OnlyMyOpinion wrote: ↑11 Oct 2017 11:38Why should they expect legislated severance to be paid once Sears goes under CCAA?
I think they
do expect to receive the severance pay they're legally entitled to. That seems pretty reasonable to me. After all, it's the law. But if the money is already gone, well, how do you get blood from a stone?
OnlyMyOpinion wrote: ↑11 Oct 2017 11:38Just because senior executives feathered their nest
"Feathered their nest?" You mean, got paid for their work? Much like the people further down the chain? Why would you choose such language, unless to incite class envy?
The magnitude of the paycheck is irrelevant. People are entitled to be paid for work they do. Whether it's a part-time cashier, or an upper level executive. Framing the issue in terms of one group "feathering their nest," while the others are helpless victims, is destructive.
OnlyMyOpinion wrote: ↑11 Oct 2017 11:38why should they expect to be in line with suppliers?
Because there are differences between employees, creditors, suppliers, and shareholders, and there are rules that dictate the order in which they are given priority with regard to their claims to assets.Ignoring/changing the rules would have implications with respect to the interest rate at which businesses can hope to borrow money (you change the risk, you change the interest rate). Why should employees automatically be at the front of the line? Because they're losing their jobs, whereas the bondholders are a bunch of rich millionaire investors, and are thus more sympathetic parties?
OnlyMyOpinion wrote: ↑11 Oct 2017 11:38Clearly money from a hardship fund - in lieu of legislated severence - should be clawed back from their
unemployment insurance.
Yes, actually! Mainly because if that legislated severance HAD been paid, it too would have ALSO been (rightfully) considered income for the purposes of calculating an EI benefit. Why should this payout receive preferential treatment? Why should employees be allowed to collect EI prematurely? Why should former SEARS employees be granted special exemption over any other laid-off employee in Canada? The rules are the rules for everybody, not just the people who don't run crying to the "Go Public" reporter at CBC or plaster it all over Facebook.
Why should the employees receive EI benefits they wouldn't otherwise be entitled to, just because their severance money came from a source other than their direct employer?
OnlyMyOpinion wrote: ↑11 Oct 2017 11:38To do otherwise would be grossly unfair to you and I.
To treat SEARS employees differently than every other employee in Canada WOULD be grossly unfair to you and I (having been one of those laid off employees myself, at one time, and not being permitted to have EI "overlook" my 4 month severance payout).
OnlyMyOpinion wrote: ↑11 Oct 2017 11:38We have governments currently in place that are fiscally responsible
Irrelevant. All that matters are the rules.
OnlyMyOpinion wrote: ↑11 Oct 2017 11:38They do not waste taxpayer's money on bailouts.
This isn't a bailout. This is a longstanding, standardized policy regarding employees who are laid off. It's the same rules for everybody. You continue to try to frame this issue in the most inflammatory manner possible.
OnlyMyOpinion wrote: ↑11 Oct 2017 11:38Why would they make any allowance for thousands of retail employess thrown out of work who should have known better.
They shouldn't. They didn't for Nortel, they didn't for JDS, they didn't for GM, for Nestle, for Bre-X, they won't for Bombardier, for the newspapers, for Radio Shack, for anyone. Nor should they.
Regarding pensions, there are strict rules dictating funding levels to ensure they remain solvent. In cases where pensions are underfunded and there is a shortfall, there are government programs in place to help "top up" recipients that are being shortchanged. And that has nothing to do with whining about being prohibited from collecting EI and a severance payment simultaneously.