回複:回複:Curious: not laid-off, fired?

來源: abyz 2010-08-29 10:33:22 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (514 bytes)
回答: Curious: not laid-off, fired?abyz2010-08-29 09:27:30
This is not a terminology problem. It is leagle issue. Also in the future, you have to tell your new/potential employer the reason you leave the present company. At that time, you say, "my boss even cannot give a term", who believe?

If laid-off, you can get employment insurance.
If fired, you cannot get employment insurance.
If quitted yourself, you cannot get employment insurance.
(I am not specialist, possibly there are more)

You boss is forcing you to quit yourself. (Just a guess).

所有跟帖: 

it is called constructive termination -疑馬甲- 給 疑馬甲 發送悄悄話 疑馬甲 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 08/29/2010 postreply 10:48:32

Is there employment insurance for this? -abyz- 給 abyz 發送悄悄話 (35 bytes) () 08/29/2010 postreply 11:19:31

google constructive discharge/dismissal/termination -疑馬甲- 給 疑馬甲 發送悄悄話 疑馬甲 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 08/29/2010 postreply 13:02:43

回複:回複:回複:Curious: not laid-off, fired? -lilynew- 給 lilynew 發送悄悄話 (58 bytes) () 08/29/2010 postreply 11:00:11

The employer cannot force you to quit unless -chief- 給 chief 發送悄悄話 chief 的博客首頁 (402 bytes) () 08/31/2010 postreply 11:22:33

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”