Response to Robert re: employer rights thread

C

Catia

New member
Dec 1, 2003
9
0
0
Robert,

Thank you for closing the thread without actually having all the facts; I am surprised. The truth of the matter is that one, I am the employer; two, it does pertain to the DR because it is a DR company; and three, I have my lawyers working on it and I've gotten conflicting answers. I came to this board in hopes that the attorney who usually responds to legal issues could give me his point of view.

Or, perhaps others could give their point of view based on eperience not just assumptions.

Perhaps my thread was not clear in stating that I was refering to a company in the DR; but then again, why would I come to your website if I were asking about legal issues in Canada or the US? I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this website was geared towards people whom want information about the "ins and outs" about DR.

Sorry for the misunderstanding and thank you kindly.
 
A

andrea9k

New member
Apr 17, 2004
464
0
0
It would be interesting to read what Mr. Guzman has to say about this issue. Some years ago we developed procedures and policies (including IT) for a big corporation here. Not so long ago, it took a tragedy to validate all the papers writen. What I can say is, all the corporation infrastructure (including facilities such as email servers and computers), everything that could be used to do the investigation was used. Hotmail and yahoo services among others are "kind of" private, corporate email service, intended to be used for business purpose IS NOT private.

Watch out what you send each other guys ;)

Jess
 
Robert

Robert

Stay Frosty!
Jan 2, 1999
20,574
341
83
dr1.com
Catia said:
Thank you for closing the thread without actually having all the facts; I am surprised. The truth of the matter is that one, I am the employer; two, it does pertain to the DR because it is a DR company; and three, I have my lawyers working on it and I've gotten conflicting answers. I came to this board in hopes that the attorney who usually responds to legal issues could give me his point of view.

Or, perhaps others could give their point of view based on eperience not just assumptions.

Perhaps my thread was not clear in stating that I was refering to a company in the DR; but then again, why would I come to your website if I were asking about legal issues in Canada or the US? I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this website was geared towards people whom want information about the "ins and outs" about DR.

Sorry for the misunderstanding and thank you kindly.
Click to expand...

Don't thank me, just drop the childish sarcasm and you'll be fine.
 
H

HOWMAR

Silver
Jan 28, 2004
2,624
2
0
Catia said:
Robert,

Thank you for closing the thread without actually having all the facts; I am surprised. The truth of the matter is that one, I am the employer; two, it does pertain to the DR because it is a DR company; and three, I have my lawyers working on it and I've gotten conflicting answers. I came to this board in hopes that the attorney who usually responds to legal issues could give me his point of view.

Or, perhaps others could give their point of view based on eperience not just assumptions.

Perhaps my thread was not clear in stating that I was refering to a company in the DR; but then again, why would I come to your website if I were asking about legal issues in Canada or the US? I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this website was geared towards people whom want information about the "ins and outs" about DR.

Sorry for the misunderstanding and thank you kindly.
Click to expand...
Catia, I think that you will find that there is little regulation in the DR concerning the privacy of e-mails. But the real issue is what will the result be of finding negative information about an employee. As there are few grounds for which you can terminate an employee with cause, thereby negating having to pay liquidation, you might be best off just liquidating the employee and be done with it. I think it would be hard to prove to the Labor Department that the employee was using e-mail in an unauthorized manner or passing confidential information. The employee's defense of "I didn't know it was a secret" would be hard to disprove based on the Labor Department's mode of operation giving the benefit of the doubt to the employee. I think if you don't trust the employee, liquidate them and cut your losses.
 
Conchman

Conchman

Silver
Jul 3, 2002
4,586
160
63
57
www.oceanworld.net
We find it over and over again that it is cheaper to pay liquidation. Employees know that even when they are in the wrong the labor court is going to hand them a fat pay-out at your expense and thus sue immediately when you dont pay it liquidation. When they sue, they sue for much more than the liquidation, all kinds of over time pay and who knows what gets thrown on the table and with all the lawyers involved you end up paying 3 times the amount of what the liquidation would have been.
 
H

HOWMAR

Silver
Jan 28, 2004
2,624
2
0
Conchman said:
We find it over and over again that it is cheaper to pay liquidation. Employees know that even when they are in the wrong the labor court is going to hand them a fat pay-out at your expense and thus sue immediately when you dont pay it liquidation. When they sue, they sue for much more than the liquidation, all kinds of over time pay and who knows what gets thrown on the table and with all the lawyers involved you end up paying 3 times the amount of what the liquidation would have been.
Click to expand...
And in addition, if they sue you and win, they are entitled to full salary for the period of time from when you terminated them until the time the court rules. You may have to pay a full years salary even though they have gone on to another job.
 
M

MrMike

Silver
Mar 2, 2003
2,586
100
0
52
www.azconatechnologies.com
Basically you have to think of that liquidation as part of your employee's salary that is defered until they are terminated. So if you are paying someone 10k/mo you are actually paying them more like 11 or 12 but you're allowed to hold part of their pay until you let them go.

Doesn't help much but it does make it hurt aq little less to pay liquidation if you think aout it that way FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S START DATE. This is another good reason not to over-pay your employees.

I have heard of some employers going on the warpath to try to get a employee to quit, riding them and making their life hell at work (which for many Dominican employees simply means demanding results) but I have never seen this done successfully. The workers you want to fire will usually be very resourceful when it comes to slacking. And if they are spying on you or whatever, then this will be doubly true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom