It may have been involuntary but it wasn’t servitude. It must be both for a violation.
My offices can charge per page of medical records requested, up to a limit established by state law. Time expenses are not included in that amount, it’s supposed to recoup the costs of paper and toner.
~Max
Then what about all those people telling veterans, “Thank you for your servitude”?
YMMV depending on state but AKAIK “with cause” now means only that they committed a crime.
That’s not what the law says, but that does seem to be how it is enforced. I mean, as I pointed out in my case, it was job abandonment, as I fired her after she no call/no showed for an entire week. Came in the next week as if nothing had happened, actually seemed to act surprised that she was no longer on the schedule.
If I had known what I know now about unemployment, I could have collected it from half the employers I had in the past.
Sorry I didn’t make it clear. Yes you’re right it’s de facto rather than de jure.
Perhaps we might agree that the legal system is not the same as an “ethical system,” and so it is possible that a law or constitutional clause may well be “legal” and enforceable yet still violate an ethical code and even “common sense.”
A lot of big employers don’t contest any unemployment claims, it varies a lot from state to state but obviously you pay a premium over the base rate based on usually a somewhat complex formula heavily weighted with how many employees you have ever had file and receive benefits. A large company probably has that formula perpetually “maxed out” so it isn’t worth corporate time and effort to even object to any of the cases.
In my case while it isn’t a massive amount of money difference, I find it worthwhile to at least contest when someone who literally quit, tries to claim. But after a few failed attempts, I no longer attempt to dispute when I’ve dismissed an employee for cause as it seems like the commissions simply aren’t interested in hearing the employer’s side.
Post them on r/facepalm.
Absolutely. But when the OP very clearly references a “legal” definition, and someone posts a factually and legally incorrect statement about said legal definition, I’ll try to correct it. Any subsequent semantic gameplaying nothwithstanding.
Fair.
Well, to be honest, as a employee, “you” (as in the generic “you”) really do pay both halves most of the time. The employers, when figuring out how much to pay, has to take into account how much all the employment taxes and benefits are gonna cost. If someone gets get cheap healthcare at work, it is because their wages are less (and because they are in a “pool” which also helps a lot). Pretty much every benefit comes out of their paycheck, directly or indirectly.
They often save that for a few dudes fired "for cause’ like stealing.
In the past when I’ve done these the lender was asking are they still employed and will they remain employed for the foreseeable future. I had one two days before I was letting someone go so that forced a conversation early.
This time the weirdness was asking why I would hire someone. I’m happy to help but it seemed extra invasive.
Sure. I get all that. It just was a big bit of sticker shock the first year I filed as a sole proprietorship. It left me feeling like "hey, if they want to encourage people to start businesses why am I paying around 30% of my taxable income in taxes when I paid somewhere in the low 20s before? Like I said, I got over it, it doesn’t bug me, but it was surprising, as no one prepared me for it.
Is the OP really mad about the form filing? Or maybe he just doesn’t want the employee to have to pay the child support?
Either way, this seems a ridiculous hill to die on, I agree with the legal advice!
We just closed on a house and our mortgage lender already verified my income. But they needed verification of my employment 7 days before the closing date. But they didn’t ask anything about projecting into the future, and I can’t imaging my employer would tell them anything about that.
Very weird and just went and looked at the last two I did and question 11 on the Fanie May form is “probability of continued employment” I wonder what type of loan you got.
No, the employee is the plaintiff, suing to receive child support. I don’t get why the court doesn’t require her to provide W-2s, etc.
W2 is considered an employer-issued form, so your copy would be seen as the “master”, and hers a copy of it. I assume courts just default to getting the most authoritative documentation for any matter in dispute.
Well, I’m over my irritability about this topic; I’m blaming my 3rd Pfizer booster (have been generally irritable since receiving it).
I was unable to determine the employees original date of hire, but would think it was somewhere 4-6 years ago. The original info is likely on a computer hard drive I have in the attic, but do not know how to access. There are alternate ways to determine the date, but I’ll wait to see if the court contacts me.