appeal to denial of unemployment compensation
Silence DoGood
ref: Section 207.044 of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act
I am inquiring about "qualifying reasons" for denial of unemployment
compensation.
Do all states require a "Determination of Potential Chargeback for the
Employer" as part of evaluating a claim?
I've heard that a person who is getting unemployment insurance is not
required to accept a job of lower status and/or compensation than the
job that was terminated. Is (or was) this true?
In a related situation, is an employee legally insubordinate if s/he
refuses to accept a demotion?
Should the officials rendering a decision have any responsibility to
consider the money-saving motivation of a former employer, or his/her
potential inability to distinguish any answer not liked as a
"qualifying reason"?
Wouldn't some level of Federal Law apply here? Would it require states
to do more than accept an employer's motivated statement of
insubordination?
Does an owner have authority to maintain a secret organizational
structure and then apply it to someone who didn't know about it?
Deadrat
45b8-9085-c...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> topic: appeal to denial of unemployment compensation
>
> ref: Section 207.044 of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act
>
> I am inquiring about "qualifying reasons" for denial of unemployment
> compensation.
>
> Do all states require a "Determination of Potential Chargeback for the
> Employer" as part of evaluating a claim?
>
> I've heard that a person who is getting unemployment insurance is not
> required to accept a job of lower status and/or compensation than the
> job that was terminated. Is (or was) this true?
>
> In a related situation, is an employee legally insubordinate if s/he
> refuses to accept a demotion?
In the case of non-military employers, I don't think insubordination is a
legal issue. Absent a contract, your employer is free to demote you in a
nondiscriminatory way.
>
> Should the officials rendering a decision have any responsibility to
> consider the money-saving motivation of a former employer, or his/her
> potential inability to distinguish any answer not liked as a
> "qualifying reason"?
Could you rephrase this question? Whose inability?
> Wouldn't some level of Federal Law apply here?
Why?
> Would it require states
> to do more than accept an employer's motivated statement of
> insubordination?
The general rule is that you can get unemployment if you leave for "good
cause," defined roughly as the leaving of a job for a reasonable reason
by a reasonable employee who otherwise wanted to remain reasonably
employed.
> Does an owner have authority to maintain a secret organizational
> structure and then apply it to someone who didn't know about it?
Absent a contract, of course. But if an employer is manipulating job
descriptions and salary levels to get someone to quit, the folks at the
unemployment office may well decide that the employee left through no
fault of his own.
Robert Bonomi
Silence DoGood <Silence...@angelic.com> wrote:
>topic: appeal to denial of unemployment compensation
>
>ref: Section 207.044 of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act
>
>I am inquiring about "qualifying reasons" for denial of unemployment
>compensation.
>
>Do all states require a "Determination of Potential Chargeback for the
>Employer" as part of evaluating a claim?
Relevance of that question to a Texas claim?
Note: You have to have -paid into- the system to be eligible for benefits
from it.
>I've heard that a person who is getting unemployment insurance is not
>required to accept a job of lower status and/or compensation than the
>job that was terminated. Is (or was) this true?
No. It was _never_ true.
>In a related situation, is an employee legally insubordinate if s/he
>refuses to accept a demotion?
Probably not. *BUT* if they refuse the demotion, then it is a *VOLUNTARY*
exit from employment at that company, and _that_ is an entirely different
situation as far as unemployment compensation is concerned.
In many jurisdictions, leaving voluntarily is treated similarly to being
dismissed 'for cause'.
>Should the officials rendering a decision have any responsibility to
>consider the money-saving motivation of a former employer,
No.
> or his/her
>potential inability to distinguish any answer not liked as a
>"qualifying reason"?
>
>Wouldn't some level of Federal Law apply here?
yes.
> Would it require states
>to do more than accept an employer's motivated statement of
>insubordination?
no.
>Does an owner have authority to maintain a secret organizational
>structure and then apply it to someone who didn't know about it?
Unless you can show a law that states that they cannot do so, the answer
is 'yes'. It's their company, they _can_ run it 'however they d*mn
well please', subject only to the restrictions in law.
Is it 'fair', to do so? Obviously, not. But *NOTHING* guarantees you that
the world is fair.
Generally such a situation is 'self-rectifying', in that if the employer
gets a reputation for such things, they will find it increasingly hard to
find people willing to work for them -- unless and until they change those
practices, and _publicly_ acknowledge the the changes.
grendal
> topic: appeal to denial of unemployment compensation
>
> ref: Section 207.044 of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act
>
> I am inquiring about "qualifying reasons" for denial of unemployment
> compensation.
>
> Do all states require a "Determination of Potential Chargeback for the
> Employer" as part of evaluating a claim?
>
> I've heard that a person who is getting unemployment insurance is not
> required to accept a job of lower status and/or compensation than the
> job that was terminated. Is (or was) this true?
>
First, I'm not sure what you mean by 'getting unemployment insurance'.
Do you mean to say that the person was an employee who is now
terminated?
The short answer is '... it depends.'.
Location?
Why was the employee presented with the offer of a lower status/
compensation terminated?
Also what do you mean by lower status?
I can give you an example where an employee keeps the salary but loses
status. If they refuse to take the job, then yes, they could be
terminated.
In IBM, managers can lose their direct reports, lose the title manager
and be shifted in to the role of a regular/non-manager employee. This
can be for a couple of reasons, all legitimate. If the employee
doesn't want to be moved in to a non-manager role, they can be given a
'package' and shown the door, or they could quit.
If there is cause, they could be shown the door with no package.
A lot of times, senior managers who know that they are on 'thin ice'
will take a leave of absence for a couple of years, and then come
back. There they don't have any black marks on their performance and
they are not demoted. They just have to keep a good network in place
and wait until people forget about why a group missed their sales
targets.
So insubordination because you've been removed from a manager's
position is no excuse.
Of course location is important. Many states are 'at will employment'
so you can be let go for any reason. With respect to unemployment
benefits, the employer has a right to challenge the payout of benefits
since it effects their contribution rates.
Also you have to be specific to the job/role the ex-employee filled.
Was there collective bargaining in place or an employment contract?
> Should the officials rendering a decision have any responsibility to
> consider the money-saving motivation of a former employer, or his/her
> potential inability to distinguish any answer not liked as a
> "qualifying reason"?
>
Define what you mean by 'money-saving' motivation?
Do you mean that there was a slump in sales, so they shut down
production and let people go?
Do you mean that they hired a guy half his age to take his job since
the younger guy was less expensive?
Do you mean that they guy was let go because they out sourced and off
shored his job to India/China/Croatia/Viet Nam <Insert your favorite
3rd world nation here> ?
In those examples, only the case where they replaced the employee only
because the younger person cost less, would their actions be deemed
'illegal'. That's called age discrimination. But the burden of proof
is on the employee to back up his claim of discrimination.
In today's world, you could also have another form of discrimination,
I don't know if there's a name for it yet, where they let employees
who have raised an employer's health insurance premiums because of a
lot of claims on either themselves or their families.
> Does an owner have authority to maintain a secret organizational
> structure and then apply it to someone who didn't know about it?
You'll have to give an example of what you mean by a 'sekret'
organizational structure?
Sorry, but you're sounding paranoid.
Here's the rub. Outside of the employee and the employment benefits
organization, a company has an obligation to protect the privacy of
the employee and the reasons why they were let go.
I'll give you an example.
Johnny fails his drug test. He's fired. The company can't say any
reason why he was let go other than his employment ended on such and
such a date. Johnny can say anything he wants and the company has to
remain quiet. If Johnny files for unemployment benefits, then the
company can tell the agency the reason for termination. But they can't
tell a prospective employer about Johnny's drug problem.
Betty is a manager at a company. Her personality and management style
clashes with the corporate culture. Her direct reports all want to
move to other groups than to deal with Betty. Betty is demoted from
manager, at the same salary. She refuses to take the new job. She's
then terminated. She claims that she was removed because there was a
sekret management cabal.
Georgia was a line supervisor. The company had a reduction in sales
and had to reduce capacity. They shut down Sue's line and transferred
Sue to Georgia's role. Georgia was demoted. She didn't want to take
the demotion, became insubordinate and was terminated. Georgia claimed
that there's a sekret organization that forced her out.
In these situations, the employee can think of things to convince
themselves that they did nothing wrong and they were let go because of
something else.
Johnny lost his job because he failed the company's anti-drug policy.
Betty lost her job because her role as a manager was hurting the
team's morale and causing issues with her direct reports and peers.
Georgia lost her job because the company felt that Sue was a better
fit for the position. It could be that Sue got higher performance
marks, Georgia doesn't know because she's a peer and doesn't see the
employee files. It could be that Sue was sleeping with the boss, but
nobody knows. The point is that it doesn't matter and any claim that
there was a sekret management organization and that they forced her
out isn't going to fly unless Georgia can show that such an
organization exists.
I guess the point is that if you're the employee and your unemployment
benefits are being challenged, you had better have evidence to back up
your claims...
Roy
> In article <cfe7a47f-c41e-45b8...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> Silence DoGood <Silence...@angelic.com> wrote:
>> topic: appeal to denial of unemployment compensation
>>
>> ref: Section 207.044 of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act
>>
>> I am inquiring about "qualifying reasons" for denial of unemployment
>> compensation.
>>
>> Do all states require a "Determination of Potential Chargeback for the
>> Employer" as part of evaluating a claim?
>
> Relevance of that question to a Texas claim?
>
> Note: You have to have -paid into- the system to be eligible for benefits
> from it.
>
>> I've heard that a person who is getting unemployment insurance is not
>> required to accept a job of lower status and/or compensation than the
>> job that was terminated. Is (or was) this true?
>
> No. It was _never_ true.
>
>
>> In a related situation, is an employee legally insubordinate if s/he
>> refuses to accept a demotion?
>
> Probably not. *BUT* if they refuse the demotion, then it is a *VOLUNTARY*
> exit from employment at that company, and _that_ is an entirely different
> situation as far as unemployment compensation is concerned.
>
In many states, if you are removed from a position and offered one that
is substantially different, its a layoff and eligible for UI.
It would be sham if an employer could avoid paying the state part of the
employee's UI benefit by simply saying "we offered him a job as a
janitor".
Most states allow people to qualify for UI for a substantial reduction
in pay. As I remember 10-15% reduction seems to be the tipping point in
California
The big legal case that matters is
Bunny's Waffle Shop v. California Employment Commission
Here is a web site to start your own search
http://www.justanswer.com/questions/1t7bn-court-hearing-unemployment
Silence DoGood
> The general rule is ...
Where can I find the general rules, and hopefully the exceptions too?
Gordon Burditt
>>required to accept a job of lower status and/or compensation than the
>>job that was terminated. Is (or was) this true?
>
>No. It was _never_ true.
You aren't required to accept a job below some percentage of your
previous pay. After you've been unemployed for a while, that
percentage gets lower (State of Texas).
>>In a related situation, is an employee legally insubordinate if s/he
>>refuses to accept a demotion?
>
>Probably not. *BUT* if they refuse the demotion, then it is a *VOLUNTARY*
>exit from employment at that company, and _that_ is an entirely different
>situation as far as unemployment compensation is concerned.
>
>In many jurisdictions, leaving voluntarily is treated similarly to being
>dismissed 'for cause'.
Normally, leaving voluntarily means no unemployment benefits.
If you quit for "good cause", you can still qualify for unemployment
benefits. According to the Texas Workforce Commission website,
this can include:
- unsafe working conditions
- significant change in hiring agreement
- not receiving pay
I'd guess that a 50% cut in hours, or a 50% cut in salary, qualifies.
A 5% cut in salary wouldn't. A pay cut for disciplinary reasons may
not qualify unless it's really significant.
Silence DoGood
>
> > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Would it require states
> >to do more than accept an employer's motivated statement of
> >insubordination?
>
> no.
>
I would think that has to be a recent change because what I read
suggests that an out-of-work applicant would have to be guilty of
verifiable *misconduct* in order to be properly denied unemployment
compensation if otherwise qualified.
What I am reading in these postings suggest that any employee who
accepts an "at will" position, is, in effect, pre-agreeing not to
oppose a claim of misconduct, and that if an employer sets up a winner-
gets-to-keep-her-job contest, with or without informing gladiators,
that the loser is retroactively determined to have been
"insubordinate" and in addition to the financial and emotional hurt is
retroactively determined to have been dissmissed for "cause", which,
according to what we read here, is verified by an employer's motivated
statement with no need to even allege, much less prove, any manner of
harm or intended harm by the ex-employee.
General advise to "follow the money" seems quite appropriate here.
I've never understood if the insurance is for the employee, then why
is the employer paying for it? Clearly the employers have a collective
interest in limiting their contributions by limiting payouts by any
means possible. Government employees are under oath to obey the law,
but it would seem to me that they will not wish to be caught with an
empty fund.
Why are assessments made after-the-termination? Is this insurance at
all or has it been reduced to voluntary charity of the former employer
and keeper of state funds?
Can somebody lead me to the federal law? This is serious because the
state will not provide reference which leads me to suspect they know
they may be in controversy if not outright violation of federal law.
On the other hand, what I see says the states are allowed to add to
federal requirements which could mean that states, without fanfare,
could change policy if the new policy meets federal guidelines, and
they would, of course, have no interest in anyone asking those
questions.
On yet another level, it seems the initial determination is made over
the phone at your "local telecenter". The state is balking at
disclosing where these are located. The suspicion is strong that
people with absolutely no qualifications to do an investigation are
being hired because, simply, their only job is to just say NO and what
training, experience, or guidelines do they need for that?
Seth
Silence DoGood <Silence...@angelic.com> wrote:
>Do all states require a "Determination of Potential Chargeback for the
>Employer" as part of evaluating a claim?
What is that?
>I've heard that a person who is getting unemployment insurance is not
>required to accept a job of lower status and/or compensation than the
>job that was terminated. Is (or was) this true?
It varies by state (and, in NY, by how long the person has been
collecting; after some amount of time, any job paying more than some
amount (85% of the highest quarterly pay, I think, annualized) must be
accepted. Amusingly, for a lot of people that cutoff greatly exceeds
their highest pay.)
>In a related situation, is an employee legally insubordinate if s/he
>refuses to accept a demotion?
Yes.
>Should the officials rendering a decision have any responsibility to
>consider the money-saving motivation of a former employer, or his/her
>potential inability to distinguish any answer not liked as a
>"qualifying reason"?
They care about why the employee is now unemployed; if the former
employer caused that status in order to save money, then it seems
likely the former employee would be eligible.
>Does an owner have authority to maintain a secret organizational
>structure and then apply it to someone who didn't know about it?
Yes.
Seth
Roy
> ...
>
>> In a related situation, is an employee legally insubordinate if s/he
>> refuses to accept a demotion?
>
> Yes.
>
According to Wikipedia,
Insubordination is the act of a subordinate deliberately disobeying a
lawful order from someone in charge of them. Refusing to perform an
action which is unethical or illegal is not insubordination; neither is
refusing to perform an action which is not within the scope of authority
of the person issuing the order.
Note the last part. Since your employer can't order you to take a job,
you can't be insubordinate for refusing. Changing your position within
a firm is basically laying you off from one and hiring you for the
other. Its up to you to decide if you want the new job. If you leave
the company, then state law will determine if that was "good cause" to
leave the job and, therefore, qualify for unemployment.
Mike
> Do you mean that there was a slump in sales, so they shut down
> production and let people go?
> Do you mean that they hired a guy half his age to take his job since
> the younger guy was less expensive?
> Do you mean that they guy was let go because they out sourced and off
> shored his job to India/China/Croatia/Viet Nam <Insert your favorite
> 3rd world nation here> ?
>
> In those examples, only the case where they replaced the employee only
> because the younger person cost less, would their actions be deemed
> 'illegal'. That's called age discrimination. But the burden of proof
> is on the employee to back up his claim of discrimination.
I believe even then it might not be illegal. I believe it's only illegal
if the employee being discriminated against is 40 or over. So if
someone's 38 and replaced by someone that's 19, then they "hired a guy
half his age to take his job" but yet it wasn't illegal.
Silence DoGood
> >Does an owner have authority to maintain a secret organizational
> >structure and then apply it to someone who didn't know about it?
>
> Yes.
It appears I was asking if the employer has a right to terminate the
employee and that's not what I meant. My topic is denial of
unemployment compensation. I quote from www.wrksolutions.com with bad
grammar intact:
"In order to qualify for Unemployment Insurance, you should be
separated from their jobs through no fault of their own, be avaiable
for work and be actively seeking work."
So the question is not if the employer has the right of termination,
but any legitimacy to a claim of fault for something which was not
under the employee's control.
What we basically seem to be saying is that if an employer dismisses
an employee as part of a structural change, that the employer will be
taxed unless he *claims* it was the employee's fault. What near-
bankrupt oil-field supplier facing 18% carrying charges can be
expected to resist that temptation?
An overlay to the follow-the-money question is that in seeming
parallel to the FDIC, the fund was not being sufficiently replenished
to handle even ordinary circumstances, much less the current deluge.
In other words, the fund cannot meet its obligations due to past
mismanagement. The temptation is then to look for any excuse not to
pay just like any private insurance company.
Please, somebody must know here, at least in round figures. What does
a small business pay toward the unemployment fund? How much will his
assessment be increased to pay out of apparent personal charity to
allow a terminated employee to collect?
Barry Gold
>> >Would it require states
>> >to do more than accept an employer's motivated statement of
>> >insubordination?
>>
>> no.
Silence DoGood <Silence...@angelic.com> wrote:
>I would think that has to be a recent change because what I read
>suggests that an out-of-work applicant would have to be guilty of
>verifiable *misconduct* in order to be properly denied unemployment
>compensation if otherwise qualified.
>
>What I am reading in these postings suggest that any employee who
>accepts an "at will" position, is, in effect, pre-agreeing not to
>oppose a claim of misconduct, ...
>the (employee) is retroactively determined to have been
>"insubordinate"
I would say that what you read is correct -- at least in California.
The terminated employee is eligible for unemployment compensation
unless he/she left voluntarily or was terminated for _good_ cause.
I don't know about the initial determination. Those may be people
hired to "say no," but in CA I believe that they are under "civil
service", meaning that they can't be fired "at will" (except that the
state can shut down an entire office or department...)
But if the initial determination is against the employee, there is
still an appeal. This will be held in front of an administrative law
"judge"(*) who is knowledgeable about the law and the rules. The
court may use a relaxed standard (e.g., hearsay may be allowed), but
the rules will be followed and it is _not_ a slam dunk for the
employer.
(*) The only reason I put "judge" in quotation marks is that I don't
think they are required to be lawyers. But then, an LLB or JD isn't
strictly necessary as a qualification to become a judge in a regular
court, or even a federal judge. It's just that somebody without a law
degree is unlikely to be appointed and/or confirmed.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
Silence DoGood
> If you quit for "good cause", you can still qualify for unemployment
> benefits.
Well, now doesn't that raise a curious question. Suppose you actually
quit for good cause, but made out your claim form wrong. Is there any
appeal from your own mistake?
On the issue of insubordination, I'm not talking about somebody being
told they now have to answer to Ms X and then refuse a justifiable
request, I'm talking about grappling for position followed by an ex
post facto determination where there was no prior change to the
organizational structure. Again, there is no claim that the employer
is not entitled to dismiss the loser. The issue is misconduct,
possibly reduced to "fault". Otherwise, it just says the employer
would rather not pay for the insurance.
It is an interesting aside that in high-gesture mode, the legislature
at one time passed a law still on the books that makes it illegal for
an employer to make a false claim, --class A misdemeanor if I remember
right-- resulting in denial of coverage assuming it would seem that
such would include direct and provable claim of misconduct. Instead,
it would seem, the agency, acting entirely on its own authority
established a dumb-down policy where they will deny based on any
assertion of "insubordination", meaning in fully-intended reality that
your Unemployment Insurance policy has been cancelled, but you will
continue to be able to apply for charitable assistance, given that all
that would be necessary for the employer to beat the charge would be
that in his own personal and obviously biased belief system, the
employee was somehow at fault for not being the person he wanted at
the time --no documentation needed.
Deadrat
4b7f-bd7b-e...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 21, 4:31�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The general rule is ...
>
> Where can I find the general rules, and hopefully the exceptions too?
I expect that you'll have to look to your state statutes. In Illinois
that's 820ILCS405. I also expect that there isn't a convenient place to
find detailed rules and exceptions. That's why God made claims
adjudicators and court review of claim adjudicators.
Deadrat
42f3-8924-1...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 21, 6:18�pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Would it require
states
>> >to do more than accept an employer's motivated statement of
>> >insubordination?
>>
>> no.
>>
>
> I would think that has to be a recent change because what I read
> suggests that an out-of-work applicant would have to be guilty of
> verifiable *misconduct* in order to be properly denied unemployment
> compensation if otherwise qualified.
>
> What I am reading in these postings suggest that any employee who
> accepts an "at will" position, is, in effect, pre-agreeing not to
> oppose a claim of misconduct, and that if an employer sets up a winner-
> gets-to-keep-her-job contest, with or without informing gladiators,
> that the loser is retroactively determined to have been
> "insubordinate" and in addition to the financial and emotional hurt is
> retroactively determined to have been dissmissed for "cause", which,
> according to what we read here, is verified by an employer's motivated
> statement with no need to even allege, much less prove, any manner of
> harm or intended harm by the ex-employee.
There are two issues you seem to be conflating. One is employment at
will. Under this doctrine, an employer can pretty much set whatever
standards he wishes for employment. There are exceptions to this rule,
and these are spelled out in laws about minimum wage, child labor, health
and safety, jury duty, whistle-blowing, discrimination, and so on.
The second issue is gaming the unemployment compensation system by using
the broad latitude of employment at will. There isn't any consideration
of "emotional hurt" or "intended harm." An employer is free to set up a
gladiatorial system of job allocation, but if the outcome is equivalent
to firing an employee from one job and then immediately attempting to
hire him for another, then the state may determine that for the practical
purposes of unemployment compensation, the employee was actually fired.
>
> General advise to "follow the money" seems quite appropriate here.
> I've never understood if the insurance is for the employee, then why
> is the employer paying for it?
The flip answer is that that's what the law requires.
The technical answer is that Alaska and New Jersey also tax employees.
The not-quite-so-flip answer is that although the employer writes the
check, it's really part of the employee's compensation, in the sense that
absent the law, the tax paid to the gov would otheriwse show up in the
employee's paycheck.
> Clearly the employers have a collective
> interest in limiting their contributions by limiting payouts by any
> means possible.
Employers have a clearer individual interest in limiting their
contributions by having as few as possible ex-employee claimants. The
tax paid is based on turnover: the more people you tend to lay off, the
higher your tax rate.
<snip/>
> Why are assessments made after-the-termination?
What do you mean by assessments, assessment of employer experience or
assessment of employee eligibility? It seems the reason for both of
these is obvious.
> Is this insurance at
> all or has it been reduced to voluntary charity of the former employer
> and keeper of state funds?
It's classic insurance. Everyone pays into a fund that pays out to the
unlucky. And it's not voluntary.
>
> Can somebody lead me to the federal law? This is serious because the
> state will not provide reference which leads me to suspect they know
> they may be in controversy if not outright violation of federal law.
The feds pay for the administration and set the standards for state
programs. The law and the regulations are extensive. To get started, go
here:
http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/laws.asp
It is very unlikely that your state has set up an unemployment insurance
program that doesn't comport with federal guidelines.
> On the other hand, what I see says the states are allowed to add to
> federal requirements which could mean that states, without fanfare,
> could change policy if the new policy meets federal guidelines, and
> they would, of course, have no interest in anyone asking those
> questions.
Check the "conformity" link at the url above.
> On yet another level, it seems the initial determination is made over
> the phone at your "local telecenter". The state is balking at
> disclosing where these are located.
Why would you want to know? It's a telecenter. They don't handle walk-
ins.
> The suspicion is strong that
> people with absolutely no qualifications to do an investigation are
> being hired because, simply, their only job is to just say NO and what
> training, experience, or guidelines do they need for that?
And yet people get unemployment compensation all the time. Since you may
appeal any adverse determination, it seems unlikely they would hire
people who just say no. They could use a recording for that.
Deadrat
48ae-b2ad-6...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 22, 5:52�pm, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
<snip/>
> Please, somebody must know here, at least in round figures. What does
> a small business pay toward the unemployment fund?
For state tax rates and salary limits, go here:
http://www.toolkit.com/small_business_guide/sbg.aspx?nid=P07_1294
For an explanation of the federal taxes, go here:
http://www.toolkit.com/small_business_guide/sbg.aspx?nid=P07_1291
I don't mean to be impolite, but why can't you do this simple research for
yourself?
> How much will his
> assessment be increased to pay out of apparent personal charity to
> allow a terminated employee to collect?
There is no personal charity, apparent or otherwise, involved.
Robert Bonomi
Gordon Burditt <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote:
[[.. sneck ..]]
>>>In a related situation, is an employee legally insubordinate if s/he
>>>refuses to accept a demotion?
>>
>>Probably not. *BUT* if they refuse the demotion, then it is a *VOLUNTARY*
>>exit from employment at that company, and _that_ is an entirely different
>>situation as far as unemployment compensation is concerned.
>>
>>In many jurisdictions, leaving voluntarily is treated similarly to being
>>dismissed 'for cause'.
>
>Normally, leaving voluntarily means no unemployment benefits.
The proverbial "it depends" applies. :) In many jurisdictions being fired
"for cause' also meant no benefits. In a few, at least at one time, one
or more of the above-mentioned situations did _not_ completely eliminate the
possibility of collecting benefits, it just =greatly= delayed the time at which
you were 'eligible' to collect them.
>If you quit for "good cause", you can still qualify for unemployment
>benefits.
Quitting for 'good cause' is *radically* different than being fired 'for cause'.
'For cause' means they had a 'good reason' to do it -- something other than
they just didn't want you working there any more -- e.g., you were caught
stealing, were chronically late, weren't doing the job assigned, were
insubordinate, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Robert Bonomi
Silence DoGood <Silence...@angelic.com> wrote:
>
>Please, somebody must know here, at least in round figures. What does
>a small business pay toward the unemployment fund?
For a company with a top-grade record, its in the 'low hundreds' of dollars
per year -- per employee, counting both full- and part-time employees.
> How much will his
>assessment be increased to pay out of apparent personal charity to
>allow a terminated employee to collect?
For a small business with a history of no unemployment claims, a _single_
claim will result in an approximate *tripling* of of the UI tax rate (on the
_entire_ payroll) for the next 3+ years. After that, the assessed rate will
start to decline, but it takes an extended period (at least 7-10 years) before
the tax rate returns to the pre-claim rate.
Say you're a company with a total of 50 people on the payroll. That first
unemployment claim costs you probably $40,000 in added UI taxes over time.
Just because you laid off _one_ minimum-wage employee.
grendal
> Please, somebody must know here, at least in round figures. What does
> a small business pay toward the unemployment fund? How much will his
> assessment be increased to pay out of apparent personal charity to
> allow a terminated employee to collect?
What you pay in to the fund will depend on the type of business and
the business' history of claims.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'apparent personal charity'. As you have
unemployment claims, your rates will go up. How much the rates will
increase will depend on your history, size of company, etc ...
Silence DoGood
>What do you mean by assessments, assessment of employer experience or
assessment of employee eligibility?
I mean an increase in premium paid to the fund like a collision will
increase your auto insurance.
>the more people you tend to lay off, the higher your tax rate.
That's where the temptation comes to claim justification for the
dismissal. I'm still looking to know approximately how much that means
in actual dollars.
> It's a telecenter. They don't handle walk-ins.
TRW can take their calls anywhere they want and not tell us because
they are a private corporation. The CIA is probably covered under
legal secrecy. The State of Texas is not. I have the same right as any
citizen to know who these people are, what their qualifications are,
when the took the oath of office, if the building is leased and how
much they paid for it, and if they are located in the Speaker of the
Houses's district.
--
Thanks for the federal link. I anticipate spending some hours there.
Silence DoGood
>It is very unlikely that your state has set up an unemployment insurance
>program that doesn't comport with federal guidelines.
I think that statement is spot on from what I read of the legislation.
It's the departments whose guidelines do not comport with state law.
Barry Gold
>>the more people you tend to lay off, the higher your tax rate.
Silence DoGood <Silence...@angelic.com> wrote:
>That's where the temptation comes to claim justification for the
>dismissal. I'm still looking to know approximately how much that means
>in actual dollars.
I don't know the exact calculation, but if it works like most
insurance then the system is going to _eventually_ get back what it
paid out. The maximum payout per employee is roughly $19,000 in CA.
So if you lay off an employee and he doesn't find work again (or not
within the 15 months that are covered), you will _eventually_ end up
paying $19,000 in increased premiums. Not immediately, and maybe not
really that much for a _single_ employee (because the employees you
laid off disappear from the rate calculation after 4 years). But over
time, I would expect a company with a steady history of laying people
off to end up paying that much -- *if* the job market is bad. If the
job market is good, the employees will probably only be unemployed for
a few weeks, and the cost will be a lot lower.
I can't really figure out how the details work, but here's the
employer handbook for Tennesee:
http://www.state.tn.us/labor-wfd/Employers/forms/emphand00.pdf
>> It's a telecenter. They don't handle walk-ins.
>
>TRW can take their calls anywhere they want and not tell us because
>they are a private corporation. The CIA is probably covered under
>legal secrecy. The State of Texas is not. I have the same right as any
>citizen to know who these people are, what their qualifications are,
>when the took the oath of office, if the building is leased and how
>much they paid for it, and if they are located in the Speaker of the
>Houses's district.
Well, then file a request under Texas' Freedom of Information Act.
AFAIK, most states have one that pretty closely parallels the federal
FOIA.
Deadrat
4e38-91cc-c...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 23, 10:05�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>What do you mean by assessments, assessment of employer experience or
> assessment of employee eligibility?
>
> I mean an increase in premium paid to the fund like a collision will
> increase your auto insurance.
>
>>the more people you tend to lay off, the higher your tax rate.
>
> That's where the temptation comes to claim justification for the
> dismissal.
Of course. That's why they have appeals procedures.
> I'm still looking to know approximately how much that means
> in actual dollars.
This will depend upon the state. The first rules that I found were for
Idaho. There a company's experience rating, ER, is calculated as
follows:
ER = (Taxes Paid - Benefits Charged)/Avg Payroll
The Idaho Department of Labor complies a list of "positive" companies
(those who pay more in taxes than the state has to pay in benefits to
their ex-employees) and a list of "negative" companies (those for which
benefits exceed paid taxes). It's better to have a small positive rating
(i.e., few layoffs and a large payroll) than to have a negative rating
with a large absolute value (i.e., many layoffs and a small payroll).
For 2008, Idaho reports the following:
Best in show (smallest positive rating): .262
Also ran (hightest positive rating): .874
Worst (highest abosolute value negative rating): -1.574
Considering employees who made at least the wage base of $32.2K, the best
in show paid $84.36 per employee, the also ran paid $281.43, and the
worst paid $506.83.
(http://labor.idaho.gov/pdf/controllinguitaxes2.pdf)
Sorry, but I'm not inclined to find out how representative this is. Each
state has a different system, and these can be arbitrarily complicated.
New York has three components for its UI tax, only two of which take into
account experience rating. And they also take into account the health of
the trust funds. The feds set a $7K floor on the wage base, but states
are free to increase that. Across the union, you can find tax rates as
low as 0% for the best rating and as high as 10% for the worst, but
dollar amounts will depend on the wage base.
>
>> It's a telecenter. They don't handle walk-ins.
>
> TRW can take their calls anywhere they want and not tell us because
> they are a private corporation. The CIA is probably covered under
> legal secrecy. The State of Texas is not. I have the same right as any
> citizen to know who these people are, what their qualifications are,
> when the took the oath of office, if the building is leased and how
> much they paid for it, and if they are located in the Speaker of the
> Houses's district.
I'm not saying you can't know. A walk through your state's budget or a
request through your state's FOIA (if available) would probably get you
the info. But why would you care?
Silence DoGood
> So if you lay off an employee and he doesn't find work again (or not
> within the 15 months that are covered), you will _eventually_ end up
> paying $19,000 in increased premiums.
What you are describing is government-mandated severance pay. The only
part that would be "insurance" would be if an employee was laid off in
a bankruptcy.
More accurately, it could be called a Truth Tax, as only employers who
tell the truth have to pay for it.
The unemployed person is then the sucker for having believed the
government was providing a safety net.
It bucks up close to fraud because the employee acted on the belief
that premiums were being paid while he or she was working and not
something that would be assessed after termination and hostage to
motivateded lying.
Silence DoGood
> Of course. �That's why they have appeals procedures.
After, and apparently only after, all departmental process is
exhausted, one can take the issue to civil court, but in that case who
is the defendant, i.e., the employer, the federal government, or the
state?
Don't you need permission to sue the state? Would it make more sense
to ask a federal judge to order the state department head to pay the
claim?
I ran across a statistical list saying around 5% of claims were
rejected for "cause". I'd have to check but I believe those statistics
were a couple of years old. Using common sense, I would suspect that
the true incidence of "insubordination" would go down as unemployment
rises, and would also guess that the claims rejected for "cause" will
have actually increased, due in part, perhaps to a doubled work load
for the "investigators" and ought to be viable evidence of incompetent
or unfair handling by a state agency.
I know federal judges have taken over supervision of schools and
jails. Anyone know of a federal judge assuming control over a corrupt
or incompetent state unemployment fund? What would one request?
The local hero in that regard is William Wayne Justice, [for real,
that's his name] who died a week or so ago. I picked up a biography of
him once, but it talked in general terms of his life and the impact of
his rulings, not the legal claims or precedents he may have set.
Anyone looking for a subject for a graduate thesis? Anybody know of
anything already existing and how to get it?
I find myself thinking of another word which has always annoyed and
confused me which is "vested". Have not workers been mislead into
thinking their employer has been setting aside retirement money only
to discover when the employer goes bankrupt that the funds were never
vested and does "vested" essentially mean the money has been actually
moved somewhere as opposed to just being guaranteed?
Here we have a public essentially duped into believing a fund has been
established out of which unemployment compensation will be paid only
to find out virtually no money has been set aside, and instead the
compensation relies on charge back to a reluctant employer. Just what
is public service? What act enables them to deliberately deceive us?
Should somebody be going to jail?
Seth
Silence DoGood <Silence...@angelic.com> wrote:
>On Oct 22, 1:21�pm, gordonb.6i...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
>> If you quit for "good cause", you can still qualify for unemployment
>> benefits.
>
>Well, now doesn't that raise a curious question. Suppose you actually
>quit for good cause, but made out your claim form wrong. Is there any
>appeal from your own mistake?
Generally you can amend a form, but it would depend on how wrong, and
how far the process got (and the state and its detailed rules).
>On the issue of insubordination, I'm not talking about somebody being
>told they now have to answer to Ms X and then refuse a justifiable
>request, I'm talking about grappling for position followed by an ex
>post facto determination where there was no prior change to the
>organizational structure. Again, there is no claim that the employer
>is not entitled to dismiss the loser. The issue is misconduct,
>possibly reduced to "fault". Otherwise, it just says the employer
>would rather not pay for the insurance.
It's my understanding that in general, the employee wins; exceptions
are that the employee stopped showing up (and didn't have a credible
claim of "constructive dismissal"), committed a job-related crime, or
the employer went through a long documented procedure including
written warnings and the like. I'm sure that varies by state.
> given that all
>that would be necessary for the employer to beat the charge would be
>that in his own personal and obviously biased belief system, the
>employee was somehow at fault for not being the person he wanted at
>the time --no documentation needed.
Employer wants someone with skillset Y when you were previously hired
with skillset X is a perfectly valid reason for dismissal. It is not
a valid reason for denial of unemployment compensation.
Seth
Seth
Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>Note the last part. Since your employer can't order you to take a job,
>you can't be insubordinate for refusing.
True.
> Changing your position within a firm is basically laying you off
>from one and hiring you for the other.
No, it isn't. It's changing your position. There's no layoff and
re-hire. (Consider things like seniority which get lost as a result
of layoff and re-hire; changing positions doesn't do that.)
> Its up to you to decide if you want the new job.
It's always up to you to decide if you want to continue in a job, old
or new.
> If you leave the company, then state law will determine if that was
>"good cause" to leave the job and, therefore, qualify for
>unemployment.
Changes that aren't constructive dismissal typically won't be "good
cause".
Seth
Seth
Silence DoGood <Silence...@angelic.com> wrote:
>On Oct 25, 1:14�pm, bg...@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote:
>
>> So if you lay off an employee and he doesn't find work again (or not
>> within the 15 months that are covered), you will _eventually_ end up
>> paying $19,000 in increased premiums.
>
>What you are describing is government-mandated severance pay.
Severance pay is paid by the corporation to the (ex-)employee.
Unemployment compensation is paid by the government to the
ex-employee. The payoff schedules, terms, and tax effects differ.
>More accurately, it could be called a Truth Tax, as only employers who
>tell the truth have to pay for it.
Those who attempt to lie are often hit with worse penalties.
>The unemployed person is then the sucker for having believed the
>government was providing a safety net.
The government generally does. The statistics back that up.
>It bucks up close to fraud because the employee acted on the belief
>that premiums were being paid while he or she was working
They were. And even in the cases where they weren't (actual fraud by
the company), the ex-employee can get unemployment compensation.
> and not something that would be assessed after termination
If the company continues to have employees, it continues to pay
premiums. The amount of those premiums depends on a number of
factors.
Seth
Roy
> In article <adOdnZxZqopifnzX...@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
> Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>> Note the last part. Since your employer can't order you to take a job,
>> you can't be insubordinate for refusing.
>
> True.
>
>> Changing your position within a firm is basically laying you off
>>from one and hiring you for the other.
>
> No, it isn't. It's changing your position. There's no layoff and
> re-hire. (Consider things like seniority which get lost as a result
> of layoff and re-hire; changing positions doesn't do that.)
That may be an internal company policy but its not the way the state
unemployment people interpret it. If you are told you lost Job A but
can have job B, its effectively a termination.
>
>> Its up to you to decide if you want the new job.
>
> It's always up to you to decide if you want to continue in a job, old
> or new.
>
>> If you leave the company, then state law will determine if that was
>> "good cause" to leave the job and, therefore, qualify for
>> unemployment.
>
> Changes that aren't constructive dismissal typically won't be "good
> cause".
"typically" is a very broad term. Some "good causes" could include a
significant decrease in pay, a significant change in job conditions,
transferring your job to a site that is significantly further away.
One that I got caught up in was moving an employee who quit to move
several hundred miles to care for a sick relative. In this case, it was
considered "good cause" but not chargeable to the employer.
Seth
Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>That may be an internal company policy but its not the way the state
>unemployment people interpret it. If you are told you lost Job A but
>can have job B, its effectively a termination.
And if you are told that your job no longer is to do A but is now to
do B, it isn't a termination.
Seth
Cy Pres
wrote:
>And if you are told that your job no longer is to do A but is now to
>do B, it isn't a termination.
That would depend on what A is and what B is. If you were hired to
practice law and then told your job was now scrubbing toilets, that
would be a termination.
Lee Choquette
Silence DoGood <Silence...@angelic.com> wrote:
>[...] Using common sense, I would suspect that
>the true incidence of "insubordination" would go down as unemployment
>rises, and would also guess that the claims rejected for "cause" will
>have actually increased, due in part, perhaps to a doubled work load
>for the "investigators" and ought to be viable evidence of incompetent
>or unfair handling by a state agency.
Are you assuming that employers always fire employees for
insubordination, regardless of economic conditions? While that may be
true for flagrant insubordination, I think that whether an employer will
fire an employee for mild insubordination depends on whether the
employer would need to find an immediate replacement for the fired
employee (not as true now) and if so, how hard it would be to find a
talented replacement (easier now).
Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if the reported rate of
insubordination didn't go down as quickly as you suspect. Certainly
employees are less likely to be insubordinate when they know it will be
hard to find another job, but otoh employers may not overlook mild
insubordination as much as they used to.
Of course, I'm just speculating.
Lee
Silence DoGood
> Are you assuming that employers always fire employees for
> insubordination, regardless of economic conditions? While that may be
> true for flagrant insubordination, I think that whether an employer will
> fire an employee for mild insubordination depends on whether the
> employer would need to find an immediate replacement for the fired
> employee (not as true now) and if so, how hard it would be to find a
> talented replacement (easier now).
What I'm trying to stick to is the ability to deny unemployment
insurance and as I read the laws (in and apart from departments)
the insubordination should be of a level where the employer would
never allow that person back under any circumstances. What
you describe as "mild insubordination" which could be overlooked
seems indistinguishable from inadequate performance which
is a cause for dismissal if any is needed, but no cause to
cancel the insurance.
Certainly employers would want to pare down on employees
who have trouble taking direction in lean times.
Consider if you burn your house down. If it qualifies as criminal
arson, you will not collect insurance, but if you just forgot
something on the stove, you would expect to get compensated
and have trouble getting another policy.
Barry Gold
>What I'm trying to stick to is the ability to deny unemployment
>insurance and as I read the laws (in and apart from departments)
>the insubordination should be of a level where the employer would
>never allow that person back under any circumstances. What
>you describe as "mild insubordination" which could be overlooked
>seems indistinguishable from inadequate performance which
>is a cause for dismissal if any is needed, but no cause to
>cancel the insurance.
No. Most people who are laid off receive unemployment compensation.
There may be _some_ employers who try to game the system by calling a
layoff a termination "for cause", giving some excuse such as
insubordination. But for the most part, people who are let go because
the employer no longer needs their (otherwise valuable) services _do_
receive unemployment.
And in the moral climate created by the Bush Administration, you can
bet that if there _were_ a legal way to avoid having that compensation
charged against the employer's account, most business would use it.
The simple fact is:
1. There is a penalty for lying. The charge against the employer
will be increased if he lies on his initial response to the
employee's request for unemployment. (And if the employee lies,
e.g., says he was laid off when he was fired for cause, he will lose
two weeks to a month of compensation even if he later qualifies for
unemployment after another job.)
2. If the either party disputes the initial finding, there is a
trial before an administrative judge. Statements made there are
sworn -- under penalty of perjury. This will dissuade most people
from outright lying.
3. A lot of people are receiving unemployment compensation. If
getting rid of people without having your unemployment account
charged were as simple as calling it "insubordination", then most
employers would use that excuse. They aren't, so it isn't that
simle.
>Certainly employers would want to pare down on employees
>who have trouble taking direction in lean times.
Yes. All sorts of things that are tolerated in good times become less
tolerable when the employer has less money to throw around. Employees
whose performance was near the bottom of their pay grade may be kept
on when times are good and the company has lots of money (and work to
do). When there is less money, those employees get laid off.
When there is more work than the company has staff for, they may keep
somebody who is reluctant to take orders, simply because it's easier
to argue him into doing what you want than to train somebody else to
do the work. When they suddenly have more employees than work, guess
who gets the axe. And, yes, if he refuses to take orders, they will
probably fire him "for cause" (insubordination) -- and they will be
right to do so.
Insubordination does _not_ mean "we don't have work for you", and it
does _not_ mean, "your performance is inadequate". It means, "You
have been given a direct order, and you refused to obey it."
One of the lessons of this, is that when times are lean, the employee
should go back, read the employee manual, and follow the rules. And
of course, be willing to do what is necessary -- to work at odd times
if needed, to be flexible about doing things that were formerly not
part of his job, to learn new skills so that his value to the company
increases.
This reduces his chances of being fired for cause _or_ of being laid
off. While "laid off" is better than "fired" (because you get
unemployement), keeping your job is better than either. Unemployment
in CA maxes out at about $450/week, roughly $11/hour. Unless you are
a minimum-wage worker, the chances are you are making more than that.
Plus unemployment only lasts 1 year (15 months during the current
recession); after that you are on your own.
Silence DoGood
> � 2. If the either party disputes the initial finding, there is a
> � trial before an administrative judge. �Statements made there are
> � sworn -- under penalty of perjury. �This will dissuade most people
> � from outright lying.
Reagan taught us to trust but check.
Federal law, and the derivative state law that I have seen do not
allow for denial for unemployment insurance for poor performance. Your
statements suggest that all an employer needs is to make sure he never
has a manual.
An employer on the edge of bankruptcy has powerful motive to avoid
"chargebacks" which are part of no other "insurance" I am aware of.
Given that we have no admissable lie detection, how is one to prove
"perjury' which many say is part and parcel of the civil process even
where proveable.
The law appears to lean toward the person with no job and no income,
protecting the need of the public against those who might deliberately
sabatoge an employer in order to get fired and collect unemployment.
This seems generally preposterous these days. People can't meet their
obligations with overtime, much less reduced hours. The idea that
people would commit misconduct seems entirely faith based.
Try a different situation on for size. Suppose you claim, and even
prove, that most people get paid collision insurance after an accident
if they paid the premiums. How is it insurance if you have to prove,
perhaps I should say PROVE that you had no responsibility for the
incident?
As far as I can see, you are basically rewriting the law to say that a
former employee has to make and prove a case of wrongful termination
in order to get paid, unless the employer willingly pays the truth tax.
Barry Gold
>> 2. If the either party disputes the initial finding, there is a
>> trial before an administrative judge. �Statements made there are
>> sworn -- under penalty of perjury. �This will dissuade most people
>> from outright lying.
Silence DoGood <Silence...@angelic.com> wrote:
>Federal law, and the derivative state law that I have seen do not
>allow for denial for unemployment insurance for poor performance. Your
>statements suggest that all an employer needs is to make sure he never
>has a manual.
If it were that simple, the vast majority of employers would not have
an employees manual. But the fact is the reverse: nearly every
employer -- from giants like Northrop-Grumman down to 12-person shops
like the web software company I recently worked for -- has an employee
manual. These used to be distributed on paper, but the most recent
one I got was distributed as a PDF.
>An employer on the edge of bankruptcy has powerful motive to avoid
>"chargebacks" which are part of no other "insurance" I am aware of.
The cost for laying off a single employee can be rather high, as
others have noted. But a lot of insurance policies have a similar
effect: if you have a claim, that increases the probability that
you will have other claims in the future, and your premium goes up.
Applies to:
. car insurance
. homeowners' insurance
. group health insurance (if your group has a lot of claims, or a
few unusually expensive ones, the premium will go up)
>Given that we have no admissable lie detection, how is one to prove
>"perjury' which many say is part and parcel of the civil process even
>where proveable.
Actually, my experience is that people will "shade" the truth rather
than lie outright in court. They will try to put a spin on it to put
themselves in a more favorable light, especially where a matter of
opinion or a judgment call is involved. "Did X affect your
performance?" (employee: no). "Did X affect Jones's performance?"
(employer rep.: yes).
>The law appears to lean toward the person with no job and no income,
>protecting the need of the public against those who might deliberately
>sabatoge an employer in order to get fired and collect unemployment.
I'm not sure about the current economic climate. But I have known
people who would do exactly that. They would work for a year to build
up their unemployment insurance, then arrange to get "layed off" and
live on the UI for 6 or 9 months, then get another job, over and
over. In fact, back in the 1960s when quitting just meant that your
UI benefits were delayed a few weeks, some of those people just
outright quit after working for a year.
>This seems generally preposterous these days. People can't meet their
>obligations with overtime, much less reduced hours. The idea that
>people would commit misconduct seems entirely faith based.
Again, nonsense. There are people addicted to drugs, who show up at
work high or even use drugs at work. There are people who party late
several nights a week, then show up too sleepy to stay awake all day.
At my last job, we had one person who spent about half his working day
on horse racing sites. He was good at it, supplementing his pay with
several $100 in winnings each week. He would have been fired,
except... he was a terrific salesman and brought in about 25% of the
company's gross sales.
>Try a different situation on for size. Suppose you claim, and even
>prove, that most people get paid collision insurance after an accident
>if they paid the premiums. How is it insurance if you have to prove,
>perhaps I should say PROVE that you had no responsibility for the
>incident?
I can't make head or tail of that sentence.
>As far as I can see, you are basically rewriting the law to say that a
>former employee has to make and prove a case of wrongful termination
>in order to get paid, unless the employer willingly pays the truth tax.
No. The former employee is entitled to a hearing, and the employer
must prove that there was misconduct. It's a civil hearing, so the
employer only has to win by preponderance of evidence (more likely
than not that he's right), but he still has to offer evidence, and the
employee can offer his own evidence, including testimony from other
people.
And as far as committing perjury: keep in mind that most of those
testifying are not the owners of the business, but another employee --
a supervisor of the laid-off (or fired) employee. If the supervisor
lies, he risks being jailed for perjury. If he tells the truth, at
worst the employer will have to pay something extra in unemployment.
Oh, and btw the people at the Unemployment Offices are not as stupid
as you seem to think they are. If an employer "fires" 10 employees
"for cause" in a short period of time, it's going to set off some red
flags. Also, employees talk to each other, and by the time you get
to the 5th person, they will know about it and bring in the other
employees to testify about this practice.
As I mentioned, there are substantial penalties for filing a false
report -- the employer may be required to pay an extra 50% over and
above the normal charges. Or if part of the allegations are upheld
and the others are found to be blantantly false, the employer may have
his "reserve account" charged for several weeks of unemployment even
if the employee doesn't receive it.
Finally, people _do_ talk to each other and they _do_ notice what is
going on. An employer who mistreats his employees will find that the
remaining employees do not trust him. This usually means that the
best employees leave and go somewhere else as soon as the employment
market improves -- and those who stay are those who barely met the
minimum standard.
This applies even when the "mistreatment" isn't a violation of the law
(e.g., lying about whether an employee was laid off or fired) but
simply treating them worse than other employers in the same industry.
One example is employers who deal with laid off employees by escorting
them out the door without even letting them pack of their things.
THere are times when that is appropriate, but in most of the software
industry this is considered insulting and demeaning. Other employees
notice this and start circulating their resumes, and the best ones
leave. I've seen it happen -- and usually the employer is out of
business or sold to somebody else within a year or two.
Part of the problem seems to be a basic assumption. The law assumes
(and I assume) that most people want to be honest, and the purpose
of the law is to give them an incentive in that direction. You appear
to assume that everybody is a congenital liar, and the only thing
keeping them from lying all the time is the penalties imposed by the
law.
Silence DoGood
> No. �The former employee is entitled to a hearing, and the employer
> must prove that there was misconduct. �
Well, that's not today and not in Texas. All the employer has to do is
*claim* the employee was "at fault".
Now ask yourself this: How many employers will say they have perfect
employees?
Answer: NONE
Therefore, any dismissal can be the "fault" of the employee including
causing bankruptcy of the company.
Ask yourself this: If things are going so well, why does the Texas
Workforce Commission not want to trumpet it all from the moutaintops?
Are the TWC proud of the training for their "local" call-center
investigators? Why not tell us?
Do they think the chargeback to employers is not a Truth Tax? Then why
don't they explain it to us?
Is the possibility of an employer paying a penalty for lying real?
Then why not give us the statistics on who has been punished?
By the way, the finance position at the TWC is open. Imagine that!
Anyone looking for a job that could land you in jail?