WHY DO WE HAVE FALSE STATEMENTS IN OUR PROVINCIAL LAWS?

WHAT OTHER “LAWS” DO WE HAVE IN ONTARIO THAT ARE LIES?

HOW CAN SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL ISSUE BE COMPLETELY IGNORED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS?

WHAT ARE THE PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS?

NO ONE, AND I MEAN NO ONE, NOT NORTEL EXECUTIVES NOR HR, NOT A JUDGE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO, NOT THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, NOR ANY SINGLE LAWYER OF THE HUNDREDS ON THE NORTEL CASE FOR ALL PARTIES, NO ONE ON THIS BLOG, NOTHING IN THE MONITOR'S REPORT, NO STATEMENTS FROM THE COURTS, NO NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE, NO WEBSITE THAT I CAN FIND, NO COLLEAGUE OR FRIEND, NO ONE, HAS ANSWERED THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION!

HERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE ONTARIO WEB SITE:
An employee is not entitled to severance pay if he or she:
• has refused an offer of “reasonable alternative employment” with the employer;
• has refused “reasonable alternative employment” that is available to the employee through a seniority system;
• is severed and retires on a full pension (not including Canada Pension Plan benefits);
• has his or her employment severed because of a strike, as long as the employer can show that the economic effects of the strike caused the closing of part or all of the business;
• is employed in construction, including employees who are working off-site and who are commonly associated in work or collective bargaining with employees who work at the construction site;
• is employed in the on-site maintenance of buildings, structures, roads, sewers, pipelines, mains, tunnels or other works;
• is free to choose whether or not to work when the employer offers him or her work, and the employee is able to refuse work when it is offered, without penalty;
• is guilty of wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and was not condoned by the employer; or
• has lost his or her employment because the contract of employment is impossible to perform or has been frustrated by an unexpected or unforeseen event or circumstance. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE BANKRUPTCY OR INSOLVENCY or when the contract is frustrated or impossible to perform as the result of an injury or illness suffered by an employee.

WHY DO WE HAVE FALSE STATEMENTS IN OUR PROVINCIAL LAWS?

WHAT OTHER “LAWS” DO WE HAVE IN ONTARIO THAT ARE LIES?

HOW CAN SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL ISSUE BE COMPLETELY IGNORED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS?

WHAT ARE THE PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS?

NO ONE, AND I MEAN NO ONE, NOT NORTEL EXECUTIVES NOR HR, NOT A JUDGE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO, NOT THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, NOR ANY SINGLE LAWYER OF THE HUNDREDS ON THE NORTEL CASE FOR ALL PARTIES, NO ONE ON THIS BLOG, NOTHING IN THE MONITOR'S REPORT, NO STATEMENTS FROM THE COURTS, NO NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE, NO WEBSITE THAT I CAN FIND, NO COLLEAGUE OR FRIEND, NO ONE, HAS ANSWERED THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION!

HERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE ONTARIO WEB SITE:
An employee is not entitled to severance pay if he or she:
• has refused an offer of “reasonable alternative employment” with the employer;
• has refused “reasonable alternative employment” that is available to the employee through a seniority system;
• is severed and retires on a full pension (not including Canada Pension Plan benefits);
• has his or her employment severed because of a strike, as long as the employer can show that the economic effects of the strike caused the closing of part or all of the business;
• is employed in construction, including employees who are working off-site and who are commonly associated in work or collective bargaining with employees who work at the construction site;
• is employed in the on-site maintenance of buildings, structures, roads, sewers, pipelines, mains, tunnels or other works;
• is free to choose whether or not to work when the employer offers him or her work, and the employee is able to refuse work when it is offered, without penalty;
• is guilty of wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and was not condoned by the employer; or
• has lost his or her employment because the contract of employment is impossible to perform or has been frustrated by an unexpected or unforeseen event or circumstance. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE BANKRUPTCY OR INSOLVENCY or when the contract is frustrated or impossible to perform as the result of an injury or illness suffered by an employee.

It is certainly true that Nortel was on a path to oblivion when MikeZ took over. The problem is MikeZ did absolutely nothing.

Nortel's business 'strategy' of doing everything telecom without regard to whether they could do it well or profitably needed to end. The company needed to focus.

It is impossible to know if the Garys' plan would have work but it was the right sort of idea. It was presented to the board and they said no. That was the end of Nortel.

Tactically Nortel's middle management and 'business' 'leaders' are a mess, they are generally clueless, are heavily incentified to empire build and wouldn't know a decision if it bit them in the butt.

Again tough but fixable.

Nortel could have been a sound business by 2010 (when its next major bonds come do) and sound business will be able to borrow money.

Also Cisco is a major competitor – absolutely in enterprise. And Cisco has substantial carrier 'mindshare' both in data and next-gen network evolution (e.g. they are the main driver of SIP) – two areas of increasing significance.

Big 'atta-boy to Dalton for all his hard work and dedication to the people of Ontario.

So they are also going to change the law to cover their butts and prevent the hugh law suites to will likely follow.

So did you expect Mike to say Nortel wasn't salvagable ? The handwriting was already on the wall when he took over given the macro issues that were about to unfold in 2007 and 2008.

I kept saying “Nortel can't keep going this way if Mike won't change things”, not: “Nortel cannot survive the secular bear brought about by ancient greed”

Mike himself said he would fix Nortel, Now its clear what he meant by that.

To my recollection, Owens etc. made no such promises. Has MIke yet admitted he erred, has he conceded defeat? Hell. no. He's milking Nortel's last weathered teet dry.

Lastly, its Nortel – i.e. Mike – that insists comparing itself fo Cisco; I keep comparing it to Radio Shack (with apologies to Radio Shack).

Honestly, what do you think folks would say if Cisco decided to throw some money at OLTPC?

Regarding $hit happens, what if Nortel had kept getting more credit had this credit bubble not collapsed? They would still be living on a hand to mouth existence rather than going into Chapter 11 and pretending that all was well.

And quit putting Cisco up as Nortel's chief competitor. Cisco still gets most of its revenue from the enterprise and NOT telecom/carrier/wireless/optical. Cisco failed in these segments with some acquisitons they made in 2000 and has never seriously threatened anyone in these segments.