what they believed the employee would likely succeed in a case for wrongful dismissal as it is very likely such an allegation of cause would ever succeed.  If that is what he meant he is correct.   Grumbler is also correct that any employer can terminate a contract pursuant to its terms without having to allege cause.  I dont think the two of you are disagreeing.

Why would you try to cast a pallor of reasonableness on the proceedings with Malthus and grumbler are obviously both enjoying themselves?

[crazy canuck]

I read Malthus' statement as meaning that if an employee in Canada was terminated for just cause for what they believed the employee would likely succeed in a case for wrongful dismissal as it is very likely such an allegation of cause would ever succeed.  If that is what he meant he is correct.   Grumbler is also correct that any employer can terminate a contract pursuant to its terms without having to allege cause.  I dont think the two of you are disagreeing.

Why would you try to cast a pallor of reasonableness on the proceedings with Malthus and grumbler are obviously both enjoying themselves?

I apologize 

[Ed Anger]

Why would you cast such a pussy spell?

pallor of reasonableness? pfft.

I cast FIREBALL

[Jacob]

Why would you cast such a pussy spell?

pallor of reasonableness? pfft.

I cast FIREBALL

Both Malthus and grumbles are flame resistant.

Noob.

[crazy canuck]

Holy Water? 

[Razgovory]

Holy Water? 

Grumbler is a sailor.

[mongers]

Holy Water? 

I'm not sure that's going to protect the rest of us from the prismatic spray.

[Ed Anger]

Why would you cast such a pussy spell?

pallor of reasonableness? pfft.

I cast FIREBALL

Both Malthus and grumbles are flame resistant.

Noob.

I cheat. Llama.

[crazy canuck]

Holy Water? 

I'm not sure that's going to protect the rest of us from the prismatic spray.

They are way too high a level to be turned.


Charm spells are definitely out.


I think we have to burn a wish spell.