Unemployment benefits are for people who lose their job through no fault of their own and are unable to find another job while actively seeking work. The unemployment insurance paid on the employee’s behalf (which I agree is part of compensation) covers them for that consequence. So for example if the company loses a major account and needs to lay off 6 technicians because there’s not enough work, those technicians are entitled to unemployment. It does not cover the technician who loses the job through misconduct–stealing, insubordination, vandalism, sexual harassment, whatever.
Through my participation in a nationwide message board of HR folks, I’ve learned that unemployment varies tremendously from state to state. In some states it definitely favors the employee, in other states it is more favorable to the employer. So mileage really does vary. Any crazy scenario of getting unreasonably granted or denied benefits under implausible circumstances probably happened somewhere, sometime, to someone.
Some employers try to fight every claim. The classic scam is to take the employee off the schedule or suspend them; blow them off; and then tell unemployment that the guy walked off the job and disappeared.
Oh, I forgot the denouement of my story above. It turned out that the incompetent software development manager they kept over me later stole company secrets and sold them to his new employer!
Harriet’s first paragraph explained what I wanted to say, only better.
My experience with employers who don’t want to pay unemployment has always been with small companies where the owner takes some unusual pride in never having paid benefits.
In my state, your employer needs proof of misconduct or illegal activity to have an applicant denied benefits. If the employer claims the employee did something illegal (like stealing) they will need a copy of the police report. If the employer claims the employee was a bad employee, they will need some performance reviews to document their assertation.
DH and I have both dealt with small companies with bosses who don’t want to ex employees to qualify for benefits for not very good reasons. We both prevailed, but it’s a frustrating waste of time.
Well, the situation is apparently a little different than I claimed, though still puzzling.
There was a layoff on the 10th. On the 19th, the employee called to say that he had a new job. Two weeks later, he filed for unemployment. Coworker returned the mailing saying that we denied the claim because the termination was voluntary. The unemployment office asked if he had been recalled from layoff. He hadn’t because he had called to quit. That, for some reason, didn’t count.
There was an appeal, which we lost. Then coworker attempted to recall employee from layoff again, but was never able to contact him. The bureau said that we could not demonstrate that we had attempted to reach him.
There was not, to my knowledge, a hearing, so it sounds like perhaps the ball got dropped at that point.
He collected for six months, then came in and put in an application. His application is on file. He is somewhat unlikely to be rehired.
The only case where I am aware that we won an unemployment case was one where the fired worker threatened the crew leader. That one didn’t go to a hearing. The only case where I’m sure there was a hearing the company lost–after a receptionist who was used to working 8-4 refused to shift hours to 9-5. The bureau said that was an unreasonable request.
We don’t get many claims, really. Most of the terminations are voluntary, since the job is hot and exhausting. Generally, employees don’t make it past the probationary period before walking off the job. The ones that do tend to stay for years and years.
The trick is to send it certified mail, return receipt requested. And send it to the address where the guy is getting his checks (you can get that address from unemployment.) That way, it’s a lot harder for him to claim that he moved and never got notice of the letter.
I’d be very surprised if he didn’t do this, since most of the correspondence with employees goes via certified mail (insurance, 401k, COBRA documents, etc.)
In any case, that exhausts my knowledge of the situation, and obviously I’m only getting one side.
I still think him coming in is hilarious, though, so I’ve got an odd sense of humor.
[hijack]One character in the movie “The Slums of Beverly Hills” tells the story about stealing meat, and a child ends up stabbing him in the leg with a fork, IIRC.[/hijack]
Hmmm . . . it actually does make sense, in a way. This is speculation based on incomplete information–not legal advice. I am not your lawyer; you are not my client.
When he took the new job, he was laid off. The guy was terminated for lack of work. I am assuming (although I can read your summary either way) that the layoff wasn’t a time-limited sort of thing. So his separation from you was not for cause. He then took another job. He has a duty to do that if he gets a reasonable offer. If he doesn’t he loses his benefits.
As long as he had worked a sufficient period of time (at your place and the new job combined), he can still get benefits if he is discharged from the new employer, as long as it isn’t for just cause. That’s at least a possible interpretation.
I went to work at a place where my boss bragged that she always contested ex-employees getting unemployment and that she’d never lost. Nine months later she fired me. She (of course) contested when I applied for unemployment, and made up a bunch of stuff to make it appear that I was fired for cause. The person she talked to was able to see through her bullshit and I got benefits ( for about 2 months until I got another job). I would have loved to see her face when she found out I was going to get unemployment benefits!
That was just an ugly scene all the way around. I was new on the job, and urggh. Awful. The receptionist had been there for years, since the company was founded, and the person who wanted the hours changed was new and much much younger. The receptionist claimed that the change in hours was to spite her. The boss said that the hours were changing and that’s that. The receptionist said she wouldn’t comply. She was fired. At the hearing, the officer said that she couldn’t be fired for saying she refused to comply (which all of us witnessed). She could only be fired for failing to comply, and only then if the request was reasonable–which she said the hour change wasn’t. For a couple of weeks before the blowup, all of us were coming in 9-5 except the receptionist who came in 8-4. (Well, I say all of us, but there were only six of us in the office, plus the receptionist. Tiny company.)
Okay, but that’s not being fired for cause, right? That could qualify as a substantial change from the job that you were hired for, making you eligible for unemployment benefits in most states, right?
Same goes for the guy you just stop scheduling for shift-work types of jobs – say at Best Buy. He was hired to work 38 hours, and now you’re only scheduling him for 0 hours per week. He’s not “fired” in any sense, but you’ve changed his job significantly versus what he was hired for.
A more dramatic example of the same type of ploy: you’re an automotive engineer, but your new boss puts you in charge of sweeping the floors. No, not supervising the floor sweepers – you now sweep the floors. Of course you’re going quit – not get fired – and you should be eligible for unemployment compensation, because it’s not the job that you were hired for.
Am I wrong about this? I’m sure I read such right here in GQ several years ago.
Could go either way. It is a change, the question is whether it is substantial. For example a dramatic reduction in hours or wages can be just cause to quit. UCRC Online | Unemployment Compensation Review Commission When you talk about a change in work time, it gets a little trickier.
These things tend to be fact intensive, and there aren’t always clear standards.
A lot would probably depend on what the hearing officer saw as the real cause of the dispute. Was one party being punitive or petty? What were the reasons given for the schedule change? Why couldn’t she work the new hours? Whose fault was it?
I am obviously not an expert, but I would think that refusing to come in during office hours/demanding special office hours would be cause for termination.
Especially as she was reception, not accounting or something that could operate during independent hours.
For example, I’m in sales. What would you think if I refused to come in during office hours? I think my ass would be out the door. My coworker in shipping, though, adapts his schedule to fit the shipments, not the office.
But, obviously, the hearing officer didn’t agree with that position.
Changes in job description, like **Gfactor ** said, are a gray area. IMHO, the receptionist got very favorable treatment in getting unemployment for a 1-hour change that was within regular business hours. Having to go to 3rd shift or a split shift would be more likely to be seen as unreasonable.
One term you will hear in this kind of situation is “constructive discharge.” Loosely, it means they didn’t fire you but they might as well have. That’s the case with the automotive engineer who became a floor sweeper, especially if the pay dropped commensurately. Note that the typical consequence of this is **not ** that you get to sue the employer for all they’re worth, but rather that your separation, which might look voluntary at first glance (maybe you wrote a resignation letter or said “I quit.”) is understood as involuntary for things like unemployment eligibility.
Eligibility for unemployment depends on the fact that 1) your separation was involuntary and 2) it was through no fault of your own. Employers will fight unemployment to save themselves money on future premiums, and they will fight it on the grounds that either 1) you left voluntarily OR 2) you were fired for a reason that was your fault.
This is my story. I had been working for a firm in the city I used to live in for about eight years, but due to family circumstances I had to move about 800 miles away, to a city in which my firm did not have an office.
I was having difficulty finding comparable employment in the new city (still prior to my move), so I went to my boss and proposed that I stay with them and telecommute from my new home in the other state. She had a big project coming up that she needed me for, so we agreed that we would do it. We agreed I could work for them for another year.
After the year was up, they still had work, and I still hadn’t found a job locally, so they extended my arrangement for another six months.
At the end of the six months, they let me go, and I filed for unemployment benefits, which were granted. They contested, saying that they had been doing me a favor by letting me work from home, otherwise I would have had to quit back when I moved. I had to fill out some paperwork and their appeal was denied.
They appealed again and this time we actually had to go to court – well, sort of: this appeal was done over the phone with a judge asking the questions. It took him maybe 10 minutes to hear both sides, and then ruled in my favor and upheld the benefits.
I was pretty upset because I had really loved that company and suddenly felt like I was on bad terms with them. But a few weeks later I found a job, at least.
From the employer’s perspective, if an employee says they need to move, that is a voluntary quit and the employer would not expect to be responsible for unemployment. I can’t just say I’d like to move to Hawaii and collect unemployment for 6 months. I can see why the employer was ticked. They did the employee a favor with the telecommunting arrangement, then wound up on the hook for unemployment they wouldn’t otherwise have been responsible for. That said, the finding in the employee’s favor is not terribly surprising, since the employer clearly could employ him in a remote location, then chose not to continue that arrangement. That can quite easily be seen as an involuntary separation.
