text:
How to Hire & Fire: A Global Guide Canada - British Columbia
Canada - British Columbia
Employees working in British Columbia ("BC") come under either federal (national) jurisdiction, or provincial jurisdiction. The determination as to whether an employee is provincially or federally regulated is a question of constitutional division of powers between the provincial and federal legislatures. Presumptively, jurisdiction over employment taking place in BC is provincial, unless it falls within certain industries that are within the federal domain.
For the most part, the forums for adjudicating employment disputes are different depending upon whether the employer is provincially or federally regulated.
Provincially-Regulated Employers
The majority of employees fall under provincial jurisdiction. In BC, certain types of employment disputes are adjudicated by administrative tribunals established by statute. Of particular note, administrative bodies under the Employment Standards Act and the Human Rights Code adjudicate disputes relating to employment standards and human rights, respectively. For employment disputes that are not required to be adjudicated by administrative tribunals, the courts of BC have jurisdiction to hear such employment disputes. In addition, the courts also have limited jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions from the above-noted tribunals. For all employment disputes that are not required to be adjudicated by the tribunals established by statute, the courts of BC have jurisdiction to hear such employment disputes (i.e. the Supreme Court of BC, the Provincial Court of BC, and the BC Court of Appeal).
In a unionized workplace, the BC Labour Relations Code governs matters involving collective bargaining rights, negotiation of collective agreements, strikes, and lockouts. The BC Labour Relations Board adjudicates disputes between employers and unions regarding those matters. Disputes between individual unionized employees concerning the violation, application, or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements are adjudicated by private arbitrators, under the rules prescribed in the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the union representing the employees. The BC courts have limited jurisdiction to hear appeals from the decisions of arbitrators and the BC Labour Relations Board.
Federally-Regulated
Federally-regulated employers are subject to federal legislation that establishes its own administrative tribunals. Employment standards and human rights are adjudicated federally under the Canada Labour Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canada Labour Code also addresses matters relating to the unionized workplace in the federal context (similar to the BC Labour Relations Code). The Federal Court of Canada has limited jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions from those forums. As with provincially-regulated employers, disputes not governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canada Labour Code are adjudicated by the courts of BC.
As with above, employment and labour law in BC emerges from a combination of legislation (i.e. statute) and case law (i.e. the common law). Besides the above noted legislation, there are other provincial and federal statutes that regulate matters including privacy, pension plans, or which regulate specific industries and/or professions. There are also a number of statutes dealing with public sector employers. In considering the common law of employment, the law of employment is in essence the law of contract, and accordingly employment agreements (for non-unionized employees) or collective bargaining agreements (for unionized employees) also affect the terms and conditions of the employer/employee relationship.
Finally, the BC Workers Compensation Act sets out requirements for occupational health and safety requirements in the workplace and provides for a mandatory, employer-funded scheme to compensate workers for employment related injuries and diseases. The Workers Compensation Act applies to both provincially and federally regulated employers with respect to its workers compensation scheme. The Workers Compensation Act also has its own adjudication process and tribunals for disputes regarding occupational health and safety for provincially-regulated employees (note the Canada Labour Code addresses occupational health and safety for federally-regulated employees).
If an employee works in BC but is employed by a foreign company, the employee will be governed by BC or federal employment law (depending on the industry), unless that employee is receiving his or her wages outside of BC and is only working in BC temporarily.
Typically, BC (provincial or federal) employment law will not apply to employees of British Columbia companies who are working in another jurisdiction. (Note: certain other laws such as Canada's Income Tax Act may still apply to income earned outside of BC or Canada).
BC businesses are subject to privacy laws, which regulate the type of employee information an employer can collect, use and disclose. The specific privacy statute that a business will be bound by will depend upon whether the business is provincially or federally regulated, and whether the business operates in the private or the public sector.
BC's Personal Information Protection Act applies to provincially regulated private sector businesses, whereas BC's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to provincially regulated public sector businesses. Some business in BC which collect, use and disclose personal information across borders may be subject to privacy laws under the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act if they operate in the private sector, or the federal Privacy Act if they operate in the public sector. A business's transactions can be subject to both provincial and federal privacy legislation.
Common to all of these privacy statutes is the principle of reasonableness. A business should only collect, use or disclose personal information if the purpose is considered reasonable given the circumstances. This principle is intended to balance individual privacy rights with the needs of businesses to collect, use, and disclose personal information.
Privacy legislation applies to the following activities that businesses may wish to engage in with respect to its employees:
Pre-employment collection of information;
Transfers of employee information to a third party for storage or processing;
Monitoring employee computer use;
Overt and covert video surveillance;
Employee drug and alcohol testing; and
Employee medical privacy.
In many instances, employee consent is required before an employer can collect, use, or disclose information about its employees. There are limited circumstances under which employee consent is not required.
Please note that the remainder of this Guide will focus exclusively on BC employment laws (i.e. provincially-regulated) and will not reference any Federal laws unless otherwise expressly so stated. As noted, there are special considerations which may apply to public sector employers.
The BC Employment Standards Act provides for certain minimum standards (wages, hours of work, and the right to pregnancy/parental/family/bereavement/ military service leaves) for employment contracts and collective bargaining agreements. While collective bargaining agreements must be in writing, employment agreements between an employer and its non-union employees may be oral or in writing.
Most of employment contracts between an employer and its non-union employees are oral. The terms of oral employment contracts will be implied based on common law principles that have evolved over time. The terms of written employment agreements must provide the minimum standards set out in the Employment Standards Act; if it does not, those terms will not be enforceable.
Note that the Employment Standards Act does not apply to some employees, such as lawyers, accountants, insurance agents. These exclusions are set out in the Regulations to the Employment Standards Act.
At common law there is no implied term to the effect that an employee is subject to a "probationary" period, but the parties may agree to one if they wish.
The Employment Standards Act imposes minimums for employees who are employed for more than 3 months, so an employee can be terminated without notice or pay in lieu of notice within that period (provided their employment contract does not otherwise provide).
A probationary period can impose a standard of suitability in order to terminate the employment relationship. If the probationary period is longer than 3 months, employment standards minimums will also be payable.
There are restrictions under the Employment Standards Act on the number of consecutive hours of work in a day and hours of work in a week, as well as when certain employees are entitled to overtime pay:
An employer must pay an employee overtime wages if the employer requires or allows the employee to work more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week. Note that under strict conditions, an employer can enter into an averaging agreement with an employee under which the employee's hours of work are averaged over a period of time for the purpose of determining the employee's entitlement to overtime wages.
An employer must ensure that no employee works more than 5 consecutive hours without a meal break, and that employees have at least 8 consecutive hours free from work between each shift worked.
Generally speaking, an employer must either ensure that an employee has at least 32 consecutive hours free from work each week or pay the employee overtime wages for hours worked during this period.
An employer must not require or allow an employee to work excessive hours or hours detrimental to the employee's health or safety.
Certain types of employees including "managers", as that term is defined in the Employment Standards Act, are not subject to the usual restrictions relating to hours, breaks, and overtime.
There are special provisions in the Employment Standards Act and its regulations relating to employees in particular lines of work or industry. For example employees who earn a large part of their income from sales commissions, who provide personal care services, employees who work and/or live in their employer's residence, young people or group hires in the entertainment industry, agriculture workers, and employees in the high technology sector or silviculture industry are subject to special provisions.
There are no special rules for part-time employees in BC. The requirements under the Employment Standards Act apply equally to full-time and part-time employees.
Employees must receive at least the minimum wage as set by the Regulations to the Employment Standards Act, and must be paid at least semi-monthly and within 8 days after the end of the pay period. Employers must also ensure that employees who are paid by commission, solely or in part, are paid at least the equivalent of the minimum wage. If an employee's commission earnings during a pay period fall short of the minimum wage, the employer is required to pay the employee the difference and the amount paid cannot be deducted from an employee's future earnings.
As noted in the "Hours of Work" section, an employee is entitled to certain hours free from work, or to be otherwise compensated for same. Additionally, the Employment Standards Act contains minimums in respect to vacation and public holidays, as follows:
An employee who has worked for an employer for at least 12 consecutive months must receive an annual vacation of at least two weeks, and after 5 years of consecutive employment, the employee is entitled to three weeks annual vacation.
An employee is also entitled to vacation pay, to be paid in advance of or in conjunction with the employee's annual vacation. An employee is entitled to 4% of total earnings in the previous year, and once an employee has had 5 years of consecutive employment, the employee is entitled to 6% of total earnings in the previous year.
Employees are entitled to public or statutory holidays off, or be paid statutory overtime if they are required to work on these days. Certain employees such as "managers" are excluded from entitlement to the overtime statutory holiday pay. The Employment Standards Act sets out the statutory holidays to which it specifically applies.
The employment of a child between the ages of 12 and 15 is only permitted under the Employment Standards Act if the child's parents or guardian provide written consent. If a child is younger than 12 years old, they will only be able to work if the Director of Employment Standards gives permission. The Director may set out conditions of employment for the child which the employer must abide by. There are no mandatory requirements relating to hiring employees above any maximum age limit. Under the Human Rights Code an employer cannot discriminate against its employees by requiring them to retire from their employment at a given age.
The Employment Standards Act provides that employees be entitled to certain job-protected, unpaid leaves of absence, including:
COVID-19 Leave: Employees are entitled to take an indefinite unpaid COVID-19 leave for a number of reasons (both health and non-health) affiliated with COVID-19.
Personal Illness or Injury Leave: Employees are entitled to up to 3 days unpaid leave per year after being employed for at least 90 days.
Domestic/Sexual Violence Leave: Employees are entitled to up to 5 days paid leave if they are impacted by domestic or sexual violence. They are further entitled to 5 more days' unpaid leave per calendar year and can take up to 15 more weeks of unpaid leave.
Although there is no obligation to provide employees with paid sick leave, employers may have policies that provide that employees who are away from work on account of illness or injury be paid for a certain number of days. This may also form part of the employee's employment contract.
Under the Human Rights Code, an employer must accommodate employees with physical or mental disabilities recognized under the Code.
Employment standards apply throughout BC, there are no rules regarding where an employee may be required to work within the province. However, the ability of an employer to direct where an employee is required to perform work is dependent on the employment agreement or collective agreement. To the extent that the employment contract does not contemplate the ability of the employer to require the employee to move locations, a change of an employee's place or work may constitute a breach of the employee's employment agreement, giving rise to a claim of constructive dismissal. Generally, a change of more than 50 kilometres in the absence of any agreement allowing such will likely constitute a breach.
The Canada Pension Plan is a mandatory government pension plan which applies to all employees in Canada including BC. This plan is funded by deductions from employee pay (based on actual income), with matching contributions by the employer.
An employer is not required to offer any of its own pension plan for its employees. However, if an employer chooses to put a pension plan in place, it is governed by the BC Pension Benefits Standards Act, which contains minimum standards for every employment pension plan relating to eligibility, vesting, and portability.
If an employer chooses to implement a group registered retirement savings plan for its employees, the Canada Income Tax Act governs the maximum limit of such contributions per year.
The BC Employment Standards Act requires employers to provide the following unpaid leaves related to family life to employees:
Pregnancy/Maternity Leave: Pregnant employees are entitled to 17 weeks of unpaid leave. An employee whose pregnancy ends (i.e. is terminated) can take up to 6 weeks of leave starting on the day a pregnancy ends. This leave can also be extended an additional 6 weeks.
Parental Leave: Employees are entitled to up to 62 weeks of unpaid parental leave. This may be extended by up to 5 weeks if the child needs more care due to a physical, psychological or emotional condition. Pregnant employees can take pregnancy leave and parental leave, to a total 78 weeks.
Family Responsibility Leave: Employees are entitled to up to 5 days of unpaid leave annually to meet responsibilities regarding the care, health, or education of their immediate family.
Critical Illness or Injury Leave: Employees are entitled to take up to 36 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a child and up to 16 weeks to care for a family member above the age of 19.
Compassionate Care Leave: Employees are entitled to take up to 27 weeks within a 52-week period of unpaid compassionate care leave to provide care and support to a family member in situations where the family member is gravely ill with a significant risk of death within 26 weeks.
Bereavement Leave: Employees are entitled to up to 3 days of unpaid leave on the death of a member of the employee's immediate family.
Leave respecting Disappearance of Child: Employees are entitled to up to 52 weeks unpaid leave if their child disappears as a result of a crime.
Leave respecting Death of Child: Employees are entitled to up to 104 weeks unpaid leave if their child dies.
If an employee takes any of these types of leave, an employer cannot terminate the employee or change a condition of employment without the employee's written consent. Once the leave has ended, the employer must place the employee back in the same or comparable position the employee held before taking the leave.
During the leave, employment is deemed continuous for the purposes of calculating vacation entitlement, entitlements under pension, medical or other plans beneficial to the employee, and notice of termination or severance.
There are no compulsory terms which must be included in an employment agreement, subject to the minimum standards for wages, vacation, hours of work and overtime, and notice of termination as required by the Employment Standards Act.
Under the Labour Relations Code there are specific requirements regarding collective agreements. For example, a collective agreement must be for a minimum of one year and must contain a dispute resolution process failing which the parties will be subject to statutorily imposed terms and conditions.
Parties are free to agree on all terms of an agreement, as long as such terms do not contravene the minimum standards of the Employment Standards Act, or are not otherwise unlawful.
BC does not have different rules for different types of agreements. The most common types of agreements include contracts for an indefinite term of employment, fixed term contracts, and contracts for services (for hiring an individual as an independent contractor rather than an employee). In the unionized context, collective agreements must comply with any minimums set out in the Labour Relations Code.
All employees at common law owe their employers a general duty of good faith and fidelity, which includes the duty not to disclose the employer's confidential information or trade secrets. The duty of non-disclosure can continue even after employment has ended. Certain senior employees may also be considered fiduciaries and held to a higher standard. Parties may furthermore choose to enhance common law confidentiality obligations through the use of a confidentiality agreement.
Generally, inventions created by employees during work are deemed to become the employer's property, although the courts have made some incursions on this principle. For example, some decisions have held that in order to be the property of the employer, the invention must be related to the employees' job, or that the subject matter must be related to the company's normal business operations. The parties may reach a contractual agreement with respect to ownership of intellectual property.
Obligations under the BC Human Rights Code and BC Personal Information Protection Act may apply to prospective employees.
The Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in hiring on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age, or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person (the " Protected Characteristics") unless the limitation, specification or preference is based on a bona fide occupational requirement. Because of these laws, an employer should not publish an advertisement nor ask for information about or express a limitation, specification or preference about the Protected Characteristics unless the limitation, specification or preference is based on a bona fide occupational requirement.
Pre-employment background checks, criminal record checks, and drug and alcohol tests may be permitted in certain situations, but generally obligations under human rights and privacy legislation.
Under the BC Criminal Records Review Act, every person hired for employment involving work with children or vulnerable adults must undergo a criminal record check/verification. It is the obligation of the employer to ensure that the requirements of the Act are met.
There is no statutory bar prohibiting employers whose work does not involve children or vulnerable adults from requesting or obtaining criminal record checks from current or prospective employees. However, under the BC Human Rights Code, employers may not discriminate against a current or prospective employee on the basis of a criminal record that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.
Random drug and alcohol testing remain a highly contentious issue in BC and other jurisdictions and involves a delicate balance of employee privacy with workplace safety. While random drug and alcohol tests are not prohibited, the evidentiary burden that the employer must meet to justify such testing is very high (but not well defined by the courts). Employers must be able to clearly demonstrate that there is an enhanced safety risk due to alcohol or drug abuse. The fact that a workplace is inherently dangerous will not, in and of itself, justify a random testing policy.
Federal immigration law (which covers persons working in BC) contains strict rules about hiring non-nationals. Temporary foreign workers are also protected under BC's Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.
Under the Human Rights Code a potential employer must not refuse to employ or discriminate regarding employment or any term or condition of employment, because of a Protected Characteristic unless the refusal, limitation, specification or preference is based on a bona fide occupational requirement. The Employment Standard Act also contains rules restricting the hiring of employees who are children.
There are no specific rules about outsourcing and/or sub-contracting. However, some collective agreements in the unionized sector may be restricted by the ability of an employer to contract out services which might otherwise be performed by employees who are covered by a collective agreement. Whether the individual to whom the work is "contracted out" become an employee will depend upon the intention of the parties and the nature of the relationship between the employer and that contracted party.
Employers are permitted to make changes to the employment contract. However, fundamental changes to material terms in the employment contracts must be made by mutual agreement. If the employer unilaterally and fundamentally changes a material condition of employment, the employer may be deemed to have terminate the employment without just cause, and the employer will be liable to provide the employee with damages in lieu of reasonable notice of termination (severance). This is known as "constructive dismissal".
Under the Employment Standards Act, if all or part of a business, or a substantial part of the assets of a business is disposed of, if no other changes occur to the employment terms, an employee's employment is treated as continuous. In the unionized sector, a collective agreement typically follows the business, so that the collective agreement will continue in effect as between the new owner and the employees.
If, because of a change in ownership of a business, the employees are terminated or the purchaser only offers employment on substantially different terms and conditions, employees may be entitled to severance under the Employment Standards Act. If the new employment terms offered by the purchaser are silent on this issue, the employees will be deemed to carry their pre-sale service with them for the purposes of calculating vacation and severance entitlements.
There are compulsory social security enrolment and contributions by the employer and/or the employee under federal law. Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan benefits are funded by contributions by both employees and employers. Employers with BC remuneration greater than $500,000 are also required to remit an employer health tax under the Employer Health Tax Act.
The Workers Compensation Act is a mandatory program which insures employees for loss of income due to injuries and disabilities arising out of and in the course of employment. Premiums for Workers Compensation is funded 100% by employers.
The Workers Compensation Act and related regulations, including the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, provide with respect to (1) a no-fault insurance scheme for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment and (2) standards for occupational health and safety in the workplace. Generally, these rules relate to the reporting of accidents, making claims, and assessing, evaluating and preventing the risk of accidents and injuries. WorkSafeBC, the administrative body responsible for carrying out certain regulatory obligations under the Workers Compensation Act.
There is no requirement to discipline employees. The ability of an employer to discipline employees in the non-unionized sector depends on the nature of the contract of employment. At common law, the ability to discipline has constraints. To the extent that any imposed discipline is inconsistent with the contract of employment, it may be seen as effecting a dismissal of the employee.
Accordingly, is advisable for an employer to practice "progressive discipline" to warn an employee about his or her shortcomings to justify a termination for just cause, where a single act of misconduct is not egregious enough to constitute sufficient justification.
In unionized workplaces, the ability of the employer to discipline for misconduct is set out in the collective agreement. Collective agreements typically require progressive discipline to be applied before termination of an employee will be justified.
If an employee in the unionized context considers discipline to have been unjustly applied, access to a grievance procedure is mandated. An arbitrator chosen by the parties or by the Labour Relations Board adjudicates a grievance.
Since the grievance process arises from the collective agreement, there is no grievance process for non-unionized employees at common law. An employee who has been unjustly disciplined may treat the contract as having come to an end and seek damages for the failure of the employer to terminate in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Under the Human Rights Code, an employer cannot terminate or discriminate against persons regarding employment or any term or condition of employment on the basis of the Protected Characteristics. To the extent that an employee is subjected to any harassment or discrimination rooted in the Protected Characteristics, an employer may be found liable for breach of the Human Rights Code, unless appropriate steps have been taken to prevent such acts or properly deal with such complaints.
Employers are required to prevent bullying and harassment under the Workers Compensation Act as an aspect of overall workplace safety. An employer is required to, among other things, develop a workplace bullying and harassment prevention policy statement, and to develop and implement procedures for reporting and investigating incidents or complaints of workplace bullying and harassment. Workplace bullying and harassment is defined as including any inappropriate conduct or comment by a person towards a worker that the person knew or reasonably ought to have known would cause that worker to be humiliated or intimidated.
While there is no specific pay equity legislation in BC, an employer must provide equal pay for similar or substantially similar work. Any difference in the rate of pay between employees of different sexes based on a factor other than sex will not violate the Human Rights Code so long as the difference is reasonably justified.
There are no compulsory training obligations on BC employers, unless they form part of collective agreements in the unionized sector. Note however that employers have a legal obligation to ensure a safe workplace which includes the obligation to ensure that its employees are trained in all procedures, and have the skills required to perform the work in a safe manner. Failure to ensure a safe workplace can result in fines under the Workers Compensation Act.
Under the Employment Standards Act, an employer must not directly or indirectly withhold, deduct or require payment of all or part of an employee's wages for any purpose, except where the employee has given written authorization, the withholdings are for statutory deductions required by law such as income tax, Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance premiums, or a court order to garnish an employee's wages.
An employer must not require an employee to cover any of its business costs as this is the responsibility of the employer. Uniforms or other special clothing required by the employer must be provided to its employees at no cost. The employer must also pay the cost of maintenance of special clothing unless the employees agree in writing otherwise.
Maternity and disability leave are unpaid. However, the employee may be entitled to receive payments under Employment Insurance for such leave.
Workers Compensation premiums must be paid by the employer and are compulsory.
Under the Employment Standards Act, employees who are members of the reserve force are entitled to unpaid leave under certain circumstances. Employees are entitled to take time off to vote Under the Canada Elections Act (three consecutive hours) and the BC Election Act (four consecutive hours). An employer is likewise required to provide an employee with unpaid leave for jury duty under the Employment Standards Act. Recently, COVID-19 leave has been introduced under the Employment Standards Act for employees who require leave for a number of reasons related to COVID-19, including to receive a COVID-19 vaccination.
If an employee takes any of these types of leave, an employer cannot dismiss the employee or change a condition of employment without the employee's written consent. Once the leave has ended, the employer must place the employee back in the position the employee held before taking leave or in a comparable position. During the leave, employment is deemed continuous for the purposes of calculating vacation entitlement, entitlements under pension, medical or other plans beneficial to the employee, and termination.
here are rules relating to works councils or trade unions, under the BC Labour Relations Code.
The right to strike is governed by the Labour Relations Code. Unionized employees have the right to strike where, after full and good faith collective bargaining, an impasse exists regarding the terms of employment, a positive strike vote has been taken by affected employees, and the union has notified the employer of its intent to strike. Some employees are considered to be essential (for example, certain health care workers), in which case the Labour Relations Board will designate the number of employees who must continue to provide services to the clients of the employer.
An employer cannot fire employees who are on strike unless their actions amount to just cause for dismissal. Employees who are in a union may not apply to decertify the union during the currency of the strike.
Employers can be held indirectly responsible for the harm or damages arising from the negligent actions of its employees under the principle of "vicarious liability", provided that the employee's negligent actions occurred in the lawful discharge of his or her employment.
The contract of employment must be terminated in accordance with its terms. Where a contract expressly provides for the manner in which termination may be affected, the provisions of the contract must be observed. Where a contract is not specific about the manner by which it may be terminated, the employer will be expected to comply with any terms implied by law, including an implied term to the effect that reasonable notice of termination must be given to an employee.
In addition to any contractual requirements, an employer must ensure compliance with the minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act. If an employee has worked at least three consecutive months, employers must prove "just cause", or they will be liable to pay an amount which varies according to the employee's length of service. Liability is discharged if the employee is given written notice, pay in lieu of notice, resigns or retires.
Note that a unionized employer may or may not be subject to the provisions of the Employment Standards Act which deal with termination of employment. If the collective agreement includes a termination provision, the Employment Standards Act does not apply. The Employment Standards Act requires that the collective agreement meet or exceeds the requirements under the Employment Standards Act (when considered in conjunction with certain other requirements). However, if the collective agreement contains no termination provision, the Employment Standards Act provisions are deemed to be incorporated into the collective agreement.
Under the Employment Standards Act, "just cause" is not a defined term. Instead, the test developed in the courts of common law is used. In determining what constitutes just cause, the employer may show that it has taken steps to exercise "progressive discipline" on its employee. However, just cause can also result from a single act.
There are no statutory rules relating to the specific form for terminating the agreement unless the termination constitutes a "group termination" under the Employment Standards Act ((to be discussed further below). Approval from a court or other regulatory body is not required before termination is effective.
Under both the Employment Standards Act, an employer may terminate an employee, without cause, without providing any notice or severance in lieu of notice, if the termination takes place before the employee has completed 3 consecutive months of employment. However, if there is a written employment agreement (or, for unionized employees, a collective agreement) between the employer and employee which provides for notice or severance in lieu of notice prior to the employee completing 3 consecutive months of employment, the employer must abide by the terms of the agreement. Note that if there is no written employment agreement governing termination of the employee, it is still open to the Court to award damages to the employee even if the employer has no obligation to provide the employee with notice or severance in lieu of notice under the applicable statute.
An employer may terminate an employee for just cause resulting from a single act where the act is wilful, deliberate, inconsistent with the continuation of employment, and prejudicial to the employer's interests. However, only the most egregious single acts may constitute just cause for termination and extreme caution must be exercised before making a decision to terminate an employee for cause for a single act.
Dismissals are subject to the requirements under the Human Rights Code and may not be discriminatory.
Employment can be terminated by the employee's resignation. For resignation to be effective, the employee must evince a subjective and objective intention to resign which is subsequently accepted by the employer. The subjective element requires a true intention to resign. The objective element requires that the employee act in a way which confirms their intention to resign. At common law, an employee is obliged to provide an employer reasonable notice of the employee's intention to terminate the employment agreement unless the manner by which the employee may resign is expressly set out in the employment contract. Note that the "reasonable notice" an employee must provide upon resignation is much shorter than the "reasonable notice" that an employer may be required to provide to an employee upon termination.
An employer may terminate an employee at any time without cause so long as the employer provides the employee with, at minimum, the notice or severance pay in lieu of notice required by the Employment Standards Act. The Labour Relations Code provides that all collective agreements must contain a provision that the employer have just and reasonable cause for dismissal of an employee (except for employees hired on a probationary basis).
If there is a written employment agreement between the employer and employee which provides for more notice or severance in lieu of notice than is required by the applicable statute, the employer must abide by the terms of the contract.
If there is no written employment agreement governing termination of the employee, the employer's common law obligation to provide the employee with notice or severance in lieu of notice is not limited to the minimums established by the applicable statutes. Instead, the employer is obliged to provide the employee with "reasonable notice" or severance in lieu of "reasonable notice". The meaning of "reasonable notice" has received extensive judicial consideration and is determined by reference to a number of different factors, including the employee's age, length of service, gender and position.
The BC Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination based on "age", which is defined as an age of 19 years or more. However, if an employer can prove that there is a bona fide age-related reason that means that the employee cannot adequately perform his or her work, then an employee may be dismissed for that reason. Mandatory retirement at 65 or above is not permissible, except in statutorily mandated mandatory retirement schemes.
An agreement can be terminated automatically in cases of force majeure (i.e. where the performance of the contract is rendered impossible). No notice or severance in lieu of notice is required if work is impossible to perform because of unforeseeable circumstances. In such circumstances, the contract is considered "frustrated," and the parties are discharged from further performance. Bankruptcy, receivership, insolvency, or other adverse economic conditions do not constitute "frustration" of the contract.
Where an employer intends to terminate the employment of 50 or more employees at a single location within any 2-month period, the Employment Standards Act requires the employer to give advance notice of that intent to the Minister of Labour, the affected employees, and any involved union. Under the Employment Standards Act an employer is required to give this notice in writing, and to specify the number of employees who will be affected, the effective dates of termination, and the reasons for termination. There are also requirements under the Employment Standard Act regarding the timing of this notice (which varies depending on the size of the termination).
Employment may be terminated by the parties by mutual agreement at any time.
There are no separate rules for terminating directors or other senior officers. Directors and officers may be removed in accordance with the BC Business Corporations Act, however, the removal of an individual as a director does not impact their entitlement to contractual notice further to their employment agreement with the employer.
There are no special rules which apply to different classes of employees within an organization, but there are different remedies available to terminated employees who belong to a union. Unionized employees (through their union) have a right to file a grievance through the collective agreement's grievance process. The grievance will be dealt with in an arbitration, and one of the remedies available to the arbitrator is to reinstate the employee to his or her former position. (All other employees must bring either an action in the BC courts, or a complaint pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, and reinstatement is not an available remedy in either of those forums).
Furthermore, there are certain categories of employees to which the Employment Standards Act does not apply or to which the application of the Employment Standards Act may differ. These categories are generally based on the industry or profession of the employees.
There is no specific whistleblower statute. However, a number of statutes have whistleblower provisions including the Employment Standards Act, Workers' Compensation Act, Labour Relations Code, Personal Information Protection Act, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and Human Rights Code. These protect employees from harassment or discriminatory action because the employee has reported a breach of the statute or has exercised a right under the law.
For instance, it is a violation of the BC Human Rights Code for a person to intimidate, impose a penalty on, deny a benefit to, or otherwise discriminate against another because they filed a human rights complaint or assisted with a complaint.
If a business experiences financial difficulty, the legal requirements for termination must still be followed.
If wages are not paid to employees, the Employment Standards Act imposes a statutory lien for the unpaid wages without requiring steps from any party. The lien is imposed on the real and personal property of the employer at the time wages were earned, and automatically attaches to any property the employer may subsequently acquire. Examples of the types of property that can be subject to a lien include land, buildings, vehicles, equipment, stocks, bonds, and bank accounts.
The Employment Standards Act also provides that officers and directors can be personally liable for up to two months unpaid wages for each employee.
There are no special rules for employees who are provided working notice in relation to the termination of their employment but are asked to remain away from the workplace for the duration of the notice period. However, at common law, garden leave could result in a constructive dismissal claim, as it is a fundamental term of a contract of employment that an employee be provided with work.
There are no statutory rules that encumber a departing employee's ability to work. However, the parties are free to enter into contractual non-competition and non-solicitation agreements. Such restrictive covenants may be enforced if they are reasonably required to protect the proprietary interests of the employer. The employer must establish that the covenants are reasonable, both from a temporal and geographical perspective. To the extent that such clauses are considered to be injurious to the public interest, they will not be enforced. In the absence of restrictive covenants, employees are free to work for other employers, even those who may be in competition with the dismissing employer. All employees are restricted from removing confidential information, including customer lists. There are certain employees who, by virtue of their senior positions, are considered to be "fiduciaries" who may be restrained, for a reasonable period, from soliciting customers of a former employer.
Whether a dismissed employee is entitled to any payment depends upon whether the employee was dismissed with or without "just cause". As stated above, "just cause" is determined using tests developed in the courts of common law.
If there was just cause for the employee's dismissal, then no notice or payment is required.
If the employee was dismissed without just cause, then the amount of the notice or equivalent payment depends upon whether the employee is subject to the relevant provisions of the Employment Standards Act or Canada Labour Code, the terms of a contract, and/or the entitlement to "reasonable notice".
Severance payments are taxable. If the severance payment constitutes a "retiring allowance" under the Canada Income Tax Act, , it is subject to a withholding tax rate which varies depending on the amount of the payment.
Damage awards obtained for human rights violations are not taxable.
Where the employee continues working for a period of time after termination (referred to as "working notice"), the employer should continue to make contributions. However, if the employee is offered a salary continuance or a lump sum payment, the employer must determine which benefits are included in the offer. There is no "COBRA" type legislation as in the United States.
In a union setting, the time limit is set by the collective agreement. The time limit for commencing an action in the BC courts for breach of the employment contract is 2 years for claims arising on or after June 1, 2013 under the BC Limitation Act. There are specific limitation periods under legislation, including the Employment Standards Act (varies depending on nature of claim) and the Human Rights Code (12 months) to bring claims within the applicable tribunals.
Restrictions on Use of Cellular Phone While Driving
Many employers provide their employees with communication tools such as cellular phones and personal digital assistants as part of their employment. In BC, employers face the risk of vicarious liability for accidents caused by employees who violate the restrictions regarding handheld devices while driving.
With respect to a hand-held electronic communication device such as a cellular phone, a person who is driving a vehicle must not hold, operate or watch the screen of the device, or send or receive text messages or electronic email. A driver is permitted to use a hands-free telephone provided certain requirements are met, including the requirement that the device is not operated by the hand, the device is voice-activated, or requires only one touch in order to initiate, accept or end a call.
Sabrina R. Anis
Nicole Byres


text:
More info on Justice of the peace
Justice of the peace: Quiz
Magistrates' Court quiz
Courts of England and Wales quiz
County Court quiz
Crown Court quiz
Frederick Augustus Hely, a justice of the peace and public servant in colonial Australia, was the first man to settle permanently at Narara, Brisbane Water?
More interesting facts on Justice of the peace
Categories: Legal professions > Gubernatorial titles > Common law > Judiciary of England and Wales
Question 1: In ________, Justice of the Peace (Justices) play a key role in the administration of justice at the provincial level.
Barbados United States Canada United Kingdom
Question 2: In larger cities, cases may be heard in a ________ which has jurisdiction only within that city.
State court South Carolina State supreme court Kentucky
Question 3: This has now been changed such that they are assigned to ________, but less strongly.
Bristol Local justice areas Cheshire Shropshire
Question 4: ________ of Edmonton, Canada, preceded her by some three and a half years.
Cannabis (drug) The Famous Five (Canada) Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) Emily Murphy
Question 5: In some ________, the Justice of the Peace is a judge of a court of limited jurisdiction, a magistrate, or a quasi-judicial official with certain statutory or common law magisterial powers.
U.S. state Massachusetts Connecticut Colorado
Question 6: Being an unpaid office, undertaken more for the sake of renown and to confirm the justice's standing within the community, the justice was typically a member of the ________.
Upper class Serfdom Gentry Nobility
Question 7: In 1195, Richard I ("the Lionheart") of ________ commissioned certain knights to preserve the peace in unruly areas.
Wales United Kingdom England Scotland
Question 8: Justices of the Peace in Connecticut can preside over same-sex ________ and will preside over gay marriage ceremonies beginning October 28, 2008.
Domestic partnership Civil union Same-sex union Same-sex marriage
Question 9: Magistrates also had some limited civil jurisdiction, such as licensing applications, although these functions were mostly removed from them under the ________ and transferred to local authorities.
Human Rights Act 1998 Statutory Instrument (UK) United Kingdom legislation Licensing Act 2003
Question 10: This was replaced by the present system, where the ________ nominates candidates with local advice, for appointment by the Crown.
Lord Chancellor Home Secretary Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council Department for Constitutional Affairs

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: How to check viewport before running the test I have this config in playwright to run different browsers for the same test
const config: PlaywrightTestConfig = {
  projects: [
    {
      name: "Desktop Safari",
      use: {
        browserName: "webkit",
        viewport: { width: 1200, height: 750 },
        headless: false,
        baseURL: BASE_URL,
        httpCredentials,
      },
    },
    // Test against mobile viewports.
    {
      name: "Mobile Chrome",
      use: { ...devices["Pixel 5"], baseURL: BASE_URL, httpCredentials },
    },
    {
      name: "Mobile Safari",
      use: { ...devices["iPhone 12"], baseURL: BASE_URL, httpCredentials },
    },
    {
      name: "Desktop Firefox",
      use: {
        browserName: "firefox",
        viewport: { width: 800, height: 600 },
        httpCredentials,
      },
    },
  ],

Now, I know that an element should be present IF i am on desktop but not if i am on Mobile. How do i do a check on the viewport, before expecting an element to be in there?
Something like this:
test("Test home page", async ({ page }) => {
  await page.goto(BASE_URL);
  const inMobile =await page.$$("text='I am mobile'");;
  const inDesktop = await page.$$("I am desktop");
if (testing mobile)
  expect(inMobile).toBeTruthy()
else expect(inDesktop).toBeTruthy()
});

A: You can use the isMobile fixture to detect if it's a mobile device. This gets set internally when using a device like you do in the projects configuration. See the following example:
test("Test home page", async ({ page, isMobile }) => {
  console.log(isMobile);
});

See here for reference: https://playwright.dev/docs/api/class-fixtures#fixtures-is-mobile

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The Patient Counselling Event (PCE) aims to demonstrate the importance of pharmacy counselling skills, increase awareness of pharmacists as public educators, and to encourage and promote the development of the pharmacy profession. Each year SAPSF holds the PCE at its Annual Conference, giving delegates the chance to demonstrate their counselling skills and compete against each other.
The Patient Counselling Event (PCE) is a great way to promote training in communication skills, and provide an opportunity for pharmacy students and pharmacists to learn how to effectively interact with patients in a fun and competitive environment.
The PCE scenarios involve a pharmacist (played by the competitor/student) and a patient (played by an actor/academic) interacting in a pharmacy where the pharmacist must communicate with the patient to solve a problem and effectively counsel on therapy.
Each member branch of SAPSF sends one representative, who will receive a case study and has 15minutes to prepare before attempting to counsel their patient on any relevant aspects of their pharmacotherapy, upon which a winner will be chosen and receive a prize.


text:
THE SEVENTH THIRTY-DAY REPORT REGARDING ELECTRONIC JOB REPORTING AND RELATED COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
The District Council submits this Seventh Thirty-Day Report pursuant to (1) the Decision & Order entered on May 8, 2013 (Doc. 1315), (2) the Order entered on June 11, 2013 (Doc. 1332), (3) the Order entered on July 16, 2013 (Doc. 1358), (4) the Order entered on September 3, 2013 (Doc. 1386), (5) the Order entered on September 12, 2013 (Doc. 1394), and (6) the Order entered on October 23, 2013 (Doc. 1426), in United States v. District Council, 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB).
This report covers the period from December 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 and sets forth statistics regarding electronic job reporting and related anti-corruption compliance measures established by the District Council's collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") with the Wall-Ceiling and Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc. ("WC&C"), the Building Contractors Association, Inc. ("BCA"), the General Contractors Association of New York, Inc. ("GCA"), the Floor Coverers Association of Greater New York, Inc. ("FCA"), the Contractors Association of Greater New York ("CAGNY"), and the Cement League, Inc. ("CLI").
(John's note: The boxes at the end of Exhibits A and B show the bottom line on steward compliance. Also can someone try dissecting this report and post what it means, maybe I am stupid but I don't understand what this report is trying to say).
2014-01-14 Seventh Thirty Day Report to FILE
Labels: District Council, Judge Berman, Review Officer, wage freeze
John Musumeci January 17, 2014 at 1:27 AM
Correction post from Anonymous January 16, 2014 at 12:15 PM
This means that, during this time period, of the total Unreported Count addressed by the six- person team, only 11.45 percent ((218 + 191) of 2594) represented jobs for which a shop steward did not report hours within 48 to 72 hours of the work being undertaken.
"This percentage includes those jobs with a new or out-of-town member, which cannot be reported through the electronic system until the contractor makes its first benefits payment and that information is processed by the Benefit Funds."
The above is a fatal flaw, a hole left unplugged that the dopey IG., DOO continue to report on, but fail to correct.
The unplugged hole is an area waiting to be exploited by corrupt Contractors, Stewards & the wise guys trying desperately to get their asses back into elected positions of the D.C. & Danielson, Walker along with McGinnis are too stupid to recognize it and order it corrected and plugged!
Dennis, your move - Guess you have to do their thinking for them. It's time for the Veto Squad to make a few arrests. My suggestion would be to have some retired members dressed up like the Bull Dog in Operation Watch Dog (woof-woof) make the bust, do the perp walk and off they go to the Dog House until you get done with their Notice of Potential Action & ultimately, their Veto of any/all further employment at the D.C.
You can't teach stupid. When you reward stupid people with exorbitant salaries, benefits & perks for being this dumb, this report is the exact kind of garbage produced. Judge Berman's got be going, Dennis are you kidding, more crap. What am I supposed to do with this useless report?
Not for nothing, they're all past defending and sticking up for. Not even a good bullshitter could defend these boobs, to anyone. The time to act is now Dennis. Should we get the Veto Pen from the vault
Dennis, nevermind beating a Dead Horse as that time has long past. The Horse's carcass is rotting away and the stench of incompetence has permanently infected the AHU's and ductwork at the D.C. offices at 395 Hudson St, thus forcing all to breath the fumes of its rotting flesh. We anticipate a rash of sick days coming and increased costs to the Welfare Fund due to this failure to remove the carcass of ineptitude, ignorance and negligence.
We've identified the disease and only you have the cure, one which no Doctor can administer, the Veto Flu Shot in the arm of those responsible for the disease. BTW, it's spreading.
AnonymousJanuary 6, 2014 at 4:13 PM
100% Full Mobility for Electronic Compliance Reporting:
"With 15,589 (variable, now reported just over 16k active job) active Projects ongoing under 165+- Individual Contracts, which include 130+ PLA's (defined individual contract that negates your CBA & rights)
* What were the total Number of Man-Hours worked for each individual Project and;
* What percentage of said Benefit Trust Fund payments were paid timely with the members pay-checks per contractual (CBA) requirements?
* What percentage is Outstanding past 15-days, 30-days, 60-days, 90-days & 180-days and why are said payments delayed, un-reported and going into collections?
* What are the total accounts receivables (A/R) due in sum total to the D.C.?
* What are the Sub-Totals due/owing for 15, 30, 60, 90 & 180-days?
* Of the outstanding and delinquent Benefit Trust Fund payments, what is the sum total of Interest due to the D.C. per Contract, per week, per month and per annum?
* Why have the D.C.'s fearless leaders (McGinnis & Cavanuagh) failed to address the above and allowed the Contractor Association signatory employers to violate the contract(s)?
* Why has in-house counsel Murphy & the Benefit Trust Fund attorneys failed to enforce the contracts and to allow the continual/repeated violations?
The simple facts past the lying by Murphy, the Benefit Trust Fund, the Contractor Associations & their legal counsel in Federal Court is that the District Council, Contractor Associations and the Benefit Trust Fund Fiduciaries/Trustees are no where's near 90-95% Compliance in the payment of 'Wages and Benefits'! They hover at 50% or less.
Every category above must be specifically defined with hard cold facts in dollars and cents, down to the last penny.
Then & only then shall Judge Richard M. Berman get the true picture as to the level of continued corruption and fraud being foisted upon him by the D.C. & Funds attorneys, all of whom should be sanctioned and fined for perjuring themselves in Federal court.
For each of the 165+- individual Contracts (CBA's) when the man/woman does not get paid the Benefit's with their Weekly Pay-check, the Contractor Associations are delinquent and the Benefit Trust Funds and member contributors lose money (interest) on a daily basis.
**** Exactly how much money is being carried & lost on a daily basis for the failure to comply, abide and enforce the contracts?
**** Is this the Bank of the District Council?
The members and their families are not a Bank, yet we give away short term loans daily to delinquent Contractor Association Signatory Contractors by acting as their private Bank w/o the benefit of receiving Interest Payments on weekly recurring loans and overnight interest.
Best Practice my ass.
Murphy's 7th Report is a duck & cover opertation which can no longer be used or submitted to a sitting Federal District Court judge to defend the incompetent fools (McGinnis, Cavanaugh, Danielson, Walker & the OWL Dept. Director) responsible for producing it.
This is malfeasant operation of the D.C. & the Benefit Trust Funds plain & simple. Everyone involved knows the only way to ensure compliance is by answering the Questions in full detail as noted above.
The new EST's first order of business must be a purging of the inept. The house cleaning is long overdue. The new EST must hire the appropriate individuals, from the rank & file or from the business sector who are capable of answering the above questions & producing a report which is acceptable to present to a Federal Judge w/o wasting his valuable time on the nonsense submitted to date.
BOTH CANDIDATES SHOULD ANSWER EACH QUESTION & STATE WHAT THEY SHALL DO TO CORRECT THE FAILURES OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION
7th 30-Day Rep: Retraction - James Murphy, the D.C.'s in house legal counsel had no part in producing this report for submission to the Court. My sincerest apologies.
bulldog88 January 25, 2014 at 9:32 PM
This Report is a Bunch of Bullshit....If You want a Report that means something....Include the Statistics on How Many Signatory Contractors Paid Benefits....How Many Signatory Contractors Were Late Paying Benefits....How Many Signatory Contractors Paid No Benefits At All.....And include The Names Of The Delinquent Signatory Contractors So Carpenters Will Know Who Not To Work For Anymore!!!
Seems Judge Berman should have approved the members 90%-10% max to 70%-30% submission to change Judge Haights 67%-33% OWL Hiring Ratio.
Proposed Orders regarding Full Mobility
On February 27, 2013 council for the District Council sent Judge Berman an Order being proposed by the District Council in support of the implementation of full mobility. Judge Berman invited members to comment and has accepted member letters from the rank and file in opposition of full mobility.
On March 11, 2013 carpenter Demian Schroeder filed an Order being proposed by the rank and file in opposition of full mobility.
On March 12, 2013 Judge Berman issued an order stating, the Court has reviewed the March 11, 2013 submission, of Demian Schroeder [Doc.1246] and has asked that:
"Any response(s) are to be served and filed by March 20, 2013, e.g., District Council, RO,Wall-Ceiling, etc. Responsive filings should include the status of union approval/ratification of the District Council/Wall-Ceiling collective bargaining Agreement, dated March 12, 2013.
John's note: In regards to the status of the submitted District Council/Wall-Ceiling collective bargaining Agreement, dated March 12, 2013. It has never been submitted to the delegate body for a ratification vote. The signed contract contains provisions that are no longer applicable or approved by the Delegate Body; for example: Section 13 references a non-existent "stamp plan" (page 48) and Section 8 references $2.13 per-hour allocated to the Welfare Fund (page 32) which was never approved or voted on by the Delegate Body. The only Delegate vote that ever took place regarding the WC&C was on a four page MOU on August 12, 2013
Below are the two Orders being proposed.
(see article above, 157.blogspot.com)
Werewolf Piee December 31, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Banteng88 | Agen Bola | Agen Judi | Agen Sbobet
Werewolf Piee January 1, 2016 at 2:28 AM
Thompson Mathew May 26, 2018 at 6:44 PM
I got my already programmed and blanked ATM card to withdraw the maximum of $1,000 daily for a maximum of 20 days. I am so happy about this because i got mine last week and I have used it to get $20,000. Mike Fisher Hackers is giving out the card just to help the poor and needy though it is illegal but it is something nice and he is not like other scam pretending to have the blank ATM cards. And no one gets caught when using the card. get yours from Mike Fisher Hackers today! Just send an email to blankatm001@aol.com
WhatsApp +1 (712) 600 2838 )
Benefit Fund Trustees Establish Welfare Benefit-Re...
Geiger Wins Election
NYC CARPENTERS REACH DEAL WITH MWA THAT RESTORES B...
NYC CARPENTERS RATIFY HISTORIC AGREEMENT THAT SECU...
Court rules US funds are entitled to judgment agai...
Memorandum of Agreement between the NYCDCC and MWA...
THE SEVENTH THIRTY-DAY REPORT REGARDING ELECTRONIC...
Election Commentary– SAY NO TO JOE!
SAY NO TO JOE
Vote Greg Kelty for EST
Kelty Wins Big in Debate
Today's Court Order
Transcript from this morning's Court Conference.
Election Commentary
EST Candidate Debate Forum


text:
No, Executing Drug Dealers Won't Help
March 9, 2019 by Special Guest ~ Leave A Comment
Written by Kevin Wilson
Look, I like the death penalty as much as the next guy. As near as anyone can tell, it doesn't actually act as a deterrent for homicide, but frankly, I don't care. If you willfully and deliberately murder someone, you deserve to be willfully and deliberately murdered. A life for a life and all that.
The same goes for rape, or torture. If you've committed a crime so heinous that no one in their right mind would ever let you out of prison, you deserve to die.
When it comes to methodology, the firing squad seems to be the most reliable method, next to hanging and the electric chair. Lethal injection and the gas chamber both have botch rates of over 5%, and are expensive to boot. Electric chairs aren't cheap either. Rope and bullets, on the other hand, are.
The same arguments made for killing rapists and murderers can, and have, been made about drug dealers. Recently, President Trump called for the execution of drug dealers at a rally. In his mind, the death penalty is a perfectly rational response to selling drugs.
He's not alone in this thinking.
The President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, has made the execution of drug dealers and users a national policy. In his first year in office, as many as 7,000 suspected drug dealers and users were killed in extrajudicial executions, many of them by vigilantes. Duterte has gone so far as to suggest that anyone who finds a drug dealer should just kill them on the spot. His policy is more radical than most, but the general gist of it is far from unique.
Indonesia. Singapore. Thailand. China. Iran. Saudi Arabia. All countries that'll kill you for selling drugs. None of them are what one might call bastions of human rights, either.
But hey, what do the experts think? Would killing drug dealers actually help anything?
In a word, no.
We know that the death penalty doesn't actually prevent murder, and the numbers suggest that it won't do anything to prevent drug use, either. If anything, it'll only make the business more lucrative.
According to Sanho Tree, program director of the Drug Policy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, if anything, it'll make the drug problem worse.
In an interview, Tree claims that the effect will be twofold.
Firstly, it'll make the business of selling drugs more lucrative. As the risks associated with selling drugs increase, so too will the prices. They'll be able to upcharge customers on the grounds that they're literally risking their lives to bring them product, and the customers will have little choice but to pay out. Far from deterring drug trafficking, the increased profit margin will make it more attractive to the brave or the stupid.
Secondly, stricter drug laws have a way of weeding out (no pun intended) the stupid and the careless. Much in the same way that natural selection tends to remove the slow and ill adapted from the gene pool, cracking down on drug offenses tends only to catch up the folks too dumb or desperate to evade detection.
It's a vicious cycle that only benefits the drug traffickers themselves, and does nothing to address the underlying problems behind our nation's drug problem.
If that wasn't bad enough, drug laws already disproportionately target minorities. Although the rates of drug use are broadly similar between whites and blacks, African Americans are far more likely to go to prison over drug related offenses. If that trend continues, then one could easily surmise that drug related executions would also disproportionately affect minorities.
My argument against the use of capital punishment against drug dealers has nothing to do with compassion. I couldn't give less of a shit about what the bleeding hearts of the world consider to be humane if you were to glue my asshole shut. Nor do I really give a shit about drug use. We all self medicate in one way or another. I like whiskey and tobacco, others like to get stoned.
But, once you sit down and seriously consider the implications, it's just a bad idea. People are still going to use drugs, and as long as people use drugs, others will be willing to sell them, and neither group is going to give a damn about the cost.
Wouldn't it make more sense to try to address the underlying social and economic problems behind our nation's drug problem? That sounds a lot more reasonable than stoning the stoners.
More Articles Related To This
Calling All Veterans: Urgent Help Needed in Gatlinburg, TN
Former Army Ranger, Timothy Sterbens (3/75 and RSTB) is on the ground in Gatlinburg, TN lending a hand. Sue Moma Peney, reported in a closed Facebook page for the 75th…
Vet Stops To Help Motorist, Is Murdered By Hitman Hired To Kill Him
Vet Stops To Help Motorist, Is Murdered By Hitman Hired To Kill Him by Scott Faith According to the Orlando Sentinel, an Army veteran who was targeted by a gang…
© 2014 - 2020 The Havok Journal
havokjournal@havokmedia.com
The Havok Journal welcomes re-posting of our original content as long as it is done in compliance with our Terms of Use.
Filed Under: Contemporary Affairs, Nation Tagged With: Drug Dealers, Executing, execution, Kevin Wilson, Trump, Voice for Veterans


Calling all US Army fans! You'll love our Engraved Diamond Ring in sterling silver. Handcrafted in North America with responsibly-sourced metals, Bixler diamond rings are a total must-have. Boasting a diamond stone, this engraved ring is officially licensed by the US Army.


ALBANY — The Kelly Clarkson comparisons continued for Madison VanDenburg on Sunday's episode of "American Idol."
The Shaker High School junior wowed the judges on the ABC's competition with her version of Clarkson's "Already Gone," prompting judge Luke Bryan to say, "I'm witnessing the next Kelly Clarkson."
Overwhelmed either by VanDenburg's talent or a nasty head cold, judge Katy Perry got up and walked out the back of the theater. Two weeks ago, Perry called the 17-year-old "the next Kelly Clarkson."
VanDenburg's musical prowess is a known quantity in the Capital Region: She won the first two "Raise Your Voice" competitions, hosted by Court Appointed Special Advocates, at Proctors in Schenectady.
She has also sung the national anthem at Joseph L. Bruno Stadium in Troy and race tracks including Lebanon Valley Speedway.
Her father, Skip, was shown in the audience offering encouragement in Sunday's installment.
"American Idol" airs at 8 p.m. Sundays and Mondays on WTEN Ch. 10.


text:
Pycnoclavella är ett släkte av sjöpungar. Pycnoclavella ingår i familjen Pycnoclavellidae.

Kladogram enligt Catalogue of Life:

Källor

Externa länkar

Sjöpungar
Pycnoclavella

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Tengo un problema con el operador scan de rxjs, el resultado es una secuencia con NaN Tengo el siguiente bloque de código que genera un enemigo cada 1.5 seg.
Es una sequencia infinita con rxjs.
// generate an element each 1.5 seg.
const enemies$ = interval(1500)
    .pipe(
        /*
        use scan to convert each integer of the interval
        into an enemy appears outside of the screen.
          first emit [enemy]
          second emit [enemy, enemy]
          n emit [enemy, enemy ...... enemy]
        */
        scan( (enemyArray) => {
        // console.log(enemyArray);
        if (!Array.isArray(enemyArray)) {
            enemyArray = [];
        }
        // i replace canvas.width with 100.
        let enemy = {
            x: parseInt(Math.random() * 100, 10),
            y: -30
        };
        console.log(enemy);
        enemyArray.push({...enemy});
        console.log(enemyArray);
        return [ ...enemyArray];
    }, [])
)

El resultado en la consola es siguiente
un elemento
   {
     x: 1411
     y: -30
   }

el array que resulta es
 [{x: NaN, y: 8045}]

Uso ese array para dibujar los enemigos en el canvas.
No sé porque cuando añado el enemy a enemyArray. se guarda como NaN.
Ayuda porfavor


Prior to 1963, the various teams within the National Football League (NFL) (defendant) made their own arrangements for licensing and marketing trademarked merchandise items such as caps and jerseys featuring the team's logo and mark. In 1963, the teams formed the National Football League Properties (NFLP) to coordinate the development and licensing of the teams' merchandise. Between 1963 and 2000, the NFLP granted nonexclusive licenses to a number of vendors, including American Needle, Inc. (plaintiff), to manufacture and sell apparel featuring team logos. In December 2000, however, the NFLP granted a 10-year exclusive license to Reebok to manufacture and sell trademarked gear for all 32 teams. American Needle's license was not renewed. American Needle filed suit against the NFL alleging violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, American Needle claimed that the NFL and the NFLP conspired to restrict the distribution of the teams' intellectual property rights. The district court granted the NFL's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.


Airborne Large Lower Rocker Patch with Flags is embroidered in Black / White / Red / Blue. Measures 11x4 inches. The patch can be sewn or ironed on. Do not iron on patches to leather or nylon material. Buy them cheaper with a wholesale account. Resell them on Ebay.


text:
Talk:Theoretical Disaster
How much actual work do you have done for this mod? Or is this all theoretical? Thelonesoldier 12:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Legit lol. --Msleeper 22:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't expect a goldsrc mod to do very well in an age where even Source is becoming outdated. --Omnicoder 16:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Becoming? Anyway, I believe there is a general consensus to delete mods that have no actual work completed? It's very, very easy to come up with an idea and say "I'm going to make a mod now I just need a team to do all the work for me", but most mods don't even get started beyond that point. Thelonesoldier 22:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Please don't waste server space with images like that. Thelonesoldier 05:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
@Dimbark It is against the rules to mess with other people's comments in discussion pages. Don't do that again or their will be problems. --Omnicoder 22:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Goldsource
Is their a particular reason you are using GoldSource instead of Source? --Omnicoder 00:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, goldsource is still alive, still thriving, still magical. A sourcemod hl1 mod would be sad. Everybody can know how to do source just by downloading SDK. Goldsource takes years of skill, which I have. Besides, I like the story of aliens and the military better than the combine, but that's just my opinion. --Dimbark (I don't give a crap about the time)
GoldSrc mapping is exactly the same and doesn't take any more skill, just need to make a custom profile for hammer which plenty of guides explain. --Omnicoder 01:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is very indifferent. For example, it's simple to use this little prop box to click and drag it on the map. It's differnent for goldsource. You have to map out and design every single prop you use. Also, on source, you can go through this sound list, but (in spirit of half life) you can either click on of the ideas for a limited amount of sounds or you have to open GCFscape and find the exact sound you need. POINT TAKEN!
--Dimbark (Still don't care about the time.... lol)
I have to dig through GCFScape plenty anyway as I often need to modify the vmts since I need to add Portal's "%noportal" "1" and using something archaic solely for the point of using something archaic is pointless. And why do you have such an aversion to just hitting the signature ("Your signature with Timestamp") button which does the date for you? --Omnicoder 19:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I just don't feel like it. --Dimbark (Does time really matter? I mean really?.... I mean... I don't feel like clicking the signature button because I JUST DONT FEEL LIKE IT!
He's obviously a huge rebel. Thelonesoldier 23:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Too much info
The article contains way too much information about the levels and the protagonist. I feel I need to tell you how a wiki works: This is where people make articles about the existence of a wellknown mod, and writes a summarization about the mod. This is not where the mod creator has his official site or home page. You should head over to the Mod DataBase, and set up this page over there, because that's what it's for. --MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 15:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theoretical_Disaster&oldid=142338"


NORMS made its debut in 1949 when Norm Roybark, a Los Angeles native, opened his first coffee shop near the famed Hollywood corner of Sunset and Vine. As one of the few spots open 24/7, it didn't take long before the coffee shop became the place to be.
Now, locations throughout SoCal later, we continue to honor Norm Roybark's original mantra of "great food, great service and great value" by serving our guests breakfast, lunch, dinner and anything in between all day and all night. Whether it's our service or food, we keep our guests top-of-mind in everything we do. We prepare our dishes with the freshest ingredients available, and we make many of our staple items from scratch. But, it's who delivers those mouth-watering dishes that makes all the difference in the world. On average, our staff has been with NORMS for 12 years. That means they've been dedicated to keeping our guests' bellies full and happy for years and years. And, it takes more than a friendly face to do that — it takes compassion, openness and thoughtfulness, which every one of our employees exemplifies. Without this high standard of service, our dishes would simply be delightful dishes. They wouldn't be memorable moments shared with friends and family.


text:
SEC Adopts Final Rules Requiring Universal Proxy Cards
Jason Daniel, Dasha K. Hodge, Paul Monsour, Grace K. Seidl
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
On November 17, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted final rules requiring the use of a universal proxy card by all parties in contested elections for directors at shareholder meetings. The rules require registrants and dissidents to provide shareholders with a proxy card listing all the registrant and dissident director nominees presented for election. Shareholders will no longer have to choose between submitting their votes on either the registrant's proxy card or the dissident's. Putting all candidates on the same ballot will make proxy voting more closely resemble voting in person at a meeting, as shareholders will be able to select their preferred combination of candidates to serve on the board.
The new rules allow shareholders to vote by proxy in a contested election of directors in the same manner as if they attended the shareholder meeting in person—they may select a combination of registrant and dissident candidates. This will make it easier for shareholders to cast votes on dissident nominees and could open the door to more board seats being filled by activist investors, who can use the access to the board to advance other objectives, including environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals and changes to management.
Dissidents must give notice of their intent to solicit proxies and their nominees' names to the registrant 60 days before the annual meeting. The registrant must respond with their nominees within 10 days of receiving notice from the dissident.
Dissidents must solicit holders of shares representing at least 67 percent of the voting power of shares entitled to vote at the election of directors.
The short slate rule, which allowed dissidents to hand-select the registrant nominees they wanted to round out their slate, has been eliminated, although dissidents are still able to nominate less than a full slate under the rule.
The new rules are expected to lead to additional shareholder activism in the form of director campaigns and a clearer path for dissident directors to gain seats on public company boards.
Mandatory use of Universal Proxy Cards. The final rules require mandatory use of universal proxy cards by public companies in all non-exempt director election contests. All proxy cards, whether delivered by the company or a dissident, must include the full slate of director nominees for shareholders to vote on. The mandatory use of universal proxy cards seeks to allow shareholders to elect their preferred candidates through the proxy process in an efficient and effective manner.
The rules permit a universal proxy card to allow a shareholder to grant authority to vote for all nominees of either the dissident or registrant nominees as a group. This may be done as long as the card also provides a similar means by which a shareholder can withhold authority to vote for a group. The number of nominees of the registrant or dissident must be less than the number of directors being elected. Where state law gives effect to votes cast against a nominee, the card must give a "for-all," "against-all" and "withhold-all" option.
Notice from Dissident to Registrant. The dissident must provide the registrant with the names of nominees it intends to solicit proxies for no later than 60 calendar days before the anniversary of the previous year's annual meeting. If the registrant had no annual meeting the previous year, or if the date of the annual meeting has changed by more than 30 calendar days, the dissident must provide the notice by the later of (i) 60 calendar days prior to the date of the annual meeting or (ii) the 10th calendar day following the day on which the registrant makes a public announcement of when the annual meeting is to be held. The dissident must include in its notice a statement that it intends to solicit the holders of shares representing at least 67 percent of the voting power of shares entitled to the election of directors. However, the rules do not require the dissident to provide the notice if the information was already provided in a preliminary or definitive proxy statement filed by the dissident before the deadline.
Notice from Registrant to Dissident. The registrant must notify the dissident of the names of its nominees, unless such names were already provided in a preliminary or definitive proxy statement filed by the registrant, no later than 50 calendar days prior to the anniversary of the prior year's annual meeting. This deadline gives the registrant 10 days after the dissident's notice to respond and is intended to provide sufficient time for the registrant to consider the dissident's notice, finalize its own nominees, and respond.
Solicitation Requirement. The rules require dissidents to solicit holders of shares representing 67 percent of the voting power of shares entitled to vote on the election of directors. A dissident additionally must include a statement of its intent to solicit the requisite holders, and it could be subject to liability under rules prohibiting material misstatements in proxy solicitation materials if such statement is false.
Deadline. A dissident in a contested director election must file its definitive proxy statement with the SEC by the later of (i) 25 calendar days prior to the meeting or (ii) 5 calendar days after the registrant files its definitive proxy statement.
Proxy Statement Cross References. Each party in a contested election will be required to refer shareholders to the other party's proxy statement for information about the other party's nominees. The parties should also explain that the other party's proxy statements can be accessed at no cost on the SEC website. Parties are permitted to refer to information that would be furnished in the other party's filings to satisfy their disclosure obligation. The new rules also changed the definition of "participant" so that only a party's own nominees will be considered "participants" in that party's solicitation.
Presentation and Formatting Requirements. In order to comply with the new rules, the proxy cards must: (i) set forth the names of all duly nominated director candidates; (ii) provide a means for shareholders to grant authority to vote for the nominees set forth; (iii) clearly distinguish between registrant, dissident and proxy access nominees; (iv) list nominees within each group in alphabetical order by last name; (v) use the same type, style and size to present all the nominees; (vi) prominently disclose the maximum number of nominees for which authority to vote can be granted; and (vii) prominently disclose the treatment and effect of a proxy executed in a manner that grants authority to vote for more or fewer nominees than the number of directors being elected or in a manner that does not grant authority to vote for any nominees.
Short Slate Rule. The short slate rule is eliminated for companies that will be subject to the final rules mandating the use of universal proxy cards. The short slate rule allowed dissidents soliciting in support of a partial slate of nominees making up only a minority of the board to seek authority to vote for some of registrant's nominees. This rule has been replaced by the universal proxy. An amended short slate rule will still be available for funds in contested elections as they are not subject to the universal proxy rule at this time.
Bona Fide Nominee. The amended bona fide nominee determination includes any nominee who consents to being named in any proxy statement for the applicable meeting, allowing such nominee to be named on any side's proxy card. If a nominee would not consent to serve if elected with other nominees, this material fact should be disclosed prominently on the proxy statement of the party nominating that individual, and if it is the registrant's nominees, then the registrant should explain how such vacancies would be filled.
The amendments were initially proposed in late 2016 and were adopted as part of the SEC's efforts to bolster shareholder rights. The SEC stated in the final rules, "the Commission has long understood the limitations that the proxy rules place on a shareholder's ability to select its preferred mix of registrant and dissident nominees."
The new rules were adopted by a 4-1 vote, with SEC Chair Gary Gensler stating that the change "is an important aspect of shareholder democracy." In her dissenting statement, Commissioner Hester M. Peirce expressed concerns that the universal proxy would advance special interests rather than enhance corporate values and noted that "the price of entry onto the company's proxy card under this rule is low. . . the rule does not condition access to the company's proxy card on a demonstrated commitment to the company." Although he voted in favor of the rules, Commissioner Elad L. Roisman expressed similar concerns in his statement, noting he would have "preferred that the rule require those launching a proxy contest to meet certain eligibility criteria, such as thresholds of ownership in the target company or holding periods for the company's stock," but saw "no compelling reason to prevent shareholders from mixing and matching their votes." In further support of the rule, both Commissioners Caroline A. Crenshaw and Allison Herren Lee emphasized in their statements (here and here) the importance of ensuring symmetry between shareholders voting in person and via proxy and fairness in the director election process.
The new rules will be effective for shareholder meetings held after August 31, 2022.
US Department of State Changes Visa Issuance Policies
EU Net Short Position Disclosure Threshold Lowered to 0.1% from 31 January 2022
CFIUS Updates Excepted Foreign State Rules
CPPA Releases Public Comments for CPRA Regulations
NTIA Issues a Request for Comment on Broadband Funding Programs
© Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | Attorney Advertising
Jason Daniel
Dasha K. Hodge
Paul Monsour
Grace K. Seidl
Environmental Social & Governance (ESG)
Proxy Season
Universal Proxy Cards
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on:


Digicel Vanautu has launched a news app, Loop, in partnership with Trend Media. Loop news is bringing the best mobile news experience along with many other features. Both Loop App and Loop websites are in FREE Unlimited access for Digicel customers in Vanuatu. Thus, the usage of the app won't be charged to the customer. Loop app can be download for free from Google Play, Windows and App Stores. Customers can also access www.loopvanuatu.com.
Digicel customers in Vanuatu will be accessing the all-new revised app free which boasts even more features for customers to enjoy. Customers can browse all their favorite news topics all in one place with easy to use sections for Local News, Global News, Sports, Entertainment, Business, Community and Events. The user-friendly design ensures that they see the latest news as it happens, the most popular stories right now and the day's hot topics – there is always a fresh article to read.
Customers who are interested in what's happening elsewhere in the South Pacific can also access news from other islands and with Loop's social sharing and article commenting features customers can read, share and shape the day's stories as they happen. Loop's highly visual video and image based news makes it easy for customers to read their favorite news topics on their mobile as well as on their desktop – having access to news anytime, anywhere.
The Community news section means customers can do their part by posting stories, videos and photos from their neighborhood – they can simply click to submit. Upcoming events can be saved directly to customer's calendar directly from the app and they can even add their own event for all Loop's readers to see.
Offer available to all Digicel customers in Vanuatu. Prepaid and postpaid customers can access Loop for FREE via Loop App or via www.loopvanuatu.com. The access is free and unlimited.