I have 2 part time employees. They both get 20 hours at 10 per week. I sent them home with pay a couple of weeks ago. Today, one of them texted me asking to be laid off so he could get unemployment and and extra 600 per week.
I am honestly offended that he is asking me to do this because he wants to milk the system and take things he probably isn’t entitled to. My first response was to just fire him with cause, but then I thought about it for a while and got so much more confused that I thought I would bring this issue to you all.
If I fire him, it will be because I think what he wants to do is wrong. He is a college student who lives with and is supported by his parents. He works for me because they won’t pay his car or insurances payments for him, which he thinks is highly unfair.
My other part timer is actually working to pay his rent and is using Pell Grants and scholarships to pay for his college. He hasn’t been asked to be laid off.
Their jobs are secure, the company can easily afford to pay everyone that has been sent home and they will be called back when things are back to normalish.
What cause are you going to use to fire him, and how certain are you that your state’s UI office is going to regard that as adequate cause? If they decide it’s an arbitrary firing through no fault of his, he’s going to be able to get unemployment and the extra money anyway.
Thanks for moving me Colibri! I wasn’t sure where this belonged.
Being offended because someone wants to steal from the government is not a good cause to fire them. I get that. Of course, knowing that an employee is willing to steal for any reason is good reason to keep a close eye on them, but suspicion is not proof. He has told me that he is a thief and I no longer trust him. I do not want to reward him for being dishonest, that just reinforces the behavior. I also don’t want to fire him because that would be a reward. But I do want to fire him because I know that he is willing to steal. When things go back to normal, I won’t want him to come back to work for me because he is a wanna-be thief.
These are not normal times and I personally feel the need to cut people slack. And, obviously, you know him better than I do, but there may be more under the tip of the iceberg. Lay him off.
IMHO this is a time to not avoid punishing the most that need it by clamping down on the few that are abusing it. My two cents
I vote for laying him off. It’s no skin off your nose. You’re rid of him. You won’t have to explain to anyone what the cause was. You won’t hire him back. Over and done with.
and hell in California he could still work and get unemployment since if it’s under so many hours (20 I think in a week) it doesn’t qualify as even a part-time job …
But id go with the above and just permanently lay him off and replace him…
If he was trying to get the money while being paid by you, then I think you could accuse him of stealing. But that isn’t what is happening. He is asking to be laid off so that he could apply for unemployment under the rules of the system. You may not approve, but he is neither stealing nor doing anything illegal.
Don’t hire him back, that’s fine. But the purpose of the program is to stimulate the economy, and he’d do that probably better than most.
I really don’t understand why this request is offensive to you. You and he have been paying for unemployment insurance this whole time, and it sounds like he’s unemployed. It’s nice of you to pay him for time he isn’t working, but that’s not your responsibility. If he would benefit by being laid off, lay him off.
Slight hijack but it is directly related to the situation. Both of my step sons have become basically unemployed due to CV. Both have filed for unemployment. One has been officially furloughed but the other could be called in but is unlikely to be (they may just close his location entirely)
When they filed for unemployment they entered correct information, waited the two weeks until they could make a claim for payment etc. On the forms it asked
“Are you still employed by this company? in no are you scheduled to return to work for them”
I advised the one who was officially furloughed to say no (no longer employed) but scheduled. and the other to say yes (still employed)
What exactly is the difference?, will it affect their benefit amounts? etc. They have tried to call the helpline etc but the phone lines are down or overloaded.
We are in Texas, i am self employed so i am lost when it comes to unemployment.
If he’s playing by the rules then he is not “milking they system” or “getting something he isn’t entitled to” anymore than corporations using loopholes to avoid taxes are milking the system or getting something for nothing.
It’s an unusual situation where getting unemployment nets you more money than continuing to work. But here we are. He’s not gaming the system or cheating, he’s playing by the rules that just happen to benefit him more by being laid off than by continuing to work. Cheating would be attempting to collect unemployment while staying on your payroll.
But let’s role this forward a bit: let’s say you lay him off as he asks. He gets his extra $600/week… for four months. After which, under current rules, he will no longer collect that additional $600. Eventually, this pandemic will be over, unemployment will run out, and he’ll need a job. You won’t be re-hiring him so he’ll have to look for work… in an economy that will probably resemble that of the Great Depression. He’s going for a short-term gain here, possibly without regard to the long-term picture. Is giving up his part-time job worth that additional $7800?
Meanwhile, your other guy is not laid off. When the pandemic is over he’ll still have a job. So while he may not make as much in the short term, long-term he’s more likely to have an income. He’s looking at the long term. Which might make him that much more attractive as an employee what with him considering more than just the shot-term.
My personal opinion - which is not that of an expert and you’re free to ignore - is to lay off Mr. Short Term. That reduces your costs and gets rid of an employee you no longer trust. When things pick up again you will have ample people looking for work from which to choose a new employee when you need one. Don’t worry about the $7800 the government will pay in this case, any more than you worry about someone else’s tax refund or what they win from a lottery scratch-off. Consider it a bonus that the government will pay for it, taking an undesirable employee off your hands. You’ll have the last laugh when Mr. Short Term wants a job and is having trouble finding one.
I don’t understand “20 hours at 10 per week.” I find it contradictory and confusing. What exactly are you trying to say here?
Does this mean they are currently being paid while not working?
If he’s drawing his normal pay then I agree with you. He’s not suffering any loss of income due to the current situation. He’s looking to take advantage of a special provision meant for those who are facing a devastating loss of both income and opportunity. On that basis he’s really not entitled to it, regardless of whether or not it’s legal for him to collect it.
Unemployment insurance pay isn’t free money. Although the program is administered by the government, the bill is footed by employers. It seems to me you have every right resist going along with his scheme.
Kinda hard to have sympathy for this guy. He doesn’t sound like a worthy candidate for funds intended for folks who are really struggling.
I’m confused. Typically unemployment is a percentage of what you were earning when employed (in NJ and NY). How does one earn MORE after being unemployed?
It’s a tough time for everyone. And it’s not good for you to get upset or stressed because of someone else’s life decisions, when they aren’t family or even friends. I’d lay him off.