I assume everyone upset with the employee for working towards maximizing his income only takes the itemized deduction on their taxes even if the standard would increase their refund?
What exactly makes the OP’s company a “shitheel company” ? These employees are being paid even though they are not working , they will not lose their jobs and they will resume working when things are back to normal. That’s a lot better than the situation others are in - that extra $600 payment didn’t come about because no one is losing their income.
I can only assume that you consider it a “shitheel company” because these two employees work part-time. I guess you are unaware that there are many people who *want *to work part-time rather than full-time because they have other responsibilities.
Whom is he hurting with his plan? And if he’s not hurting anyone with it, what’s wrong with it?
Again, yes. The recently passed relief package includes a $600 “kicker” on top of regular unemployment insurance payments. Everybody in the U.S. now “makes” more than $600 on unemployment.
I and my immediate co-workers make more than minimum wage, but we’d all still actually make more on unemployment now. My company announced its first round of furloughs this week. Under those terms, furloughed workers would keep their seniority and, critically, benefits including health insurance. A couple of my co-workers have already informally but quite seriously volunteered to be furloughed if there’s another round, because they’d actually be better off financially.
I too think the OP should get down off her moral high horse and lay the guy off if he asks. It will literally save you money. If you’re so outraged that he’d even consider such a thing, tell him he won’t be eligible for rehire.
It’s not up to you to decide whether he’s milking the system or what he’s entitled to; that’s the unemployment office’s business and they probably don’t appreciate employers trying to second guess them and do their work for them and decide who gets what. And if they decide to let him have UI then yes, he is entitled to it despite your objections.
If someone is eligible for some sort of funding and follows the rules I don’t think others should get offended by it; I don’t see it being any different than knowing the tax rules and deducting moving expenses, taking advantage of a supplemental remote location benefit by moving somewhere remote, or putting in the effort to get good enough grades to apply of and receive a scholarship. I’ve done all 3 of those.
Having a secure $200/X-week job shouldn’t obligate one to stay at that job, and if they would prefer a short-term pay out of $600/X-week job then that’s their business. You can decide to not hire such a person back but IMHO you shouldn’t be deciding where or how they make a living. Some people bounce from job to job their whole lives and don’t really care about long-term stability; try not to enforce your version of the “right thing” to do on them. I’d let them deal with the consequences of their decisions rather than bend their decisions to your personal morals.
That’s a good point. Similarly, the employee with a spouse and children shouldn’t be favored (or disfavored) versus the single employee.
He’s eligible and entitled to it if he’s telling the truth when he says he was laid off - the OP hasn’t laid him off and the employee will not be eligible if he tells the whole truth of " My employer laid me off at my request"
It doesn’t obligate the employee to stay at his job, but neither does it obligate the OP to say it was a layoff if it wasn’t.
And who is he hurting with his plan? - the taxpayers who will be paying him $600 when he didn’t actually lose his job for reasons beyond his control. It’s one thing to cover people’s unexpected loss of income - but there’s a reason he wouldn’t get unemployment if he quit and therefore has to ask the OP for a fictitious layoff.
Yeah, asking me to lay you off is actually resigning. I’d accept the resignation and defend it as such.
I’m sorry for being unclear, my part timers work 20 hours per week at 10 per hour. They are both full time college students and do not want to work full time. They like their jobs because they basically get paid for being in the office and doing their homework while answering the phone once in a while. I really only need 1 10 hour per week worker, the company wants me to have them both.
So, I talked to someone in our legal department who told me to document the discussion, but to do nothing. If part timer wants to quit, that is his choice. If he doesn’t quit now, he probably will quit when he’s called back and has to actually work 20 hours a week to help get everything caught back up.
Yes! We can screw over some college kid earning a pittance with our superpowered nitpicking!
Out of spite because we suspect he might get ahead by a couple dollars.
That is not morally bankrupt at all!
I agree with this. I don’t see his actions as any way immoral or unethical. I could make a case that it’s no more immoral than his continuing to take a paycheck from you when he isn’t earning it. Thanks to the new laws, he now has other options available.
This new laws benefit many people unequally. For example, I’m getting $1200. I haven’t been working or looking for work, I’m retired but not collecting any SS yet, just living off savings for awhile. I worked last year and I qualify for the stimulus. Our lawmakers knew this law would not benefit everyone equally. And I don’t feel badly at all about taking the $1200.
Just one caveat that I don’t think has been mentioned yet. What about you?
You might be eligible for a small business loan. The bulk of that loan might be forgiven under certain circumstances. The main requirement for that loan forgiveness would be maintaining payroll and not laying anyone off.
I would look into this very carefully before making a decision. And if the loan would help you it might be worth considering, you can use it for things other than payroll.
Missed edit window
In rereading, I see that you aren’t the business owner. But the business owner may want to get forgivable loans and they can’t lay people off if they take those.
You might think he’s gaming the system, but you’re not an elected Congressman, so you don’t get a vote in what gaming the system is. If Congress says he gets $600/week for being laid off, then he gets $600/week for being laid off, and your objections aren’t important.
Lay him off.
You are 100% correct. My opinions do not matter. That’s what I meant when I said I ran it by legal when I posted this. Currently, I get little to no direct supervision. I meet with my supervisor monthly, or if an issue comes up. I like it this way. If I choose to follow your advice, I will get all of the direct supervision I can stand and more.
Congress did say he gets $600 a week for being laid off- but neither Congress nor the employee gets to decide whether the business lays him off. There are a number of different definitions of what “laid-off” means , but all of them involve someone involuntarily losing their job for reasons unrelated to performance. At the point where the employee is requesting to be laid-off when the business has no plans to lay anyone off * , it’s voluntary and not actually a layoff. Why do you think a business has an obligation to say someone was laid off simply because they prefer being laid off to keeping their job? Are they obliged to claim that everyone who quits was laid off or just this one person? Does the fact that UI premiums often depend on how many claims are made matter at all?
- It would be different if the business had decided to lay some people off and this person had volunteered to be one of them.
This.
The rate an employer pays the UI fund is based on a number of things, including overall jobless claims and the employer’s own history.
I know I’ve told this tale in the past: When we had a nanny for the kids, we did it above the table, and I paid the UI taxes etc. every year. There were several years where the jobless claims were so low that the following year the tax rate was zero dollars. Others where there had been more claims, and I had to pay more. Never more than about 40 bucks a year, as the tax rate is applied only to the first 8,000 in income per employee.
When we could no longer afford the nanny, I let her go and confirmed everything with the UI office - I wanted her to be able to collect that benefit.
And the following year, my “never more than 40 dollars a year per employee” had skyrocketed to something like 500 dollars. I think that’s a big part of why some dick companies automatically fight UI claims.
Since I didn’t have an employee at all the following year, it meant nothing. But this layoff would cost the OP money in the future, possibly enough to more than offset the 200 a week you’d save by not paying this guy. I’m quite sure he has no idea that you laying him off would cost your company anything.
He really sounds like an entitled brat. He’s already collecting his full salary from you - AND he has no expenses, so he’s coming out ahead right there. That 600 a week is not free money, there aren’t unlimited funds, and he wants to essentially steal from the gummint.
If it were me, I might reply with “No. It’s documented that your job is secure for a few months. I will not assist you in making a fraudulent claim”.
Really, what can he do? Refuse the money from you? That would be tantamount to abandoning his job, and you could then fire him for cause. And you’d have a solid paper trail showing that he meant to make a fraudulent claim, and he would conceivably wind up with no job AND no UI payment.
Or you could take the reasoned approach (“money ain’t free, others need it more, you’re better off, and it would cost me money even if I let you go”) and see if he backs off on the request. He’s young, so chances are he’s clueless enough that he really didn’t think the ramifications through.
And my evil side says “Keep him on payroll, then perhaps when you do re-open and find a way to get rid of him, he won’t get the stimulus money then, just regular UI”.
If you were like me, flatlined… and it’s good thing you’re not because I’d have this eating away at me until things open back up. On a good day, it’d just be annoying. On bad days, it’d be eating away at my stomach lining. And I’d be skipping ahead to “What’s it going to be like when he shows up again? Will I have a day or two with him before one of us snaps? Or will it be a month of tension?”
So just for your own peace of mind, I think you should cut him free. That way it’s done, and most importantly, you don’t have to think of him for the next days/weeks/months…
I suppose, if you can count on him quitting NOW, okay. But if you’re both going to be in a purgatory of “How long will he be off? How long will he have a job when things reopen?” that’ll be tough on both of you.
The firing/laying him off would be pulling the Band-Aid off quickly.
I didn’t see anything wrong with the request at first, but then I realized he might turn out like that goldbricking bum Bob Newhart who took advantage of the unemployment system.
Yanno, digs I respects you a whole bunch. And yeah, this will be bothering me for a while, but once I choose to run it by legal, I pretty much gave up any choice in the matter. I mean, I could probably get away with laying him off or firing him despite my feelings, but this isn’t a hill I want to die over.
Legal seems to agree with this: