My employer just took away my gasoline privlages, and also cut my pay 15%. At a $1000 a month hit, if I refuse the pay cut and quit, would I be eligible for unemployment? I’ve spent hours on the EDD site
http://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/FAQ_-_Contacting_UI.htm
and can’t find anything. I think I’m screwed, but if I could get some sort of compensation, I could leave, and find something else.
Or you could, you know, just find something else and keep your current job until then like other people do. You would probably lose even more money if you went on unemployment so I don’t see the point. I don’t know your current pay but based on what you said, you would probably be eligible for not more than the max rate and that doesn’t come close to replacing most people’s pay.
Yes, I could stay, but this is just like the last straw for me. I’ve started submitting my resume to different places, but I’d like to start knocking on doors, which is hard to do if I’m at a underpaid job all week. I know I should be thankful for any job, but if there are no benefits to be had if I did quit, then I’ll just grin and bear it. As far as my wage, with paying for my own fuel now, it’s a 33% cut.
Did you review the Voluntary Quit page? It sounds like if you voluntarily quit, you must have a “compelling reason” in order to receive unemployment.
Apparently it’s possible that economic reasons would qualify.
This isn’t moral advice, just a practical one. It is much easier to find a job if you already have a job unless you are on slave labor aboard a transatlantic sailboat or something. I mean that literally. There is a prejudice against unemployed people when it comes to finding a job to the point where some HR people do a primary screen of resumes and applications and select those that are employed already and put them at the top. You also have more bargaining power when you have a job and you don’t have to give a reason other than ‘looking for a better opportunity’ when they ask why you want a new one. Complaining about unfair treatment from a previous employer doesn’t play that well even if it is completely justified.
There is also a risk involved with going on unemployment. You only get a certain number of weeks in a given period of time. If something unfortunate happened soon after you started your new job like a lay-off, you could have burned through some or all of your unemployment benefits already and be left with nothing to turn to.
The maximum unemployment pay in California is only $450 a week and taxable. Everyone takes a financial hit on unemployment so it isn’t something you want to do by choice.
You may or may not be able to collect. It depends on the arbitrator. If you quit and file your employer will almost certainly fight it. Then you’ll probably lose, then it’ll go to arbitration and depending on the judge you may or may not get it.
Of course you can always appeal that as well.
I agree with the other posters, it’s much easier to find work, if you are currently working.
As Homer Simpson said, “If you don’t like your job you don’t go on strike, you just go in everyday and just do it really half-assed.”
Substitute quit for strike and there’s your answer 
Start by sending your resumes out while employed. Even though this job may be bad, it still may be better than what’s out there.
I’ve been doing temp jobs for three years now and I still get lots of interviews for full time work and manage to look while working. There’s not a lot out there, the pay scales have fallen and the competition in my field is intense.
Some advice while looking for a job.
If you get a job interview during work hours and have to take time off. Just tell your present employeer that you need the time off to take care of some personal business. Do not call in sick.
-
Do you have sick time accrued? Start using it up for interviews.
-
Do not QUIT. Unless you have a shitload of savings and can live on your own. If you quit, it is very unlikely you will be able to collect unemployment regardless of why you quit. In my state (IL), no matter why you quit you cannot collect food stamps for 3 months following a voluntary quit. So, don’t quit unless you get another job lined up.
-
Let him let you go. When you have to be at work, do an increasingly shoddy job, gradually. Make it look like you’re trying, but distracted. If your boss comments on your decrease in performance, say that you’re really distracted by your financial hit due to his pay cut. Eventually he will either have to pay you more, or let you go (or you get to keep doing a crappy job, in which case SCORE!). You CAN collect unemployment after being terminated for poor job performance.
Technically you can collect unemployment after quitting, but it’s way harder to do and not worth the gamble if you can’t afford not to collect it. Though if you have a lot of savings, you could just quit anyway to spite him. As long as you’re not planning on HAVING to collect unemployment just to survive, do what you want.
Wage Reduction
An employer is often forced to reduce wages for economic reasons. However, the fact that the employer’s declining business necessitated reducing employee wages, does not impose a duty upon the employee to accept the reduction. In cases involving wage reductions, good cause is measured by the reasonableness of the claimant’s actions in relation to the circumstances existing at the time of quitting.
Title 22, Section 1256-22(b), Comments provides:
. . .*f factors other than a pay reduction influence an individual's decision to leave the work, all such factors are evaluated to determine whether a reasonable person genuinely desirous of retaining employment would have left the work. . . . However, a pay decrease of 20% or more, taken alone, is a substantial reduction in pay to establish good cause for leaving work where the employee is notified of a transfer or demotion to another position with the employer. Pay includes the basic wage, shift differentials, board and room furnished by the employer and guaranteed overtime. Pay also includes fringe benefits such as vacation pay and insurance if such fringe benefits are currently available or set schedules and information to value fringe benefits for the former and other position are available.
In P-B-124, the claimant had been placed on a temporary layoff for a definite period of time. He quit after being offered the choice of remaining on layoff indefinitely or transferring to work as a laborer at a 20.96% reduction in hourly wage. The Board held that the claimant acted reasonably in refusing the downgrade and stated:
. . . [W]e find that this reduction in pay (20.96 percent) is sufficiently substantial, in and of itself, to conclude that the claimant had good cause to leave his work.
However, in the majority of wage reductions, good cause must be measured not by any one individual factor but rather by the sum total of all factors surrounding the leaving.
This principle was discussed in P-B-88. In this case, when informed of his impending layoff from work as a lab associate, the claimant tried unsuccessfully to find other work at a comparable salary. On his last day of work he refused the offer of downgrading to comparable work as an instrument precision repairman at a decrease in pay of approximately 11%. In its decision, the Board stated:
. . .The leaving must be measured by the reasonableness of the separation in light of all the circumstances existing at the time the claimant is offered a downgrade in lieu of layoff . . . . The offered work as a repairman did not deprive the claimant of any skill needed to function as a test and development lab associate. The claimant would have retained all rights to be recalled as such associate and had no seniority rights under the collective bargaining agreement to lose. His decision to take the layoff was based solely on a reduction of approximately 11.2 percent at a time when he was fully aware he had no prospects of other work . . . . The reduction in pay did not constitute a compelling reason for leaving work when all other factors existing at the time favored continued employment as the best alternative. . . . The factors other than wage reduction appearing in these cases, and which bear upon the decisions are:
1. The claimant's prospects for securing other work at a wage commensurate with his prior earnings;
2. Whether the claimant was aware of the labor market as it affected him;
3. The comparative skills required.
Among the other factors we have also considered are:
1. Substantial prospects of other employment based upon objective facts known at the time of election;
2. The distance and cost of commuting;
3. Loss of seniority and recall rights;
4. Opportunities for advancement in the lower classification.
It should be noted that all of the factors cited in P-B-88 will not be pertinent to every case. However, the appropriate ones must be considered and their individual importance must be weighed along with the wage reduction, before good cause can be properly determined. If the sum total of the factors show that the claimant’s actions were those of a reasonable person desirous of maintaining employment, good cause would exist for the quit.
P-B-127 is an example where the Board weighed several of the factors in addition to the wage reduction. In this case, the claimant chose layoff rather than accepting a downgrade from electrician’s helper to work as a laborer at a wage reduction of ten and one-half percent. Although he had no prospects of comparable employment elsewhere, the claimant thought he might forget some of the things he had learned if he accepted the laborer’s position, and he hoped to find electrical work. In concluding that the claimant had quit without good cause, the Board considered the possible loss of skills, the length of time the claimant could expect to remain in the downgraded position, and the condition of the potential labor market in addition to the wage reduction. In its decision, the Board held:
. . . we do not believe that the classification of an electrician's helper which is below that of apprentice involves any significant or substantial skills. . . . Inasmuch as he asserted that he believed he would shortly be recalled, it is apparent he would have lost no appreciable amount of skill in the electrician helper's job by taking the laborer's job . . . . [T]he claimant admittedly had no knowledge of any openings for employment elsewhere when he elected layoff. . . . His limited skills in electrical work could furnish no foundation for a reasonable belief that he could secure work in a depressed labor market within his preferred field.
Quitting’s probably not a good idea, but if you wanted to see how much slacking off you could get away with before they fire you, now might be the time to experiment…
I mean, how can they expect you to stay motivated after that kind of insult?
Many employers are taking a dirty approach to hiring by not considering anyone who is unemployed. It does not matter that you have a stellar resume, impeccable references, and an all around great personality. If you are not working, that resume will be circular-filed. End of story. Elvis has left the building.