"protective notice"

Question

Hello,could someone please explain to me what a "protective notice" is? Maybe (hoping against hope) there is even someone who knows what the correct German term for this would be?Thanks in advance Christian"People hardly ever make use of the freedom they have. For example, the freedom of thought.Instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation." -Kierkegaard

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Hello, could someone please explain to me what a "protective notice" is? Maybe (hoping against hope) there is even someone who knows what the correct German term for this would be?[/nq]
This is one of those situations where you have a slim hope of success without providing context. We all know what "protective" can mean and we all know what "notice" can mean. The latter could be half a dozen different things. So the two together could be a dozen or more different things. Probably it's a term of art somewhere. tell us where and we might be able to help. Then we'll translate it into German.
John Dean
Oxford

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hello, could someone please explain to me what a "protective notice" is? Maybe (hoping against hope) there is even someone who knows what the correct German term for this would be?[/nq]A protective notice is a notice issued by one party to another in order to limit the legal liability of the issuing party for actions that that party might take. One of the most common situations is the issuing of a "protective notice of redundancy" which tells a flock of workers that they are about to lose their jobs. Nost workers in the western democracies have rights to compensation when laid off (mad "redundant"). By giving prior notice, a UK employer, in particular, may trigger a requirement that the employee must try to offset the loss of wages, limiting the employer's exposure to liability.

It may also contain offers to induce by additional compensation "voluntary" redundancy, since "compulsary" redundancy is intensely disliked by trade unions. If you do a search on "protective notice" you will find numerous news articles showing the anxiety communities can feel when a large employer issues such a "protective notice."

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Nost workers in the western democracies have rights to compensation when laid off (mad "redundant").[/nq]
(Ignoring the typos and reading what was intended)

Is this true? I have never worked for a firm that laid of people, but I'm not under the impression that a US employer is required to pay any compensation at all to workers that are laid off. The workers are entitled to claim unemployment benefits from the state unemployment fund after a period of time, and the employer pays into that fund, but the employer does not directly pay compensation to laid off workers. Some union members can claim benefits from union funds if laid off.

That word "most" rears its ugly head again. If you total the number of workers in the western democracies, I would think that American workers would constitute "most" because of our population. "Most" workers and workers in "most" Western democracies are two completely different things.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Nost workers in the western democracies have rights to compensation when laid off (mad "redundant").[/nq]
[nq:1](Ignoring the typos and reading what was intended) Is this true? I have never worked for a firm that laid ... time, and the employer pays into that fund, but the employer does not directly pay compensation to laid off workers.[/nq]
I only wrote that most workers have rights to compensation; I made no assertion that they had a claim against the employer. Labour law in the UK is more complicated in this respect.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2](Ignoring the typos and reading what was intended) Is this ... employer does not directly pay compensation to laid off workers.[/nq]
[nq:1]I only wrote that most workers have rights to compensation; I made no assertion that they had a claim against the employer. Labour law in the UK is more complicated in this respect.[/nq]
Not to belabor this, but that's kind of a weasel. The laid off employee has a right to take on a different job that provides compensation and not lose his right to be re-employed by the firm that laid him off. So, "rights to compensation" can be taken to mean just about anything.
Your statement implies, if it does not specify, that the employee has rights to apply for compensation from the employer that did the laying off. I don't think that's at all the case in the US.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I only wrote that most workers have rights to compensation; ... law in the UK is more complicated in this respect.[/nq]
[nq:1]Not to belabor this, but that's kind of a weasel. The laid off employee has a right to take on ... So, "rights to compensation" can be taken to mean just about anything. Your statement implies, if it does not specify,[/nq]
It did "specify", if the sentence is interpreted as BrE.
[nq:1]that the employee has rights to apply for compensation from the employer that did the laying off. I don't think that's at all the case in the US.[/nq]
We have here two meanings of the word "compensation".

Martin used it in the sense:
"something that makes up for a loss ; specifically : payment to unemployed or injured workers or their dependents"
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. via dictionary.com)
You used it, in a way which is uncommon in the UK, to mean wages or salary.

In the UK we are entitled to "statutory redundancy pay". This is calculated on the basis of age, length of service, and weekly pay.

There is outline information at
http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/monster/empf23.html
(see the links under Redundancy at the left)

Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I only wrote that most workers have rights to compensation; ... Labour lawin the UK is more complicated in this respect.[/nq]
[nq:1]Not to belabor this, but that's kind of a weasel. The laid off employee has a right to take on ... compensation from the employer that did thelaying off. I don't think that's at all the case in the US.[/nq]
But that doesn't alter the fact that in most
whatever-kind-of-countries-we-want-to-call-them, employees do have certain rights to continued employment, under legal and contractual penalties (the latter often more favourable to the employee than the former). The rights vary according to the terms of employment, from virtually no compensation to n million pounds; and employers need to protect themselves from litigation by issuing the warning notice Martin referred to.
Mike.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]people, to state compensation no in[/nq]
You have used the "most countries" interpretation. Martin said "most workers". In an earlier post I guesstimated that the most workers phrase skews the meaning since the US accounts for so many workers due to the size of our working population. (Size in numbers, and not size of overalls.)
To the best of my knowledge, any US firm can lay off workers without being obligated for any compensation. Some firms and some workers may have employment agreements in place, but it would an exception rather a rule.
I should point out that I am using "lay off" to mean that the firm is saying "Don't come to work because we don't have work for you to do", and the lay-off has nothing to do with any illegal dismissals.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Not to belabor this, but that's kind of a weasel. ... about anything. Your statement implies, if it does not specify,[/nq]
[nq:1]It did "specify", if the sentence is interpreted as BrE.[/nq]
Why would we interpret Martin Ambuhl to be using BrE? Martin was referring to "western democracies" of which the US is included. When you have a statement made by an American living in the US about a subject that includes the US, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume the interpretation should be in AmE.
[nq:2]that the employee has rights to apply for compensation from ... don't think that's at all the case in the US.[/nq]
[nq:1]We have here two meanings of the word "compensation". Martin used it in the sense: "something that makes up for ... : payment to unemployed or injured workers or their dependents" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. via dictionary.com)[/nq]
He did? How do you know he used it that way?
[nq:1]You used it, in a way which is uncommon in the UK, to mean wages or salary.[/nq]
And, I used it as I would assume any American would use it. Since my comments were directed at Martin, Martin is an American (I think we even grew up in the same city), and "compensation" is not an uncommon description of wages or salary in America, I see no reason to use a BrE interpretation.
[nq:1]In the UK we are entitled to "statutory redundancy pay". This is calculated on the basis of age, length of service, and weekly pay. There is outline information at http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/monster/empf23.html (see the links under Redundancy at the left)[/nq]
Yes. Yes. This has been covered before. I'm familiar with this, and I also have experience and/or knowledge of the Swiss and Danish laws that are extremely confining in this area.
I'm not arguing the point that compensation - by any definition - is available to workers made redundant/laid off in western democracies. My point was an English usage point in that I do quibble with "most workers" being an accurate term. "workers in most western democracies" or "many workers in western democracies" would be acceptable. The quibble is with "most workers in western democracies".
This is a usage group, right? It's not unheard of to single out a word or term that does not seem apt for the application. A quibble with a term or word does not mean disagreement with the surrounding context.
I use "quibble" because I choose to minimize the objection. It's not like he cited something foolish and totally incorrect as I did yesterday in another thread.
Now, if you choose to quibble, pick on "of which the US is included" (above). I don't care for my phrasing.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Why would we interpret Martin Ambuhl to be using BrE? Martin was referring to "western democracies" of which the US ... about a subject that includes the US, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume the interpretation should be in AmE.[/nq]
I might have jumped to at least one unjustified conclusion. I'll withdraw from this thread.

Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)

"protective notice"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions