And I don’t feel like this is a reasonable assumption.
Aspidistra started her thought/point out with the word “If”. It’s not very nice to take the last bit of her statement out of context like that.
Anyway, I was thinking along the same lines as her. I’m wondering why the boss isn’t trying to do a little more to coach her along. It’s kind of a peeve of mine that so many companies expect new hires to “hit the ground running” these days. I’ve heard it expected from entry level workers as well as experienced, and it’s just unreasonable.
I offered no comment on the first half of Aspidstra’s thought/point which is why I removed that part of her statement from my post. I have no information and make no assumptions regarding how the OP’s partner represented herself or what kind of good faith effort she is making.
In my opinion, it is not clear that the OP’s employer did a “sucky hiring job” and I stand by this statement.
Maybe the employer did a sucky hiring job. Maybe the employee stretched for a job she knew would be a challenge. Or maybe it just didn’t work out. But to my mind, the situation caused me to question the social policy behind unemployment bens.
I know many people who fail to look for work until their unemployment is about to run out. Or similar strategies. Which I do not greatly respect. The situation the OP described impressed me as approaching that sort of situation.
I’m not sure there is a clear statement of the public policy behind unemployment. From a quick Google, I see this: “…provide unemployment benefits to eligible workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own, and meet certain other eligibility requirements.” As with many/most governmental benefits, a good share goes to those who are most adept at strategizing and advocating in their own best interest, as opposed to those any of us might consider the most needy/deserving.
The employer can likely point to something in the initial job requirements that spelled things out. The job may have been unexpectedly fast paced and high stress, but the burden will be on her to prove that the employer was unclear. The employer can likely say she was let go for cause since she was unable to do the tasks required. That may make her ineligible for unemployment anyway. With the low amount that unemployment would bring and the likely need to hire a lawyer to fight for her, I don’t even think it’s worth considering going down that path.
In many ( maybe most) states , being fired “for cause” is not what makes you ineligible for unemployment. Being fired for “misconduct” is what makes you ineligible. So you will be eligible if you lose your job because it turns out you don’t have the necessary skills or because your performance does not meet standards. But you won’t be eligible if you are fired for stealing, excessive absences or tardiness, failing to follow a safety rule , threatening a coworker etc.
As I understand it, “cause” is the legal term for misconduct in employment law? It covers things like chronic lateness through insubordination to theft and assault and workplace harassment.
Being “let go” (“laid off” or dismissed without cause) is what happens if the employer feels you cannot do your job.
It may not be the employee’s fault. Perhaps the job was misrepresented. Perhaps the pace at the office and the pressures are not what one would reasonably expect in that job. etc. Plenty of perhapses.
Unemployment Insurance is for people who find themselves unemployed. it is something that is paid for, so is part of a worker’s entitlement should circumstances dictate. (We are only debating circumstances) If the rules are written so someone is forced to sit and wait to be let go, rather than taking the plunge, well then - that is a fault of the way the rules are written. Similarly if the rules say an employer pays a penalty for dumping a less than adequate employee, then employers will concoct pretexts for letting an employee go for cause so they don’t have to pay.
So should an employee collect EI if they find they can’t handle the job? that’s precisely what EI should be for, a helping hand in a consumer economy where most people work paycheque to paycheque. It’s bad enough that benefits like health insurance are golden handcuffs, why incentivize unhappy or marginally incompetent employees not to quit even more?
After all, the OP describes a situation where his wife picked the job initially to work, not with the intention to “game the system” and collect. She is only considering options because of the financial impact of her decisions. Presumably the employer is making the same calculation in not letting her go right away.
(As I recall, Canadian EI does not ding individual employers specifically for high turnover - rates are standard. They will investigate and charge if they feel there is collusion, i.e. employer hiring people only long enough to qualify for unemployment; labour standards take care of bosses who harass employees into quitting, but there’s no great financial incentive for that - being found to have done so could make the company liable for several months’ separation pay.)
The unemployment office looks back 12 months. Your unemployment benefit is based off your earnings 12 months earlier. I believe it is done by quarter. So if you only work 3 month then leave a job you are not going to receive any benefit, unless you had a job before.
I kind of did a mental spit-take at that at first, but on reflection I can understand that interpretation. That’s just not the intent here.
As background, my wife worked 20 years in a similar mid-level position in another industry without a break in employment before making the jump to the new job. The new company fudged a bit on the amount of hours the job takes (not 45/wk, but 55/wk plus some on weekends) and her boss has since noted they have a lot of turnover in this position. Which sucks, because now my wife is crying in her car at lunch over the stress and frustration and missing kids’ soccer games on weekends to do catch-up work…
So both parties are disappointed and it seems like everyone would be better served by ending the relationship sooner rather than later. That’s the goal. At the same time we live in an expensive state and we’ve got young kids so we can’t not factor in what unemployment of indeterminate length would entail. It just makes sense to weigh UI eligibility in determining how to proceed.
It sounds like there’s no real optimal solution for everyone, so the safest answer is basically, ride it out.
Anyway, I’m deeply grateful everyone’s input. You guys are the best 
If she’s not going to continue in this job, there’s no sense in getting stressed out over it. She should cut back her hours so she’s less stressed and her employer can decide what to do if they don’t like it.
You’re 100% right, and we’ve had that conversation, but it’s just her nature to give it all she’s got even if it’s a lost cause 
Knowing she’d stick with it and be miserable is what prompted me to explore an alternative…
It sounds like it’s really a job for two people. If she’d be able to do a better job with reduced hours, it might be worth talking to the boss to say that the quality of work would be a lot better if the workload was more manageable.
One option would be to have a part time person added to the role. That way there’s 1.5 people doing the work. She could propose that even if it meant she was the one doing it part time.
Sorry, I think you meant to say “knowingly and blatantly lied about the hours expected because they knew no one would take the position if they were truthful about it.”
Seriously, if they told her the expected work hours are 45/wk, but she and everyone else are really expected to work 55 hrs + some weekends to keep up, then she owes them no effort whatsoever. If there’s only a month left, her best bet is to work the 45 hours that she was hired for, go to the weekend soccer games, then smile when they let her go.
I’ve done it (Minnesota) and it worked out fine. I was working for a small company that was having financial issues - and they frankly didn’t have enough work for me and would be better off with someone else. But they did sort of want to keep me. I went in and said “you can’t afford me, there isn’t enough work here for me, and your money would be better off over there. But I can’t afford to quit for your sake and you are holding to a time off policy that makes it impossible for me to interview (their time off policy was full days only) - consider laying me off so I can get unemployment and you can hire where you need to.” Two days later they did that - I made their choice easy.
My concern was that they were going to start trumping up “she isn’t doing her job” so they could fire me and avoid unemployment. As part of my little speech I made it clear that wasn’t going to be the outcome. Because I was doing an excellent job where I could - there just wasn’t enough work and I wasn’t going to defraud our clients by billing hours I wasn’t working (which had been their push - but my biggest client I was billing was a lawfirm - I have a rule “don’t defraud lawyers”).
How much of this material misrepresentation was in writing when she interviewed for the position (the 45 vs 55 hours per week, plus weekends, etc). That may have a bearing on whether or not she could quit and still receive benefits. It may be worth consulting an unemployment attorney about it.
Also, perhaps it’s time to remind her that “giving her all” to an employer who is obviously willing to take it all and ask for more puts her relationships with far more important people at risk, namely her relationship with her family. Getting another job is very easy compared with getting a new family.
I sincerely apologize for misinterpreting the intent of your query.
IMHO, the most ethically correct way to handle this situation is for your wife to have a frank discussion with her employer. Are they just waiting out the clock or is there some middle ground available that would let your wife find a future in their continued employment? If it’s the latter, life is improving and the two of you can work forward from there. If it’s the former? Well…
Are you sure your wife is going to get fired? From what I’ve seen, if the company is going to fire you during the 90 day trial period, they just fire you as soon as they figured out you aren’t a good fit. They don’t have to wait until day 90.
If a company hires someone and they aren’t working out right off the bat, they typically didn’t do a great job of assessing that person’s aptitude for the jog.
Or they didn’t have a large pool of applicants? If the hiring manager makes the best choice from the available applicant and that person doesn’t work out, is that the fault of the hiring manager?
I don’t know the nature of the OP’s partner’s career and/or interview process. I simply don’t assume that there is an automatic requirement that any degree of blame must be assigned to either party.
No you cant. But if you have worked for years at one job, then work a short time at another, you can collect for the full period.
The specifics of unemployment laws vary by state. In general, if you ask to be fired and the employer obliges, that’s considered the same thing as quitting. If the employer wants to, they can choose not to contest when you file a UI claim, but if they do then there’s not really any difference between ‘I want you to fire me’ and ‘I resign’.
In general, probation periods at a job and UI are unrelated (probationary periods are usually about getting benefits and whether company policy says they need a reason to fire you). Whether an employer will ‘on the hook’ for unemployment (and exactly what that entails) is a matter of state law, and I’m not aware of any state that references ‘probationary hiring’ in determining that. Generally it’s something like ‘if you’ve worked for this business for less than X time, then they won’t be on the hook for your unemployment’.