Laid Off + Rehired = New Employee?
Hari Seldon
shop in Michigan where I've worked for 4 years now) if they
were to lay me off and I received unemployment benefits for
any length of time and I was then rehired by them, I would be
considered a _newly hired employee_ and would lose whatever
"seniority" I had with the company as far as my paid vacation
time.
The company's vacation policy being; 0 paid vacation days for
the 1st year of employment, 5 days beginning with the 2nd year,
10 days with the 3rd year, etc.
Seems to me, an employer could periodically lay off employees
and then rehire them, preventing them from ever acquiring any
vacation time?
Is this legal?
slide
Most employment law is state. I'm unfamiliar with MI law so my comments
are general in nature.
Even if the layoff to avoid vacation routine were implemented and not
administratively acted upon by MI's Department of Labor, it'd go poorly
for the company because such an obvious dodge would cause the employees
to seek employment elsewhere. Presumably, according to free market
theory, the best employees would find work elsewhere leaving only the
dregs for the vacation dodging employer.
Intentionally doing this would also be a fraud as the employer would be
enticing an employee with certain representations (vacation) which are
then denied. You'd have to demonstrate that the layoff was motivated by
the vacation accrual rather than forced upon the employer by
circumstance. That may be difficult but it may be provable by pattern.
Despite huge bodies of laws, employment does seem somewhat sensitive to
market conditions. Today employment is a strong buyer's market (favoring
the employer). I'd think that doubly the case in MI.
Gordon Burditt
>shop in Michigan where I've worked for 4 years now) if they
>were to lay me off and I received unemployment benefits for
>any length of time and I was then rehired by them, I would be
>considered a _newly hired employee_ and would lose whatever
>"seniority" I had with the company as far as my paid vacation
>time.
That depends on company policy. Some companies allow you to retain
time worked after a "short" (for some specific definition of "short",
like a year) break in service. The policy may not have a choice
in some cases, such as breaks in service due to Family Leave.
I don't think I've ever heard of the company policy depending on
whether or not you received unemployment benefits. If I got laid
off, found another job immediately, got laid off from that, and
come back, I'd keep the time I worked?
>The company's vacation policy being; 0 paid vacation days for
>the 1st year of employment, 5 days beginning with the 2nd year,
>10 days with the 3rd year, etc.
>
>Seems to me, an employer could periodically lay off employees
>and then rehire them, preventing them from ever acquiring any
>vacation time?
I doubt this would be a profitable policy on the company's part.
Don't state unemployment taxes, in some states anyway, go up if
they have a high churn rate of employees? This would also become
known to employees, and eventually, they'd quit coming back. It
takes time and money to hire new *good* employees.
It might be more profitable to prevent them from ever acquiring
full coverage on health insurance.
>Is this legal?
Probably. But it's a pretty stupid move.
Mike Jacobs
> Seems to me, an employer could periodically lay off employees
> and then rehire them, preventing them from ever acquiring any
> vacation time?
>
> Is this legal?
Welcome to the new world of cost-cutting by employers.
Yes, it's legal, if you have no union collective bargaining agreement
or other binding employment contract and no state law that says
otherwise - of course, YMMV, and check with a local lawyer for
specifics. But in most states, "employment at will" means the
employer can fire you at any time, for any (non-discriminatory) reason
or for NO reason, which also means they can CHANGE the terms of your
employment at any time too - including your accrued seniority - by
firing you.
Now, this "employee manual" or whatever it is that sets forth the
seniority perks, vacation time, etc. MAY, by the law of your state,
form a binding CONTRACT with existing employees. But, even so,
nothing is to prevent the firm from FIRING the more senior employees,
then hiring BRAND NEW people to fill those slots, at lower pay and
fewer benefits. Would you rather be out on the street, or apply for
one of those "new" jobs as a first-year employee? I thought so.
Your choice.
Now, some employers may go over the line, _IF_ the laid-off employees
can prove that they were laid off specifically BECAUSE they had
accrued seniority, vacation time, etc. AND that they (the laid-off
workers) were over the age threshold for application of the age
discrimination laws, AND that the employer hired YOUNGER workers to
fill those now-vacant slots. But, in a down market, and if they are
re-hiring the same foax, I don't think that would fly. Nonetheless,
Google "age discrimination" for some useful reading.
Brother, this is also a good reminder that unions still have a purpose
in life. They are on a down cycle right now too, since employers'
union-busting techniques have become much more sophisticated and
effective than the old days of sending around thugs with baseball bats
and axes, and employees in many industries are less willing to stick
their necks out for unionizing since they get "just enough" benefits
and pay to not want to lose out to the multitudes standing in line for
their job. But, perhaps the cycle will swing toward balance and
equity between worker and employer again soon. We can hope.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Stuart A. Bronstein
> According to my employer, (a small, non-union, family owned
> shop in Michigan where I've worked for 4 years now) if they
> were to lay me off and I received unemployment benefits for
> any length of time and I was then rehired by them, I would be
> considered a _newly hired employee_ and would lose whatever
> "seniority" I had with the company as far as my paid vacation
> time.
There are no laws that I'm aware of that define seniority. It's up
to the employer's policy or a union contract.
> The company's vacation policy being; 0 paid vacation days for
> the 1st year of employment, 5 days beginning with the 2nd year,
> 10 days with the 3rd year, etc.
>
> Seems to me, an employer could periodically lay off employees
> and then rehire them, preventing them from ever acquiring any
> vacation time?
Or the employer could simply say that nobody gets any vacation at
all.
> Is this legal?
Unfortunately it appears to be. Look for another job if you think
you can do better. Good luck.
Stan
> shop in Michigan where I've worked for 4 years now) if they
> were to lay me off and I received unemployment benefits for
> any length of time and I was then rehired by them, I would be
> considered a _newly hired employee_ and would lose whatever
> "seniority" I had with the company as far as my paid vacation
> time.
> avoid giving vacation time based on seniority.)
As far as I know, there are no US laws that require employers to give
you anything other than to pay you for the time you actually worked.
This isn't Europe.
Also, companies may have service bridging policies (e.g., when I was
working for the old AT&T, a rehire within 6 months, I think, would
immediately bridge prior service; otherwise, prior service wouldn't be
bridged until 5 years of service after the rehire), but nothing
requires them to do so. Another example of service bridging is
whether time as a contractor or temp will count toward seniority-based
benefits if the person is eventually hired for as a full-time employee
(the old AT&T didn't count contractor time; my subsequent employers
did).
Basically, what this company has to do is to weigh the cost of
recruiting, training, ramp-up, and morale, as well as the impact on
their unemployment insurance premiums, against the cost of giving
current employees the promised seniority benefits. Legally (disclaimer
IANAL) I believe they can do this.
Related to this area, I remember something my World History teacher
told us in the early 1960's. During the Depression, he and others
were hired by a school district and fired after one year. The reason
was so the school district could avoid paying the automatic seniority
raise that they would be entitled to the following year.
Barry Gold
>According to my employer, (a small, non-union, family owned
>shop in Michigan where I've worked for 4 years now) if they
>were to lay me off and I received unemployment benefits for
>any length of time and I was then rehired by them, I would be
>considered a _newly hired employee_ and would lose whatever
>"seniority" I had with the company as far as my paid vacation
>time.
>Seems to me, an employer could periodically lay off employees
>and then rehire them, preventing them from ever acquiring any
>vacation time?
>
>Is this legal?
I don't see why not. Remember that employment in the US is "at will".
That means they can fire you at any time for any reason(*), or no
reason at all. Implicit in that is that they can _also_ change your
pay rate ad working conditions at any time. It's equivalent to firing
you, then offering to rehire you at the "new" salary and working
conditions.
You, of course, are free to decide whether you want to work for them
under those conditions, or if you would rather go to work for a
company that keeps its promises -- including those that are not
legally enforceable.
Note that there are exceptions. As I mentioned, they can't fire you
(or downgrade you or change your workign conditions) because of your
race, skin color, religion, place of national origin, sex, or age (if
over 40). Also, if you are a "contract" employee with a fixed-term
contract, they cannot fire you without "good cause" -- generally
failure to conform to the conditions of the contract.
Finally, if you are covered by a union contract, that contract may
specify more stringent terms, including when and under what
circumstances you can be laid off or subject to a change of benefits.
But if you are an ordinary joe with no union and no fixed contract,
yes, they an fire you or change your salary and/or benefits(+) any
time they want to. You can choose to continue working under the new
rules, or go seek employement elsewhere -- or start your own business
in competition with them!
(*) Except for membership in a "protected class", like blacks, a
religious group, or being over 40.
(+) That's _future_ salary and benefits. Salary and benefits that you
have already earned _cannot_ be taken back, that's a breach of
contract.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Alarums & Excursions, Xenofilkia: http://places.to/xeno
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
Robert Bonomi
Answer: it is _probably_ legal. For an authoritative answer, see a legal
professional in your community -- one who specializes in labor law and
unemployment law.
That said, I will note that a firm that got a 'reputation' for doing
that would probably have a *very* difficult time hiring new employees.
The employer attempt to 'discourage' the laid-off worker from filing for
unemployment _is_ understandable -- from the EMPLOYER perspective. Any
employee who files for, and is awarded unemployment benefits results in an
increase in the 'unemployment insurance' premium that the employer must pay
into the government pool. Going from 'no claims' to just 'one' claim results
in a roughly *tripling* if the U.I. 'contribution' that an employer must pay,
on the _total_ payroll. And the rate stays there for _three_years_. The
'penalty' for going from "one" pay-out to 'more than one', is nowhere near as
significant as that first one.
I don't necessarily agree with the company attitude, but I can understand the
'where they're coming from' with that approach. The 're-hire' has acted in a
way that will cost them a bunch of money over the next several years. They,
not entirely unreasonably, wish to recoup some of that money by paying lesser
wages and/or reduced benefits to that re-hire. As I said, I don't agree with
that approach, but it is hard to argue that there is _no_ 'justification' for
the approach.
Lastly, *you* have nothing to worry about. The Universal Encyclopedia
Foundation has a record of never laying anyone off -- not in many _thousands_
of years.
Mark A
news:f40fe9d4-1f40-4f1f...@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Yes, it is legal unless there is a contract that specifies otherwise.
But you have rights also, for example if you find a better job then you can
to work somewhere else if you like, and there is isn't anything they can do
to stop you.
I have heard some employers who would reinstate the seniority in such
situations if the employee paid back all severance pay received and any part
of the unemployment insurance premiums that the company was charged for the
unemployment benefits you received.
slide
> On Aug 30, 10:57 am, Hari Seldon <hariseldon1232...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Is this legal?
>
> In one word: Yes. But keep in mind that in Michigan an employer has
> no obligation to offer vacation time AT ALL. The only right an
> employee has to vacation time is contractual -- meaning he gets what
> his employer has agreed to provide. Also, in Michigan you can be
> fired (or "laid off") at any time for any reason or for no reason,
> except a few that are prohibited by law (such as race, gender, etc.).
> Therefore, an employee who is prevented from accumulating vacation
> time in the manner you describe would have no legal recourse against
> his employer. However, an employer who exhibits this type of behavior
> would have a hard time keeping good employees, so it's not likely to
> happen.
I am not going to deny that this would be legal, but it may be a tort as
well. Let's take the hypothetical question posed by the OP.
An employee will get 2 weeks vacation after a year of service. The
employer lays the employee off after 50 weeks for no discernible
business reason. The employer than offers the employee back his job
after a week has passed.
Again, the employee works for 50 weeks and again he's laid off for a
week to be offered the job again. Clearly the promise of vacation as an
inducement to employment is fraudulent. You can argue that if the
employee is doltish enough to fall for this year after year, he has no
case because he should see it coming, but this is an after hours sort of
bull session hypothetical - not a real situation.
So would there be a tort here?
Seth
Gordon Burditt <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote:
>I don't think I've ever heard of the company policy depending on
>whether or not you received unemployment benefits. If I got laid
>off, found another job immediately, got laid off from that, and
>come back, I'd keep the time I worked?
>Don't state unemployment taxes, in some states anyway, go up if
>they have a high churn rate of employees?
I believe they go up if a lot of employees _collect_ unemployment
insurance.
Seth
slide
>
>
> Brother, this is also a good reminder that unions still have a purpose
> in life.
I don't agree. The OP is positing a silly proposition that an employer
intentionally lays off employees once a year to avoid ever paying any
vacation time. Saying that such a silly far out hypothesis justifies a
parasitic union be visited upon the workers is outrageous. An OP that a
hiker is worried about being charged by 20 mountain lions in Yellowstone
Park could just as easily be used as a reason that every visitor to
Yellowstone carry a fully automatic weapon as a defense.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> An employee will get 2 weeks vacation after a year of service.
> The employer lays the employee off after 50 weeks for no
> discernible business reason. The employer than offers the
> employee back his job after a week has passed.
>
> Again, the employee works for 50 weeks and again he's laid off
> for a week to be offered the job again. Clearly the promise of
> vacation as an inducement to employment is fraudulent. You can
> argue that if the employee is doltish enough to fall for this
> year after year, he has no case because he should see it coming,
> but this is an after hours sort of bull session hypothetical -
> not a real situation.
>
> So would there be a tort here?
A tort, probably not. It's more like breach of contract.
Note that in some states an employer can't deprive you of vacation
time in proportion to the amount of time you worked.
For example if you were to get two weeks of vacation each year and
are fired after six months, you are entitled to be paid for one
week of vacation at that time (assuming you haven't taken any
vacation).
Mike Jacobs
> Mike Jacobs wrote:
>
> > Brother, this is also a good reminder that unions still have a purpose
> > in life.
>
> I don't agree. The OP is positing a silly proposition that an employer
> intentionally lays off employees once a year to avoid ever paying any
> vacation time.
You think it was a hypothetical? I have no doubt some employers
actually do such a thing - not on a YEARLY basis for EVERYONE, mind
you, but that's NOT what OP mainly posted. Read him again. You are
focusing only on the next-to-last sentence of his post, which carries
the _actual_ situation OP reported on at length, to its theoretical
extreme.
> Saying that such a silly far out hypothesis
I took OP as describing the actual situation at his workplace. OP,
what's the story? Trollbait, or real dilemma?
> justifies a
> parasitic union be visited upon the workers is outrageous.
Boy, who pushed YOUR buttons? I wasn't trying to.
You will get no argument from me that many (not all) unions today, in
2009, have become institutions just as hidebound, and stupid, as the
employers they oppose, and that it is the workers and consumers who
suffer. Detroit and the UAW are a prime example, who now have to
compete on a world market (including numerous foreign-owned, non-union
shops right here on USA soil) with carmakers paying a bit less in
wages and a LOT less in vested pensions and other "baggage" accrued
over the last 100 or so years. Everybody, in a case like that, needs
to be willing to give a little and compromise just to survive, let
alone thrive, and yes, it does happen (once the crisis gets bad
enough).
I am not a corporation-basher, or a union-touter, nor a "my country
right or wrong" jingoistic idealogue. I try to look at the FACTS and
then form an opinion of what WORKS best in a given situation, ideology
be damned. And from that perspective, I believe there is a HUGE
portion of the American workforce today that is virtually as exploited
as they ever have been, and that their bargaining power vs. employers
is worsening as the sins of some major unions come back to haunt the
workers they claim to represent and as the employers consolidate their
grip by increasingly limiting competition - WalMart frex, driving all
the Mom&Pop stores out of business wherever they break ground. That
doesn't mean unions - NEW ones, or reformed, HONEST ones - aren't
still needed, to provide a fair counterbalance to the growing power of
corporate employers, and give the workers a collective voice.
> An OP that a
> hiker is worried about being charged by 20 mountain lions in Yellowstone
> Park could just as easily be used as a reason that every visitor to
> Yellowstone carry a fully automatic weapon as a defense.
Well, now they can do that, apparently. But I won't rise to bite on
that stinky-bait.
Daniel R.Reitman
<dryads...@xxxxyahoo.com> wrote:
>I am not going to deny that this would be legal, but it may be a tort as
>well. Let's take the hypothetical question posed by the OP.
>
>An employee will get 2 weeks vacation after a year of service. The
>employer lays the employee off after 50 weeks for no discernible
>business reason. The employer than offers the employee back his job
>after a week has passed.
>
>Again, the employee works for 50 weeks and again he's laid off for a
>week to be offered the job again. Clearly the promise of vacation as an
>inducement to employment is fraudulent. You can argue that if the
>employee is doltish enough to fall for this year after year, he has no
>case because he should see it coming, but this is an after hours sort of
>bull session hypothetical - not a real situation.
>
>So would there be a tort here?
The problem would be proving that the employer had no intent to
perform at the time of hiring, which is generally when the question of
fraud would be measured under this hypothetical.
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
INTENDED.
David Martel
This is not a silly or hypothetical issue. My youngest sister worked for
several years for such a company. As a matter of policy the entire workforce
was "laid-off" every year at Christmas. They were directed to collect
unemployment for 2 weeks, have a merry Christmas, and then report back to
work.
I was flabbergasted. I still am. I have no idea how this would affect
seniority but as for vacation, that was it, two weeks paid vacation. Merry
Christmas indeed.
Good luck,
Dave M.
Mike
That might have been a slightly different issue. The company may have
been saying "instead of promising vacation pay, we'll lay EVERYONE off
and then not fight any unemployment claims. Then we'll reopen shop and
hire ya back. We find the unemployment taxes are less than we'd pay if
we gave everyone 20 hours vacation time" (if you're laid off for 2
weeks, you'd only get the equal to 20 hours pay. You have a week that
you don't get anything and then you get up to half of your normal pay
after that) as opposed to "well, we'll PROMISE vacation time and then
screw everyone over when it comes time to actually pay it."
I.e. if they're up front about "do we provide vacation pay or not?" it's
not quite the same, IMHO.
Still seems like a stupid policy, though.
slide
> slide <dryads...@xxxxyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> So would there be a tort here?
>
> A tort, probably not. It's more like breach of contract.
>
I thought tort in the sense of fraud. The vacation was an inducement to
hire on but the employer never intended on granting the vacation. I see
that as fraud or maybe theft of services.
Hari Seldon
> I took OP as describing the actual situation at his workplace.
> OP, what's the story? �Trollbait, or real dilemma?
The actual situation is that I may be facing unemployment,
as we have very little work coming in but in this industry
(auto related supplier) that could easily change in a month
or two and I would be called back to work, where I'd be
considered a "new hire" despite the fact that I worked for
them for the last 4 years.
Without a union to support me, I figured there was nothing
preventing my employer from doing this but I thought maybe
there was at least a minimum time period (less than 3 months?)
where an employee couldn't lose their "seniority".
As far as purposely laying off an employee every year to
prevent them from acquiring seniority, my employer hasn't
done that to anybody but from what I've read in this thread,
there is nothing to prevent them from doing so and being
cheapskates with vacation time to begin with, that sucks.
On a related note; if an employer can do this as far as
vacation time, what is there to prevent them from doing
something similar as far as hourly wage, position in the
company, medical benefits, etc.?
Seems a company could lay off an employee for 1 day,
call them back but for a completely different position
and/or with a major cut in pay and if this was refused
by the employee, they'd not only lose their job but also
lose their unemployment benefits?
slide
Since the workforce knew about it year after year, it seems pretty
regular to me. The OP was that the vacation was promised but then
withdrawn through the layoff surprising the employee. In this case, the
vacation wasn't promised but a 2 week unemployment claim was, instead,
promised.
Stuart A. Bronstein
It looks like it, but I suspect a court would be very reluctant to
find a tort in a case like this. They're set against finding torts
(I guess more accurately I should say tort damages) in most
contract cases.
It could be fraudulent inducement to enter into a contract. But if
the employer does it a couple of times the employee should know
better and there ceases being reliance on the promise.
Yo
Stuart A. Bronstein
> The actual situation is that I may be facing unemployment,
> as we have very little work coming in but in this industry
> (auto related supplier) that could easily change in a month
> or two and I would be called back to work, where I'd be
> considered a "new hire" despite the fact that I worked for
> them for the last 4 years.
>
> Without a union to support me, I figured there was nothing
> preventing my employer from doing this but I thought maybe
> there was at least a minimum time period (less than 3 months?)
> where an employee couldn't lose their "seniority".
It is unlikely that there's a law dealing with seniority,
especially in a state where unions are so strong and they want all
the leverege they can get to attract new members.
> As far as purposely laying off an employee every year to
> prevent them from acquiring seniority, my employer hasn't
> done that to anybody but from what I've read in this thread,
> there is nothing to prevent them from doing so and being
> cheapskates with vacation time to begin with, that sucks.
There's nothing to prevent them from doing that, but it is unlikely
to get them very far. It may well be that state law requires
employers to pay accrued vacation pay to someone who quits or is
fired. If they promise you two weeks after a year and they fire
you after six months, they have to pay you for one week if no
vacation time has been used.
> On a related note; if an employer can do this as far as
> vacation time, what is there to prevent them from doing
> something similar as far as hourly wage, position in the
> company, medical benefits, etc.?
Medical benefits are a bit different in that employees generally
have to be treated the same. But as far as your job title and pay
are not protected into the future.
> Seems a company could lay off an employee for 1 day,
> call them back but for a completely different position
> and/or with a major cut in pay and if this was refused
> by the employee, they'd not only lose their job but also
> lose their unemployment benefits?
I doubt they'd lose unemployment, because they actually left the
last job involuntarily. You're not required to take just any job
that comes along.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> David Martel wrote:
But still nobody has asked what seems to me to be the critical
question: under Michigan law can an employer do that?
I don't practice in Michigan, so I don't know the answer for certain.
I did go and read a number of cases dealing with employees who were
terminated or quit with unused vacation time. And in each case the
courts and the litigants all simply assumed that payment for accrued
vacation time was owed.
If it is the law (as it is in some places) that vacation time accrues
and vests continuously, then that should resolve OP's legal issue.
If there is an agreement for two weeks of vacation per year worked,
and the employer lays her off after 50 weeks, the employee is then
entitled to two weeks of pay for accrued vacation.
Mike
> Seems a company could lay off an employee for 1 day,
> call them back but for a completely different position
> and/or with a major cut in pay and if this was refused
> by the employee, they'd not only lose their job but also
> lose their unemployment benefits?
I believe that if they lay you off, even if for one day, there's no
requirement that you go back when they say "ok, you can be re-hired now
at 75% of your old payrate." You can continue to draw unemployment since
you didn't turn down a job comparable to what you had before (but,
instead, refused a lesser-paying job.)
Basically, I had something somewhat the same happen to me. I worked for
company A. Company A closed up department D but then contracts with
company B to provide the services with company B's employees but aty
company A's facilities and on company A's equipment (basically all that
would have changed would have been "who signs your paychecks and how big
is that check?") Company B offered all employees positions at a lower
payrate than company A was paying (in my case, I would have gotten a
"signing bonus" that would have kept my payrate the same for 4 months
and then it would have gone down by 25%. I declined and went on
unemployment for a period. I was about to the burnout stage and needed a
break anyways. I did go back to company B later and did get a position
at the 75% payrate but, of course, without the "bonus.") I had no issues
drawing unemployment even though I was offered, and declined, the other job.
Stan
> Seems a company could lay off an employee for 1 day,
> call them back but for a completely different position
> and/or with a major cut in pay and if this was refused
> by the employee, they'd not only lose their job but also
> lose their unemployment benefits?
I'd like to go one step farther on this.
Forget about the one-day layoff, or as someone else posted, the two
things that will change on Monday is the salary (a 25% pay cut) and
who signs the paycheck. In both these cases, the employee's job with
the current employer was terminated, and the person simply refused an
inadequate job offer while already unemployed.
Instead, on Tuesday the company announces 25% pay cuts effective at
midnight. Is leaving a job because of a reduction in salary to an
inadequate level a legitimate reason for receiving unemployment
compensation?
Mark A
You forgot to mention what you can do. You can quit the company at any time
and take your talents elsewhere and leave the company high and dry. Or if
you get laid off, then you find a job somewhere else, so when they need you
back, you will not be available. If you don't think that it will be a
problem for your company to replace you with someone at a lower pay, then
maybe you are overpaid.
The are a lot of firms that hire lawyers and accountants that have an
informal rule that if you don't get promoted after a certain number of
years, then you have to leave the firm. One of the benefits of this to the
firm is that they don't have pay as much for recent college hires as they
would for experienced professionals to do the lower level tasks. I thought
the military has (or had) a similar rule (up or out). There is nothing
illegal about it so long as it is done before employees are 40 years of age
(companies are not allowed discriminate against those over 40 based on age).
The whole idea that an employee who has many years of service to the company
should get "seniority" and better benefits (such as longer vacation) is
suspect unless those very experienced employees offer something to the
company that a newly hired employee cannot offer. In some cases, an employee
with 6 months experience has just to much to offer the company as someone
who has been there 10 years, and maybe the 10-year employee is getting
complacent and takes his/her job for granted. In other situations, an
employee with 10 years experience would be hard to replace, so a policy of
giving them more vacation per year makes sense.
I don't think the situation you describe in the last paragraph is possible.
If they try and bring you back at a lower salary, you would not loose
unemployment benefits if you decline. Those rules are not determined by the
company, but by state unemployment benefit laws.
Barry Gold
>Forget about the one-day layoff, or as someone else posted, the two
>things that will change on Monday is the salary (a 25% pay cut) and
>who signs the paycheck. In both these cases, the employee's job with
>the current employer was terminated, and the person simply refused an
>inadequate job offer while already unemployed.
>
>Instead, on Tuesday the company announces 25% pay cuts effective at
>midnight. Is leaving a job because of a reduction in salary to an
>inadequate level a legitimate reason for receiving unemployment
>compensation?
I suspect it depends very much by state.
In California, the weekly form ("claim") you file for unemployment has
a question: did you refuse any offers of employment. If the answer is
"yes", you better have a damn good reason. The purpose of unemploy-
ment insurance is not to let you live at leisure (admittedly, on an
inadequate pay scale if you're a relatively high-paid person, as I
used to be). It's to protect you against the vicissitudes of life:
sometimes there just ain't no jobs.
Now, as a general rule, job offers do not come to you "out of the
blue". You apply for a job and submit a resume, then (if you are
lucky and/or have a great resume) you go to an interview. If they
like you at the interview, you *might* get the job.
So, don't apply for a job you don't want. This avoids the problem of
"did you refuse an offer of employment". YOu can't "refuse" an offer
that is never made.
Now, you're not required to accept just *any* job. It has to be
reasonably related to your skills and physical capabilities. If you
are an engineer, you don't have to accept a job as a UPS driver,
moving boxes of up to 75 lbs. I suspect there's also some distance
limit -- if you are offered a job 200 miles from your home, AFAIK you
don't have to take it.
Aside from that, though...
Let's assume the situation posted by OP: you are offered your old job
back, but at a lower salary. ISTM that if you reject that, you have
"refused an offer of work" and will probably not be eligible for
unemployment that week, and possibly for some time thereafter.
That's assuming, of course, that the offered salary is legal. If they
offer you less than minimum wage, you probably don't have to accept
that. (But it might be wise to report it to your state's Labor Commission,
to Cover Your Ass.) I don't know what happens if the offered pay
times hours comes to less than the weekly unemployment amount (around
$450 in CA at the amount). You might be able to collect the
difference.
Similarly for the situation that Stan posited. If your new salary
times hours is less than what unemployment would pay, you might be
able to claim the difference as "underemployment" insurance. Aside
from that, I suspect that in CA you would be treated like anybody else
who quit his job: ineligible for UI.
After all, "the value of a thing is whatever that thing will bring in
the marketplace." IOW, your labor and skills are worth exactly as
much as you can get somebody to pay for them, in an uncoerced, arm's
length transaction. In the late 1990s and through 2003, my skills
were worth somewhat more than $100,000/year. Starting in 2004, I
found that they were worth only $60,000. Assume that I hadn't been
laid off from that last job in 2003, but instead the company had
offered to keep me on at a lower salary. Would I have been justified
in rejecting that? I don't think so. Market conditions (and perhaps
my own skills) had changed such that my work was not worth as much as
it had been.
$60,000 is better than nothing, so I took the job I was able to find.
Hence, my take is that you should accept the "new" job (the old job at
the lower salary)(*). After all, there is nothing to keep you from
sending out your resume. If you find someone else who is willing to
pay you more (or equivalently, demand less in other forms, such as a
shorter commute), you are free to leave your job any time. YOu don't
even have to give notice (although it is customary in many positions).
If your new employer wants you to start right now, you can phone your
boss, tell him, "I quit effective immediately", and start work at your
new place. For a higher salary, we hope.
(*) Assuming not much else changes for the worse. If you are suddenly
asked to commute 100mi each way, you might have a case for rejecting
the new job. Or if you are exposed to hazardous materials (or other
OSHA violation), or being asked to perform duties beyond your physical
capabilities, I think you would be justified in refusing.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Seth
>Stan <stan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Instead, on Tuesday the company announces 25% pay cuts effective at
>>midnight. Is leaving a job because of a reduction in salary to an
>>inadequate level a legitimate reason for receiving unemployment
>>compensation?
>
>I suspect it depends very much by state.
It does.
>In California, the weekly form ("claim") you file for unemployment has
>a question: did you refuse any offers of employment. If the answer is
>"yes", you better have a damn good reason.
In New York (as of some years ago), for the first 6 months you could
refuse any job for any or no reason. After that, you had to accept a
job if it paid at least (IIRC) 85% of your highest quarterly salary
annualized. (Having worked on Wall St. where most of my pay was
bonus, it was amusing to note that I could refuse any job paying less
than twice my previous annual income.)
Seth
John F. Carr
David Martel <mart...@verizon.net> wrote:
> This is not a silly or hypothetical issue. My youngest sister worked for
>several years for such a company. As a matter of policy the entire workforce
>was "laid-off" every year at Christmas. They were directed to collect
>unemployment for 2 weeks, have a merry Christmas, and then report back to
>work.
This is a longstanding custom in manufacturing. The Big Three
carmakers still do it. All blue collar employees are directed
to take a two week vacation at the same time so the whole facility
can shut down. Hourly employees work no hours during that time
and should not expect pay for hours worked.
The employer could call it "shutdown" instead of "layoff".
Most do. Layoff is a scarier word and suggests indefinite
duration.
The employer could say the employees accrue paid vacation,
to be taken during the mandatory shutdown period, and pay
them less during the rest of the year. There are business
reasons to do this.
Where I have lived you can't collect unemployment in the
first two weeks. A two week "layoff" should result in no
more claims than a two week "vacation."
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Gordon Burditt
>>several years for such a company. As a matter of policy the entire workforce
>>was "laid-off" every year at Christmas. They were directed to collect
>>unemployment for 2 weeks, have a merry Christmas, and then report back to
>>work.
>
>This is a longstanding custom in manufacturing. The Big Three
>carmakers still do it. All blue collar employees are directed
>to take a two week vacation at the same time so the whole facility
>can shut down. Hourly employees work no hours during that time
>and should not expect pay for hours worked.
As far as I know, this custom does not involve laying off employees
and re-hiring them. Their seniority is not affected. If they are
using vacation, they do not collect unemployment. There is no
period during which they are not an employee, so confidentiality
agreements do not expire. Health insurance coverage continues.
Employees are expected to give notice to quit during a shutdown.
They are not expected to give notice to quit during a layoff - they
don't have a job to quit.
>The employer could call it "shutdown" instead of "layoff".
>Most do. Layoff is a scarier word and suggests indefinite
>duration.
A layoff suggests that they are no longer an employee, effective
real soon. A shutdown does not.
>The employer could say the employees accrue paid vacation,
>to be taken during the mandatory shutdown period, and pay
>them less during the rest of the year. There are business
>reasons to do this.
>
>Where I have lived you can't collect unemployment in the
>first two weeks. A two week "layoff" should result in no
>more claims than a two week "vacation."
A twelve week shutdown, assuming they are given that much vacation,
should result in no unemployment claims. I don't think that's
true of a twelve week layoff.