Originally posted by FMFAnd why is that?
As I said, we disagree over the issue of constructive dismissal. As far as I am concerned, a constructive dismissal case that has any chance of getting through the courts would be one that involves 'force' and 'fraud', albeit perhaps not according to your definitions of 'force' and 'fraud'. "Saying mean things" and "ridiculous hint, hint processes" sound like fr ...[text shortened]... ut I do understand why you want to trivialize the concept of constructive dismissal.
Originally posted by WajomaWhy is what? Why do I think you want to trivialize the concept of constructive dismissal?
And why is that?
Because I think you only want to endorse proscriptions [that do not conform purely to the force/fraud thing] that you choose to endorse; not proscriptions that others endorse that also deviate from a pure take on the force/fraud thing. That's why it comes down to definitions.