Monday, June 08, 2009
Monday | June 8 | Your News & Comments
Can't find the right spot for your comment? Post it here, in this open forum. Real Time Comments: parked here, 24/7. (Earlier editions.)
4 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Would this apply to the possible layoffs mentioned? If so, it doesn't appear 60 days notice was given if we are looking at the end of June and or July:
ReplyDeleteAdvance Notice of Layoff (WARN Act): The federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requires many larger employers (i.e., those with more than 100 employees) to provide 60 days prior notice of a mass layoff or plant closing. There are several exceptions to this requirement, and whether a layoff constitutes a “mass layoff” or “plant closing” within the meaning of the WARN Act can be disputed. However, if an employer fails to comply with the WARN Act’s notification requirements, it can be required to compensate affected workers with up to 60 days wages and benefits. For more information about the WARN Act and its requirements, co to
They are fully aware of this, and complied with the WARN law in Tucson, but in other cases ignored it apparently because of clauses that indicate the size of the layoff didn't trigger the warning requirement. It is a relatively toothless law.
ReplyDeleteI do have to say I am a bit concerned that no one else has posted here. I don't miss all the mudsling, but I do miss the feedback.
ReplyDeleteCome on guys, we need your input.
Picaruler said...
ReplyDeleteI do have to say I am a bit concerned that no one else has posted here. I don't miss all the mudsling, but I do miss the feedback.
Come on guys, we need your input.
6/08/2009 10:41 PM
Well, my friend, I think the owner would rather not continue with things the way they were. It should be quite obvious he is now primarily concerned with the promotion of his new blog.
Just look at the recent direction of the GANNETT blog and you will see. Look at the way he treated me when I merely pointed out the obvious. Others have seen the shift and either stay away or just don't comment since much that is said is deleted anyway.
Once the decision was made to terminate this blog it has been used for cross-purposes.
To your WARN act questions, Ganett has no concerns.