I also wondered about that.
I don’t understand how “stealing” enters into it. Is he planning to defraud the government by lying about something?
If he is not, and he can make more on unemployment than at work, that’s a crushing indictment of the pay he is getting at work.
I assumed it was 20 hours at $10 per hour a week. Is that correct?
It’s not clear if the OP thinks this or not, but termination with “cause” doesn’t necessarily preclude unemployment benefits.
Because the emergency relief bill that was just passed includes a $600 “kicker” on top of the normal unemployment compensation. And it authorizes payments (before the “kicker” is applied) of up to 100% of your former income, up to a certain amount. It will vary by state, but that combination means that many low wage workers (definitely including $10/hour workers) will make more from unemployment insurance payments than they made at their job.
Don’t do anything out of spite.
If he wants you to terminate his contract without you incurring extra costs just do so.
If you feel (know?) he’s doing this to (unfairly?) “game the system” (you really need to explain how he is getting more from unemployment than from his wages) you can choose not to hire him back.
If he gets more money from unemployment than from wages isn’t he just doing the logical thing? Aren’t we all trying to “game the system”, there is a whole sector of people who do nothing but help others to game the system. It is all that accountants, financial advisors, tax advisors, tax lawyers etc. do. Are they all stealing?
I don’t think the employee is doing anything nefarious or illegal. They are taking advantage of the rules as they are set up. This is no different than you hiring two people at 20 hours/week instead of 1 person full time to avoid paying benefits.
The value you place on him is $200 a week. I realize that this particular individual isnt trying to feed himself on this money, but… that’s low. That’s really, really low. If you place so little value on him, why do you expect him to put any more value on you?
These are tough times for everyone. Getting that $600 may be what he needs to do to make sure his household – normally supported by his parents – pays its bills this month.
As a business owner, I’m sure you are more financially secure than your part time employees. Maybe consider that not everyone has that luxury.
You can’t fire him “with cause” citing his desire to steal from the government.
If you work in an at will state, you can fire him for no reason at all. If that is the case, do not tell him why.
If you’re not in an at will state, lay him off, if you have no other legitimate reason (e.g. stealing from the till).
In either case, the dude is going to get unemployment, so it really doesn’t matter.
Is it necessary to do either?
Slight tangent: can you collect full (or any) unemployment if you’re laid off from a part time job? How many hours a week does a job have to be to make one qualified to collect unemployment after losing it?
I agree with the minority view here.
The employee is doing nothing wrong nor unethical. The OP is misunderstanding the situation. The employee is being upfront and honest in his request.
The employee is asking that the corporation make a corporate decision. That is entirely appropriate. The fact that the employee would benefit by a layoff decision is irrelevant
to the decision-making process for the corporation.
Is it in the best interest for the corporation to lay off this employee? Is it the correct thing for the corporation to do? That is up to the corporation. The employer should not attempt to punish the employee for doing something that is well within the bounds of any employee.
If the employee actually misrepresents his termination to the state, that is another matter and could be addressed if that happens. But today’s decision shouldn’t be made on the possibility of future misconduct.
I hadn’t thought of this. Damn straight.
I don’t have any advice for the OP - but what the employee is doing is absolutely unethical. The OP hasn’t laid him off, didn’t have any intention to lay him off and is apparently paying the employee although the employee isn’t performing any work.
Unemployment is meant for people who have lost a job involuntarily - you don’t get it if you quit unless the conditions were so bad that the unemployment agency considers it to be a “constructive discharge”. This employee is asking to be laid off- that’s voluntary.
I wouldn’t fire him at all. He can quit if he wants to, but until he does he is making a paycheck when so many people have had that choice taken away, and he’s supported by his parents when so many others are not. He reeks of being entitled. But if you fire him without cause, he’s taking money intended for other people, and if you fire him WITH cause you are doing so only because of a belief he is allowed to have. I feel you have no place to fire him with cause unless he’s actually performing poorly (or has seriously misbehaved in other ways).
I was thinking it’s 20 hours for a two week pay period, meaning 10 hours per week.
I’m going to focus on this aspect of your comments. As an employer, you should have no interest or concern with how your employees spend their money. You pay them to do a job, not to socially engineer their lives.
And comparing one employee’s life situation to another is going further down that rabbit hole. I would recommend against that.
Absolutely this. The employee is making free money right now, and depending on where he lives, still has the ability to find further work (fast food places, take out places, grocery stores, Walmart, walking dogs, mowing lawns, etc). Some people mentioned that maybe he needs more money to help support struggling parents, but if that’s the case, he should have brought that up to his employer. I’d have more sympathy for an employee saying, “Hey, I appreciate everything you’re doing for me, but my parents are really struggling to get by, and aren’t getting anything from their former employers. What do you think of [PLAN]?” Instead of saying, “Fire me so I can make more money.”
Does someone who makes $200 a week really make $600 on unemployment there? It’s been a while for me to look into the system, but there was a max for anybody, at maybe 600 a week, but nobody got more than a percentage of their customary take-home.
Agreed. The real outrage here is the shitheel company OP works for.
Interesting how many people here are happy to denigrate the employee for a perceived moral failing but give the company a complete ethical pass.