ec384c31   
   XPost: misc.taxes, can.politics   
   From: alangbaker@telus.net   
      
   In article   
   <6bbd4ddf-9e6c-48ba-b408-ac47332e27f2@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,   
    Joe  wrote:   
      
   > > Severance pay is to help an ex-employee out who has lost a job. It   
   > > climbs to reflect the increasing difficulty of someone who has been at   
   > > one job for a long time to find a new job.   
   > >   
   > > These people didn't lose their jobs. The name on the payor portion of   
   > > their pay cheques just changed.   
   >   
   > They have lost their job with the province.  The contract says they   
   > are owed severance.  You have confirmed this by stating that the name   
   > of the 'payor' is different.  It is different because they no longer   
   > work for their former employer but work, instead, for a different one.   
   >   
   > Would your logic dictate that someone who loses his/her job and can't   
   > find a new one in a reasonable amount of time be given even more   
   > severance?  Severance based on the length of unemployment instead of   
   > based on the length of employment by the former boss?   
      
   No. That is why they *get* severance: in anticipation of that very   
   thing. So it's actual occurrence isn't a cause to change anything.   
      
   --   
   Alan Baker   
   Vancouver, British Columbia   
      
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)