SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
Moderator: Community Team
82 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by Minister Masket on Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:31 am
suggs wrote:Minister Masket wrote:No, no I don't think Lack should fire Twill.
Good. Its nice to have a debate. Still, at the moment I havent heard a single decent reason why he should remain de facto in charge.
Well then here's my reason:
Apart from one single silly incident, I have had almost nothing to do with Twill at all. I have seen the site improved over the year or so since my joining (including the controversial recent forum overhaul) and I do not foresee a troll invasion in the near future - and I have pretty damn good precognitive foresight.
That's why. The time for judging is in fact now. With Twill on his own, his time to prove himself has come.
Victrix Fortuna Sapientia
-
Minister Masket
- Posts: 4882
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:24 pm
- Location: On The Brink
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by jermoosalem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:05 pm
having read through the forums, it seems the appropriate response would be to discover twill's real identity, then show footage of him being tied to the bumper of a car and driven through some stuff. everybody wins.
-
jermoosalem
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:53 am
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by danodukebb on Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:53 pm
definetly, i had a problem the other day where someone blatenty did some stuff against the rules, and normally i dont care about stuff like that but when it involves me i do, and i notified twill and he didnt do shit about it
-
danodukebb
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:57 pm
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by Matroshka on Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:59 pm
danodukebb wrote:definetly, i had a problem the other day where someone blatenty did some stuff against the rules, and normally i dont care about stuff like that but when it involves me i do, and i notified twill and he didnt do shit about it
Maybe he is busy?
-
Matroshka
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 4:26 pm
- Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by whitestazn88 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:05 pm
maybe they should just shut down the site...
-
whitestazn88
- Posts: 3128
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:59 pm
- Location: behind you
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by InkL0sed on Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:01 pm
whitestazn88 wrote:maybe they should just shut down the site...
Thank god you aren't in charge of it...
-
InkL0sed
- Posts: 2370
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
- Location: underwater
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by Blitzaholic on Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:28 pm
wicked wrote:this thread needs a pole!
you need some panties on there maybe
-
Blitzaholic
- Posts: 23050
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:57 pm
- Location: Apocalyptic Area
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by The Chosen One on Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:12 pm
TWILL and Lack this is taken directly from an explanation of a ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court on what constitutes a volunteer vs an employee. In this specific case it was Campground Hosts, but this ruling has been used as the "gold standard" in all aspects of labor and business as well IN CANADA. According to NAFTA (you know that North American Free Trade Agreement thing), you are bound by this law with ALL your "volunteer workers' whether they be Canadian citizens or not. You might want to read this carefully and rethink your positions on how you've treated/responded to this situation with wicked. Believe it or not I don't give a damn how you run your business, but when you screw around with a person who is recovering from a hopefully short term disability and hide behind your definition of volunteer ... well that pisses the ADVOCATE in me off. Twill keep adopting the condescending attitude and I'll keep bombarding you with the possible legal consequences of that attitude. TCO
Volunteer or Employee? Complications of Bartering for Labour
Public and private RV park and campground operators often rely on the assistance provided by volunteers as an affordable means of providing better service to campers. Such volunteer positions are sometimes referred to as “Hosts”.
Generally, a Host is an unpaid volunteer position that requires the individual to greet and provide information to campers, as well as perform other tasks around the campgrounds, in exchange for a free campsite, often with water, utility and sewer hookups.
Such arrangements can be mutually beneficial and proceed into without any negative consequences. However, hospitality employers should be aware that there are some important pitfalls and potential liabilities that may arise from such “volunteer” relationships.
The main concerns in this respect arise from treating Hosts as “volunteers”, rather than “employees” or “workers”, in light of the requirements under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) and the Workers Compensation Act (WCA).
Employee or Volunteer Under the ESA?
There is no specific prohibition in the ESA with respect to the use of volunteers. However, the ESA is designed to protect employees’ rights and, as such, decision-makers, including the courts, have stated that the ESA’s provisions should be interpreted and applied in a broad and liberal manner in order to afford the protection of the statute to the widest possible group of individuals. Indeed, the definitions of “employee”, “employer” and “work” under the ESA are exceptionally broad and are designed to be very inclusive. In short, these definitions are as follows:
• an “employee” includes a person an employer allows, directly or indirectly, to perform work normally performed by an employee;
• an “employer” includes a person who has or had control or direction of an employee; and,
• “work” means labour or services an employee performs for an employer.
In light of these definitions, depending on a Host’s day-to-day duties and surrounding circumstances, the risk is that the “volunteer” might actually be deemed to be an employee. The typical duties and “work” environment of Hosts vary, but Hosts are often required to:
• collect camping fees from campers;
• pick up litter, clean restrooms and generally maintain campsites;
• look after fire pits and maintain firewood inventory;
• act as safety or security guards;
• work a minimum number of hours per day and/or days per week;
• stay at the campground overnight;
• commit to the Host position for a minimum duration (e.g., a two-week, or one-month stay); and,
• in some cases, work along-side other individuals who are paid employees of the campground operator and who perform services which are similar to those provided by the Host.
When the Host position includes most or all of these features, the Host is more likely than not to be viewed as an “employee” rather than a volunteer, regardless of the arrangement between the Host and the campground operator or their original intentions in this respect.
Of course, the main concern is that the Host, who has occupied the position as an unpaid volunteer, may be able to later claim that he/she was actually an employee and is therefore entitled to be paid wages for all the time they have worked. Thus, the campground operator could be liable for back-wages, as well as interest and administrative penalties.
What about bartering one’s services for a free campsite?
The fact that the Host had agreed to “barter” his/her services in return for a free campsite and/or other items of value will be of no consequence to the Employment Standards Tribunal. In several cases, the Tribunal has stated that such “barter arrangements” are to be given no effect due to the operation of section 4 of the ESA, which provides that the requirements of the Act are minimum requirements which may not be waived, even by agreement between the parties.
Isn’t there an exception under the ESA that might apply to Hosts?
There is no general exception under the ESA that would apply to Hosts.
However, it is interesting to note that some exceptions do exist. For example, the position of “live-in camp leader” is exempt from the minimum wage and hours of work requirements under the ESA. A live-in camp leader is defined as an individual employed by a charity, at a seasonal camp for persons under 19 years of age, to provide instruction and counselling to campers on a 24 hour per day, live-in basis, without being charged for room and board. Rather than being entitled to minimum wages, per se, such camp leaders are entitled to minimum payment of $64 for each day or part day worked. There is no such “exception” for the position of Host.
So, does the ESA allow for volunteer Hosts?
As noted above, the ESA does not prohibit the use of volunteer Hosts or otherwise presume that any person who renders services in the nature of work must be an employee. However, campground operators, and employers generally, must take great caution in the manner in which they engage volunteers to perform services so as to avoid potential liability for unpaid wages.
In order to reduce the likelihood that a volunteer Host could be deemed to be an employee, the terms of the volunteer arrangement should adhere, to the greatest extent possible, to the following guidelines. A volunteer Host should be:
• engaged with clear notice that Host position is an unpaid, volunteer opportunity and that Host should have no expectation of payment for any services rendered;
• permitted to chose the hours during which he/she will provide services, including how many total hours of service will be provided on any given day or week;
• permitted to leave the site at any time;
• responsible for duties that are not similar to those of paid employees working at the same site; and,
• should not be promised any future employment, gain or possible of financial reward.
If the operational requirements of the campground are such that these guidelines cannot be followed, it may be preferable to simply engage the Host as a temporary, part-time employee in accordance with the ESA.
“Worker” or Volunteer Under the WCA?
Like the ESA, there is no specific prohibition in the WCA with respect to the use of volunteers. However, the WCA specifically excludes volunteers from coverage under the Act, raising liability concerns in the event that a Host is injured in the course of performing services.
The WCA applies, generally, to all “workers”. The term “worker” is defined broadly and includes virtually any individual who is paid for services rendered and does not employ other individuals. However, the WorksafeBC Assessment Manual confirms that “volunteers or other persons not receiving payment for their services are generally not workers”.
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Decisions have confirmed that “non-cash payments” may, in some cases, constitute remuneration sufficient to make a person a “worker” under the Act. However, in at least one case, the Appeal Division of WorkSafeBC found that providing food and a place to live was insufficient remuneration or consideration to turn a volunteer arrangement into an employment relationship for the purposes of the Act. Nevertheless, in each case, WorkSafeBC will review the specific circumstances of the relationship and seek to distinguish between voluntary acts and employment on the basis of the nature of the activity and the resulting legal relationship, rather than the motive or purpose of the employer. The concern is that, if a Host is deemed to be a volunteer and therefore not covered under the WCA, then that Host retains the right to sue the campground operator for any injuries suffered in the course of volunteering. This should be contrasted with the rights of a worker under the workers’ compensation system in which that worker gives up the right to sue and, in return, obtains the right to benefits under the Act.
Therefore, campground operators, and employers in general, who use volunteers should carefully review their liability insurance coverage in order to determine if there is satisfactory coverage for volunteers. In particular, careful attention should be paid to any exclusions to such coverage and, specifically, whether the coverage still applies if an event occurs during a period of time that the Host is performing a service for the campground. In the alternative, in the event that a Host is engaged as a paid employee (i.e., a “worker” under the WCA) the employer must register with WorkSafeBC for insurance coverage for that employee.
Volunteer or Employee? Complications of Bartering for Labour
Public and private RV park and campground operators often rely on the assistance provided by volunteers as an affordable means of providing better service to campers. Such volunteer positions are sometimes referred to as “Hosts”.
Generally, a Host is an unpaid volunteer position that requires the individual to greet and provide information to campers, as well as perform other tasks around the campgrounds, in exchange for a free campsite, often with water, utility and sewer hookups.
Such arrangements can be mutually beneficial and proceed into without any negative consequences. However, hospitality employers should be aware that there are some important pitfalls and potential liabilities that may arise from such “volunteer” relationships.
The main concerns in this respect arise from treating Hosts as “volunteers”, rather than “employees” or “workers”, in light of the requirements under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) and the Workers Compensation Act (WCA).
Employee or Volunteer Under the ESA?
There is no specific prohibition in the ESA with respect to the use of volunteers. However, the ESA is designed to protect employees’ rights and, as such, decision-makers, including the courts, have stated that the ESA’s provisions should be interpreted and applied in a broad and liberal manner in order to afford the protection of the statute to the widest possible group of individuals. Indeed, the definitions of “employee”, “employer” and “work” under the ESA are exceptionally broad and are designed to be very inclusive. In short, these definitions are as follows:
• an “employee” includes a person an employer allows, directly or indirectly, to perform work normally performed by an employee;
• an “employer” includes a person who has or had control or direction of an employee; and,
• “work” means labour or services an employee performs for an employer.
In light of these definitions, depending on a Host’s day-to-day duties and surrounding circumstances, the risk is that the “volunteer” might actually be deemed to be an employee. The typical duties and “work” environment of Hosts vary, but Hosts are often required to:
• collect camping fees from campers;
• pick up litter, clean restrooms and generally maintain campsites;
• look after fire pits and maintain firewood inventory;
• act as safety or security guards;
• work a minimum number of hours per day and/or days per week;
• stay at the campground overnight;
• commit to the Host position for a minimum duration (e.g., a two-week, or one-month stay); and,
• in some cases, work along-side other individuals who are paid employees of the campground operator and who perform services which are similar to those provided by the Host.
When the Host position includes most or all of these features, the Host is more likely than not to be viewed as an “employee” rather than a volunteer, regardless of the arrangement between the Host and the campground operator or their original intentions in this respect.
Of course, the main concern is that the Host, who has occupied the position as an unpaid volunteer, may be able to later claim that he/she was actually an employee and is therefore entitled to be paid wages for all the time they have worked. Thus, the campground operator could be liable for back-wages, as well as interest and administrative penalties.
What about bartering one’s services for a free campsite?
The fact that the Host had agreed to “barter” his/her services in return for a free campsite and/or other items of value will be of no consequence to the Employment Standards Tribunal. In several cases, the Tribunal has stated that such “barter arrangements” are to be given no effect due to the operation of section 4 of the ESA, which provides that the requirements of the Act are minimum requirements which may not be waived, even by agreement between the parties.
Isn’t there an exception under the ESA that might apply to Hosts?
There is no general exception under the ESA that would apply to Hosts.
However, it is interesting to note that some exceptions do exist. For example, the position of “live-in camp leader” is exempt from the minimum wage and hours of work requirements under the ESA. A live-in camp leader is defined as an individual employed by a charity, at a seasonal camp for persons under 19 years of age, to provide instruction and counselling to campers on a 24 hour per day, live-in basis, without being charged for room and board. Rather than being entitled to minimum wages, per se, such camp leaders are entitled to minimum payment of $64 for each day or part day worked. There is no such “exception” for the position of Host.
So, does the ESA allow for volunteer Hosts?
As noted above, the ESA does not prohibit the use of volunteer Hosts or otherwise presume that any person who renders services in the nature of work must be an employee. However, campground operators, and employers generally, must take great caution in the manner in which they engage volunteers to perform services so as to avoid potential liability for unpaid wages.
In order to reduce the likelihood that a volunteer Host could be deemed to be an employee, the terms of the volunteer arrangement should adhere, to the greatest extent possible, to the following guidelines. A volunteer Host should be:
• engaged with clear notice that Host position is an unpaid, volunteer opportunity and that Host should have no expectation of payment for any services rendered;
• permitted to chose the hours during which he/she will provide services, including how many total hours of service will be provided on any given day or week;
• permitted to leave the site at any time;
• responsible for duties that are not similar to those of paid employees working at the same site; and,
• should not be promised any future employment, gain or possible of financial reward.
If the operational requirements of the campground are such that these guidelines cannot be followed, it may be preferable to simply engage the Host as a temporary, part-time employee in accordance with the ESA.
“Worker” or Volunteer Under the WCA?
Like the ESA, there is no specific prohibition in the WCA with respect to the use of volunteers. However, the WCA specifically excludes volunteers from coverage under the Act, raising liability concerns in the event that a Host is injured in the course of performing services.
The WCA applies, generally, to all “workers”. The term “worker” is defined broadly and includes virtually any individual who is paid for services rendered and does not employ other individuals. However, the WorksafeBC Assessment Manual confirms that “volunteers or other persons not receiving payment for their services are generally not workers”.
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Decisions have confirmed that “non-cash payments” may, in some cases, constitute remuneration sufficient to make a person a “worker” under the Act. However, in at least one case, the Appeal Division of WorkSafeBC found that providing food and a place to live was insufficient remuneration or consideration to turn a volunteer arrangement into an employment relationship for the purposes of the Act. Nevertheless, in each case, WorkSafeBC will review the specific circumstances of the relationship and seek to distinguish between voluntary acts and employment on the basis of the nature of the activity and the resulting legal relationship, rather than the motive or purpose of the employer. The concern is that, if a Host is deemed to be a volunteer and therefore not covered under the WCA, then that Host retains the right to sue the campground operator for any injuries suffered in the course of volunteering. This should be contrasted with the rights of a worker under the workers’ compensation system in which that worker gives up the right to sue and, in return, obtains the right to benefits under the Act.
Therefore, campground operators, and employers in general, who use volunteers should carefully review their liability insurance coverage in order to determine if there is satisfactory coverage for volunteers. In particular, careful attention should be paid to any exclusions to such coverage and, specifically, whether the coverage still applies if an event occurs during a period of time that the Host is performing a service for the campground. In the alternative, in the event that a Host is engaged as a paid employee (i.e., a “worker” under the WCA) the employer must register with WorkSafeBC for insurance coverage for that employee.
Don't take life so seriously...nobody gets out alive.
Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light
Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light
-
The Chosen One
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:32 pm
- Location: The Outer Limits
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by RashidJelzin on Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:22 pm
danodukebb wrote:definetly, i had a problem the other day where someone blatenty did some stuff against the rules, and normally i dont care about stuff like that but when it involves me i do, and i notified twill and he didnt do shit about it
Dude- the only word anywhere close to specific in your post is "definitely".
The rest is pure garbage-- "the other day" he did "some stuff against the rules" but "i dont care about stuff like that".
If you want to judge someone for their behaviour, try to come up with something that makes sense... or has a point in being written... if not;
Your post = FAIL
When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself. - Peter OToole
-
RashidJelzin
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:35 pm
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by jiminski on Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:25 pm
wicked wrote:this thread needs a pole!
-
jiminski
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
- Location: London
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by Neoteny on Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:32 pm
La Revolucion?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
-
Neoteny
- Posts: 3396
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by DaGip on Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:30 pm
Neoteny wrote:La Revolucion?
FREE XTRA! FIRE TWILL!
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
-
DaGip
- Posts: 4047
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:48 am
- Location: Watertown, South Dakota
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by wicked on Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:34 pm
Xtra and Norse for mods! Dancing Mustard for Admin! 
-
wicked
- Posts: 15787
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:23 pm
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by Incandenza on Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:35 pm
wicked wrote:Xtra and Norse for mods! Dancing Mustard for Admin!
Oh my dear sweet creeping jesus please no. That would be like lack turning over the site to benjij.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM
Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
-
Incandenza
- Posts: 4949
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
- Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by DaGip on Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:40 pm
wicked wrote:Xtra and Norse for mods! Dancing Mustard for Admin!
Xtra and Dancing Mustard...but Norse can jump off a cliff!
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
-
DaGip
- Posts: 4047
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:48 am
- Location: Watertown, South Dakota
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by MOBAJOBG on Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:13 pm
Twill has made a number of forum improvements and I approve of his work. As far as I can see, Twill has done wonders in the areas which lackattack neglects. So, in other words the three CC's admins are The Three Musketeers.
Why should lackattack fire Twill for no apparent reason other than stripping wicked's moderator access completely?
Why should lackattack fire Twill for no apparent reason other than stripping wicked's moderator access completely?
-
MOBAJOBG
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:18 am
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by jbrettlip on Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:17 pm
This is dumber than Canadian Labor Law....awww those Canadians....they are so cute when they think they are a real country.
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
-
jbrettlip
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:30 pm
- Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by DaGip on Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:20 pm
jbrettlip wrote:This is dumber than Canadian Labor Law....awww those Canadians....they are so cute when they think they are a real country.
I like Canada...they are shipping us back all the Army deserters!
And I don't care if Lack fires Twill or not, I just want to see Xtra come back. FREE XTRA!
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
-
DaGip
- Posts: 4047
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:48 am
- Location: Watertown, South Dakota
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by Soloman on Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:40 pm
personally I have had a number of issues with Twill as of late, he seems to redefine and create new unwritten rules to make himself right at random for any position. In defending a newer MOd who was blatantly over stepping and stalking me he said I have no right to tell them to leave me alone even if I have done nothing wrong. He even went further as to redefine what a thread hijack consists of, His new definition is if you disprove or argue more then once against you are guilty of hijacking. SO I am all for his firing, the dude is a power tripping fruit case that is not grounded in reality...
You Have 2 choices,You can either Agree With Me or Be Wrong!!! http://www.myspace.com/solomanthewise http://360.yahoo.com/bolar35
-
Soloman
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:35 pm
- Location: The dirty south
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by wicked on Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:43 pm
Soloman wrote:the dude is a power tripping fruit case that is not grounded in reality...
damn you all, I'm running out of room in my sig!
-
wicked
- Posts: 15787
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:23 pm
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by suggs on Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:50 am
Sue Lack. Bleed him, destroy him. Not a flame because i am sure he is a very nice chap -but he needs to be destroyed for the way he has abondoned this site to the petty whims and jealousies of Twill.
Sue Lack.
Sue Lack.
-
suggs
- Posts: 4015
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:16 pm
- Location: At the end of the beginning...
Re: SHOULD LACK FIRE TWILL?
by InkL0sed on Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:25 am
wicked wrote:Soloman wrote:the dude is a power tripping fruit case that is not grounded in reality...
damn you all, I'm running out of room in my sig!
Don't quote Soloman...
-
InkL0sed
- Posts: 2370
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
- Location: underwater
82 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
|
|||||||
| Conquer Club is not associated with RISK online in any way. Copyright © 2006-2025 by Big Wham LLC | |||||||
