RE: unemployment benefits...follow-up

["Glenn Maxey" <glenn -dot- maxey -at- voyanttech -dot- com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Margulis [mailto:margulis -at- fiam -dot- net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 3:33 PM
> To: TECHWR-L
> Cc: TECHWR-L
> m w wrote:
> > 
> >..all because they didn't want to pay
> > benefits that had been taken from my paycheck.
> > 
> 
> Unemployment benefits are not taken from your paycheck. The employer
> pays them out of pocket, at a variable rate based on that particular
> employer's experience. That is, the more often the employer fires
> people, the higher the rate goes. 
> 
> Most employers do not challenge legitimate claims and only rarely
> challenge even unreasonable claims. 

However, if the employer has a history of letting people go, they will
be challenging any and all claims. Thus, an employer who isn't a
start-up and who has been in business for some years will have a history
with employees leaving.

Why? Because as you state, the unemployment _insurance_ that the company
pays is just that: insurance. It is a rate based on their track record
with former employees. The more claims against the employer, the higher
the employer's unemployment insurance rates. 

Hence, it becomes a business decision. It doesn't cost much to send an
HR flunky to a hearing to throw-out hearsay from a personnel file.
Surprisingly, more often than not, the ex-employee is so intimidated by
the process (or they know that they were clearly in the wrong) they
don't even show up; verdict goes to the employer by default. Hence, for
an hour's work, HR has saved the company $X per current employee per pay
period; it all adds up to the company's bottom line.

What the employee doesn't know is that the hearing is biased towards
them and not the employer. They are given the benefit of the doubt; they
have the most to lose. There might be stuff in your file, but if the
person making those first-hand accusations isn't present, it's hearsay
and inadmissable [although I am NOT a lawyer and do not know the extent
of this.] The HR person can bad mouth you and it may appear in the
written record, but unless it is their direct experience with you, it
isn't given a lot of weight. Now if your direct manager, those
responsible for your direct supervision, or those with claims against
you causing the black marks in your personnel file happen to show up
with the HR flunky, that's bad news. Oh, and I suppose it would also be
bad news if they gave you some CYA negative reviews and forced you to
sign them.

Happened to me. My file supposedly had complaints lodged against me.
While I worked there, the complaints were never made known to me. The
slander came out at a hearing 12 months later when economic conditions
let me go from company 2. The slanderer or complainer wasn't present at
the hearing. HR from employer 1 was simply doing their due diligence.

BTW, unemployement in the US looks five quarters into the past and at a
window that is the first four quarters of those five. The employer five
quarters ago is the one who is hit up first to pay benefits. Hence in my
case why employer 1 was keen on resolving it in their favor. I won.
Didn't have to pay back any benefits.

Glenn

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe.  http://ieeepcs.org/2001/

  +++  Miramo -- Database/XML publishing automation.  See us at  +++
  +++  Seybold SFO, Sept. 25-27, in the Adobe Partners Pavilion  +++
  +++ More info: http://www.axialinfo.com  http://www.miramo.com +++

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.