• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    It was always a stupid fucking term that equates doing a job with quitting.

    Not increasing pay isn’t quit firing, because there is no firing. It is just businesses being stingy.

    Edit: Guess I wasn’t clear enough that I am responding to the general statement that not giving raises is constructive dismissal, and didn’t add a footnote that not giving raises to specific people could be part of constructive dismissal. Nuance is hard.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      357 months ago

      Not increasing pay isn’t quit firing, because there is no firing. It is just businesses being stingy.

      it’s constructive dismissal.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        107 months ago

        Only if it targets specific employees with the goal of getting them to quit. If the business doesn’t give raises in general they are just being cheap.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        9
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I feel like meeting that to a legal level is a stretch. Minor cost of living raises that don’t meet inflation doesn’t rise to that level in my uneducated understanding

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      157 months ago

      Not increasing pay with inflation is a pay cut because your pay is literally worth less without it.

      In a sane world, if the fed is dictating the money supply, with their actions directly impacting inflation, every workers pay should be indexed to inflation. Same goes for taxation, welfare payments, etc. Companies raise their prices regardless.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      57 months ago

      I agree it’s a dumb term, so I made up my own dumb term. (At least I think I made it up)

      Employees are allowed to be just as stingy as businesses.