The negative consequences would typically just include being liable for an amount equivalent to lost wages for some possibly quite extended amount of time for an employee who was so constructively dismissed... up to a year's worth of wages, in some cases. The penalty is paid to the employee who won the case against them. it is not a legal penalty.
"Layoff" technically covers one case, and one case only:
Where there are no short-term plans to replace the terminated employee.
If there are any plans to replace the employee after termination, then the person is considered "Fired". Note that both of these cases can be either with or without cause (although often, the former has a cause of the company wanting to save money, or needing to downsize on account of hitting some harder times).
In general, if you were paying EI benefits, and were involuntarily terminated, the only disqualifying factor that precludes you from collecting any EI benefits you would have otherwise received is if you were terminated for unethical or unprofessional behavior (coming to work late, skipping shifts, etc).
If you are terminated because of poor job performance, that alone is not sufficient reason to deny a person EI benefits unless there was reasonable evidence to show that the poor performance was intentional (ie, you weren't actually doing the job you were being paid to do). If there is all reasonable evidence to suggest that you at least were attempting to meet company requirements, even if not meeting them, you would surely be eligible for EI benefits, assuming you had been at the job long enough for such benefits to be available (which typically means right after the probationary period has ended). It may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but where I live, the maximum duration allowed for a probationary period is 1000 hours (which is about 6 months of full time work), and the minimum is 480 hours. After the probationary period expires, a person is eligible for receiving EI benefits if they are involuntarily terminated as long as the reason for termination is not because of unethical or unprofessional behavior.
Gawd.... It occurs to me with all I've been saying about this in some comments I've made on this story so far that I could probably write a book about matters of employment, unemployment, and all the various nuances to being fired or laid off.
Generally, the employer is required by law to give an employee at least a half hour break for lunch with hours like that. The lunch break does not, however, have to be paid. Requiring an employee to work through their lunch break is actually legitimate grounds for an employee to leave voluntarily and still be eligible for EI benefits, and can even sometimes (although rarely, if ever, by itself) be used as evidence of a case for constructive dismissal, which can be heavily penalized in many jurisdictions when it is discovered (because of the unjust delays that it creates for dealing with EI benefits).
You should have appealed.... if you were fired and were paying your insurance premiums, but you did nothing that was actually wrong (ie, coming to work late, taking a day off without telling anyone, etc), you should generally still be able to collect the benefits.
Actually, being terminated for poor performance, even though you are being terminated for just cause, is not generally a reason to disallow EI benefits. It may delay them by a week or two, because there can be a small investigation to determine if it was motivated by any kind of ethical misconduct (which disqualifies a person from EI benefits completely), but in the case of being terminated for poor performance where there was no such misconduct, one is still eligible for exactly the same EI benefits they would have had as if they had been fired for absolutely no good reason at all.
But requiring a splitter to charge and listen at the same time is really annoying, and a dealbreaker for my purposes.
Oh sure, there's wireless charging... but this can be less convenient than wired charging in some cases... particularly if you are regularly charging from usb in many different locations, because then you are having to carry the charger around everywhere you go as well.
You mistake my point... I'm suggesting that when dealing with something that you don't actually have any real explanation for, the *ONLY* way that you can reasonably assume, without any proof, that it actually was the work of an intelligent agent is to at the very least know of actual historical examples of intelligent agents in the real world doing exactly what you were trying to explain.
We know these incidents targeted only western diplomats in Cuba.
The phrasing presupposes that it was a weapon... all we know is that only western diplomats in Cuba were affected. Sure,it might have been a weapon, but nobody's been plausibly able to show how such a weapon would have actually even worked, so there's no reason to presuppose that the technology exists anywhere without subscribing to conspiracy theories.
Now granted, some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, but there's a reason why anyone should approach such a theory with a healthy dose of skepticism, and never presume one to be true until you have reasonable basis to not only conclude the explanation within the theory to be probable, but consider it no less likely that such a secret could even be maintained.
You misinterpreted my meaning.... it's my bad, however, I could have been more clear.
I did not mean to suggest that there's more about the universe than there is that we don't know about what humans CAN or COULD accomplish, I meant that there's more about the universe that we don't know than there is that we don't know about what humans have *actually* accomplished to date.
Offering the explanation that it was a sonic weapon presupposes that somebody has managed (past tense) to invent this thing, despite the fact that nobody around seems to really have the faintest clue how such a weapon would even actually work. While some sonic weapons do exist, none that are known to exist would (or could) have caused this... if it was a weapon, it is using some completely unknown technology to achieve its effects.
And at that point, you may as well say that it was UFO's and aliens.
What lies am I supposedly telling here? I never once said that it was certainly a natural occurrence, only that I'd be more inclined to suspect that it is one unless or until somebody has offered any proof that some sonic weapon which we *KNOW* can actually be built in the real world, and would actually cause the kinds of effects we are seeing here, and in those circumstances.
I'm not suggesting that they should necessarily offer some kind of irrefutable proof that it was a real attack to suggest that the idea that it was an attack should be more likely, I'm only suggesting that some kind of real evidence be shown of some *ACTUAL* weapon, that really does exist or that we *KNOW* that the technology exists to build, which can produce the kinds of effects that were observed here, not just offering the conjecture that it must have been some kind of super-secret sonic weapon that operates on some heretofore completely undiscovered principle just because we can't imagine what else it could have been. That's just paranoia, and not healthy scientific skepticism.
I wasn't alleging that there needs to be a complete proof that it was an attack before you can reasonably label it as one, I am saying that there needs to be proof that it *COULD* have been a weapon.... that is, the effects and the circumstances that surrounded them, could plausibly be caused by some weapon that is known to factually exist.
Or, like the article actually says, nobody has been able to figure out how any existing technology could *actually* produce these specific kinds of results in the context in which they occurred.
That, and that alone, is my reason for doubting that it was a weapon... because in my observation, when it comes to things that you currently lack the ability to explain, it's usually much more reasonable to presume that there is a natural explanation behind to than to blindly ascribe some intelligence behind it, and it is most definitely blindly in this case, because we not only don't know the who or the why, we don't even actually know the how beyond waxing into science fiction.
Sure, it could be a weapon that nobody's ever heard of before and is being kept super-secret, but by virtue of the conspiracy theory fallacy, this is not a sufficient basis to come to any sort of reasoned conclusion that it was actually a weapon.
The only thing that we can say for sure is that we don't know what really happened beyond some people were quite seriously harmed, and whatever caused it, it seems that sound played an important factor. Should this be investigated? Abso-friggen-lutey... but approaching this with the supposition that it must be some kind off weapon is baseless paranoia, not healthy caution.
I wasn't trying to troll at all... only refusing to blindly believe in a baseless claim that is driven more by paranoia than by any facts.
It's obvious that we don't really have any facts to come to a reasoned conclusion, but that's still no reason to come to the conclusion that somebody was attacking them
Except of course for the fact that the tech you referred to couldn't cause this because if it could then they would know how the attack was done even if they didn't yet know who or why. Pay attention to this point: as an attack, nobody knows what really could have caused this (except for you, evidently). I haven't claimed to know for certain it was a natural phenomenon, I just think it's more likely to be the case than blindly subscribing to paranoid propaganda until we can show some real world working weapon that could have actually done this in those exact circumstances.
And yet despite this, nobody actually has any idea what *real* weapon could do this. I'm more inclined to think there are things we don't know about the world around us and its natural laws than I am willing to presume nefarious intent with some heretofore unprecedented technology
There is one question you are missing, before you can reasonably blame Russia, or anyone else for that matter:
Does any known technology exist that could have actually caused this to occur?
Hey, I'll admit that it's certainly *possible* that it could some unknown technology, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody has been able come up with any kind of theories about how that a weapon with that kind of technology would even work in the real world.
Making an analogy to something that doesn't even exist in real life is not an explanation... it is conjecture.
You could suggest that assuming it is a natural phenomenon is conjecture as well, but there's a whole lot more about the laws of nature that we don't fully understand than there is what we don't know about the limits of human technological achievement so far, so assuming it was natural unless or until you can at least actually show what sort of technology could actually do this seems like the safer bet.
Until Newton came up with his laws of gravitation, why the heavenly bodies moved the way that they did was not understood either. Clearly, they must have only done so because of some divine will, right? Uh.... no.
As I said elsewhere, there is *FAR* more about the universe that we don't know than what we don't know about the limits of human accomplishment, and that makes it vastly more likely to be some sort of unexplained natural phenomenon than an unexplained weapon.
The odds of this being natural start dropping off rather quickly.
Of course... but we don't even have a *conjecture* about what sort of technology could have even done this. Given that there is vastly more about the universe that we don't know than what we don't know about human accomplishments, it seems far more likely to me to be a natural phenomenon than the result of human intervention.
Right.... show me the weapon, or even come up with some kind of explanation for what kind of weapon it actually might have been, and I might be inclined to believe you.
The mindset that there must have been some kind of intelligence behind it is entirely unsubstantiated superstition until you can at least *hypothesize* how it might actually happened.
Not that I have any idea what it was, but I'd be more inclined to suspect some kind of one-off natural phenomenon more than I'd suspect a weapon, given there is not an iota of evidence to suggest that malicious intent must have been behind the harm it caused.
But hey.... assuming intelligent intent behind something that we don't yet fully understand is historically a very human thing to do.... why should we be any different now than our caveman ancestors?
Slashdot Mirror
The negative consequences would typically just include being liable for an amount equivalent to lost wages for some possibly quite extended amount of time for an employee who was so constructively dismissed... up to a year's worth of wages, in some cases. The penalty is paid to the employee who won the case against them. it is not a legal penalty.
"Layoff" technically covers one case, and one case only: Where there are no short-term plans to replace the terminated employee.
If there are any plans to replace the employee after termination, then the person is considered "Fired". Note that both of these cases can be either with or without cause (although often, the former has a cause of the company wanting to save money, or needing to downsize on account of hitting some harder times).
In general, if you were paying EI benefits, and were involuntarily terminated, the only disqualifying factor that precludes you from collecting any EI benefits you would have otherwise received is if you were terminated for unethical or unprofessional behavior (coming to work late, skipping shifts, etc).
If you are terminated because of poor job performance, that alone is not sufficient reason to deny a person EI benefits unless there was reasonable evidence to show that the poor performance was intentional (ie, you weren't actually doing the job you were being paid to do). If there is all reasonable evidence to suggest that you at least were attempting to meet company requirements, even if not meeting them, you would surely be eligible for EI benefits, assuming you had been at the job long enough for such benefits to be available (which typically means right after the probationary period has ended). It may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but where I live, the maximum duration allowed for a probationary period is 1000 hours (which is about 6 months of full time work), and the minimum is 480 hours. After the probationary period expires, a person is eligible for receiving EI benefits if they are involuntarily terminated as long as the reason for termination is not because of unethical or unprofessional behavior.
Gawd.... It occurs to me with all I've been saying about this in some comments I've made on this story so far that I could probably write a book about matters of employment, unemployment, and all the various nuances to being fired or laid off.
Generally, the employer is required by law to give an employee at least a half hour break for lunch with hours like that. The lunch break does not, however, have to be paid. Requiring an employee to work through their lunch break is actually legitimate grounds for an employee to leave voluntarily and still be eligible for EI benefits, and can even sometimes (although rarely, if ever, by itself) be used as evidence of a case for constructive dismissal, which can be heavily penalized in many jurisdictions when it is discovered (because of the unjust delays that it creates for dealing with EI benefits).
You should have appealed.... if you were fired and were paying your insurance premiums, but you did nothing that was actually wrong (ie, coming to work late, taking a day off without telling anyone, etc), you should generally still be able to collect the benefits.
Actually, being terminated for poor performance, even though you are being terminated for just cause, is not generally a reason to disallow EI benefits. It may delay them by a week or two, because there can be a small investigation to determine if it was motivated by any kind of ethical misconduct (which disqualifies a person from EI benefits completely), but in the case of being terminated for poor performance where there was no such misconduct, one is still eligible for exactly the same EI benefits they would have had as if they had been fired for absolutely no good reason at all.
But requiring a splitter to charge and listen at the same time is really annoying, and a dealbreaker for my purposes.
Oh sure, there's wireless charging... but this can be less convenient than wired charging in some cases... particularly if you are regularly charging from usb in many different locations, because then you are having to carry the charger around everywhere you go as well.
You mistake my point... I'm suggesting that when dealing with something that you don't actually have any real explanation for, the *ONLY* way that you can reasonably assume, without any proof, that it actually was the work of an intelligent agent is to at the very least know of actual historical examples of intelligent agents in the real world doing exactly what you were trying to explain.
That's funny... because according to the article, nobody is able to figure out how the believed sonic weapon that did this would have actually worked.
Yet apparently, you can do it... cool.
The phrasing presupposes that it was a weapon... all we know is that only western diplomats in Cuba were affected. Sure,it might have been a weapon, but nobody's been plausibly able to show how such a weapon would have actually even worked, so there's no reason to presuppose that the technology exists anywhere without subscribing to conspiracy theories.
Now granted, some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, but there's a reason why anyone should approach such a theory with a healthy dose of skepticism, and never presume one to be true until you have reasonable basis to not only conclude the explanation within the theory to be probable, but consider it no less likely that such a secret could even be maintained.
You misinterpreted my meaning.... it's my bad, however, I could have been more clear.
I did not mean to suggest that there's more about the universe than there is that we don't know about what humans CAN or COULD accomplish, I meant that there's more about the universe that we don't know than there is that we don't know about what humans have *actually* accomplished to date.
Offering the explanation that it was a sonic weapon presupposes that somebody has managed (past tense) to invent this thing, despite the fact that nobody around seems to really have the faintest clue how such a weapon would even actually work. While some sonic weapons do exist, none that are known to exist would (or could) have caused this... if it was a weapon, it is using some completely unknown technology to achieve its effects.
And at that point, you may as well say that it was UFO's and aliens.
What lies am I supposedly telling here? I never once said that it was certainly a natural occurrence, only that I'd be more inclined to suspect that it is one unless or until somebody has offered any proof that some sonic weapon which we *KNOW* can actually be built in the real world, and would actually cause the kinds of effects we are seeing here, and in those circumstances.
I'm not suggesting that they should necessarily offer some kind of irrefutable proof that it was a real attack to suggest that the idea that it was an attack should be more likely, I'm only suggesting that some kind of real evidence be shown of some *ACTUAL* weapon, that really does exist or that we *KNOW* that the technology exists to build, which can produce the kinds of effects that were observed here, not just offering the conjecture that it must have been some kind of super-secret sonic weapon that operates on some heretofore completely undiscovered principle just because we can't imagine what else it could have been. That's just paranoia, and not healthy scientific skepticism.
I wasn't alleging that there needs to be a complete proof that it was an attack before you can reasonably label it as one, I am saying that there needs to be proof that it *COULD* have been a weapon.... that is, the effects and the circumstances that surrounded them, could plausibly be caused by some weapon that is known to factually exist.
Lightning is a naturally occurring event too... that doesn't mean I want to get struck by it.
Please... nowhere have I suggested that this event, even if naturally caused, is harmless.
As for spreading FUD... well.. the facts are that nobody actually knows what caused it or how. That's not FUD, that's the plain and simple truth.
Or, like the article actually says, nobody has been able to figure out how any existing technology could *actually* produce these specific kinds of results in the context in which they occurred.
That, and that alone, is my reason for doubting that it was a weapon... because in my observation, when it comes to things that you currently lack the ability to explain, it's usually much more reasonable to presume that there is a natural explanation behind to than to blindly ascribe some intelligence behind it, and it is most definitely blindly in this case, because we not only don't know the who or the why, we don't even actually know the how beyond waxing into science fiction.
Sure, it could be a weapon that nobody's ever heard of before and is being kept super-secret, but by virtue of the conspiracy theory fallacy, this is not a sufficient basis to come to any sort of reasoned conclusion that it was actually a weapon.
The only thing that we can say for sure is that we don't know what really happened beyond some people were quite seriously harmed, and whatever caused it, it seems that sound played an important factor. Should this be investigated? Abso-friggen-lutey... but approaching this with the supposition that it must be some kind off weapon is baseless paranoia, not healthy caution.
That is exactly what I've been trying to say, yet somehow, I'm getting labelled as a troll.
I wasn't trying to troll at all... only refusing to blindly believe in a baseless claim that is driven more by paranoia than by any facts.
It's obvious that we don't really have any facts to come to a reasoned conclusion, but that's still no reason to come to the conclusion that somebody was attacking them
Except of course for the fact that the tech you referred to couldn't cause this because if it could then they would know how the attack was done even if they didn't yet know who or why. Pay attention to this point: as an attack, nobody knows what really could have caused this (except for you, evidently). I haven't claimed to know for certain it was a natural phenomenon, I just think it's more likely to be the case than blindly subscribing to paranoid propaganda until we can show some real world working weapon that could have actually done this in those exact circumstances.
And yet despite this, nobody actually has any idea what *real* weapon could do this. I'm more inclined to think there are things we don't know about the world around us and its natural laws than I am willing to presume nefarious intent with some heretofore unprecedented technology
There is one question you are missing, before you can reasonably blame Russia, or anyone else for that matter:
Does any known technology exist that could have actually caused this to occur?
Hey, I'll admit that it's certainly *possible* that it could some unknown technology, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody has been able come up with any kind of theories about how that a weapon with that kind of technology would even work in the real world.
Right.... explain how that would work, exactly.
Making an analogy to something that doesn't even exist in real life is not an explanation... it is conjecture.
You could suggest that assuming it is a natural phenomenon is conjecture as well, but there's a whole lot more about the laws of nature that we don't fully understand than there is what we don't know about the limits of human technological achievement so far, so assuming it was natural unless or until you can at least actually show what sort of technology could actually do this seems like the safer bet.
Until Newton came up with his laws of gravitation, why the heavenly bodies moved the way that they did was not understood either. Clearly, they must have only done so because of some divine will, right? Uh.... no.
As I said elsewhere, there is *FAR* more about the universe that we don't know than what we don't know about the limits of human accomplishment, and that makes it vastly more likely to be some sort of unexplained natural phenomenon than an unexplained weapon.
Of course... but we don't even have a *conjecture* about what sort of technology could have even done this. Given that there is vastly more about the universe that we don't know than what we don't know about human accomplishments, it seems far more likely to me to be a natural phenomenon than the result of human intervention.
Either that... or aliens. Take your pick.
Right.... show me the weapon, or even come up with some kind of explanation for what kind of weapon it actually might have been, and I might be inclined to believe you.
The mindset that there must have been some kind of intelligence behind it is entirely unsubstantiated superstition until you can at least *hypothesize* how it might actually happened.
They said "physical damage"... emotional damage isn't really considered physical.
Not that I have any idea what it was, but I'd be more inclined to suspect some kind of one-off natural phenomenon more than I'd suspect a weapon, given there is not an iota of evidence to suggest that malicious intent must have been behind the harm it caused.
But hey.... assuming intelligent intent behind something that we don't yet fully understand is historically a very human thing to do.... why should we be any different now than our caveman ancestors?