This is what I’m talking about… Entity A (with a small amount of funds) giving out free money is “nice” and accepting it is not at all milking the system. Entity B (with a large amount of funds) giving out free money to the same person is “enabling” and wasteful. Double-standard.
Again it’s not up to the company to decide whether one of it’s employees “needs” a certain amount of money from someone else or to judge the morality of how he handles his finances, particularly when he’s working within the rule set.
Imagine the amounts were reversed and the company paid more than UI would. Would it be a bad thing for the guy to ask “please don’t lay me off because I make more doing nothing here than I would on UI?”
If you lay him off and he claims unemployment, then your employer’s unemployment rates increases, and the amount of unemployment insurance premiums go up…more expense for the company.
If he actually does the work that you need him to do. Keep him employed. It’s his choice to quit or not. If his work performance declines, then fire him for cause.
The main point of contention here seems to be an issue brought up in another thread: asking vs. guessing. The guy has every right to ask if you would do something that is advantageous, and treating it like he is quitting is failing to understand how asking works.
The company can, of course, decide what is best for itself, as can he, so if there’s a downside to his idea, fine. Don’t do it. But he’s not going to know if it will cost you more to lay him off, and he thinks he can heavily benefit.
And I echo the fact that you have no way of knowing if the guy actually needs the money for things you don’t know about. We’re in a situation where people are making less money but the costs go up due to buying things outside the home. Do you know if his either of his parents are at risk?
Don’t judge him for trying to make more money. Don’t treat a mere question as a resignation. Just decide if it’s more advantageous to both of you to lay him off or not to. And, honestly, if it would cost you, explain that to him, so he doesn’t think it’s just you being unreasonable.
Because, to most people, it sounds like something that is win-win for both of you. You don’t need him, and he could make more money, while you would get to keep the money you’d normally give him. Sure, reality is often different than what it seems at first glance, but it’s reasonable that he is not trying to be greedy, just help both of you.
I’ve been thinking about this and I decided that, as a manager*, if it wasn’t against policy or wouldn’t cause problems for the company, with the loan programs for example, then I would be inclined to do it. I certainly wouldn’t hold it against them for asking. These aren’t normal times.
As a semi-relevant anecdote: my daughter is actually in much the same position as the employee referred here. She works several days a week doing janitorial work at a factory in her town. Her pay is probably much the same as the OP’s employee. She would, most likely, do better with the stimulus pay than continuing to work (or being furloughed with pay).
Her employer (not the factory; the janitorial work is done by a contractor) has told her that she should not come in, but is continuing to pay her. I have no clue how long that will last.
A friend of mine is pushing us to encourage her to quit - she claims that “you can just say you’re afraid to go in” (which in this case wouldn’t, er, wash, because she is NOT going in), insisting that the “you have to be fired” rule doesn’t apply in the current circumstances. I have no clue whether that’s true.
I’m not encouraging her to quit - simply because at least as things stand, she’ll (hopefully) have a job to get back to at some point.
Obviously if she is furloughed, she’ll go for the unemployment and get whatever benefits she’s entitled to there.
[QUOTE=Kovitlac;22225724…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…"[/QUOTE]
No, the employer has no business how the employee spends his money, except of course illegally or in a prohibited manner.
After I got the answer from Legal about what to do about Slacky Dude, HR also sent a reply. I forwarded those to Slacky Dude and forgot about it. He didn’t seem to have read them because he replied to me instead of HR when he resigned because of the stress. The demands of work along with the pandemic were causing issues with his studies, so he quit to be able to devote himself full time to his course work.
I’m out of that loop now. If I cared enough, I guess I could find out the end of the story…
My other part timer also forgot to send his stuff to HR, so I got his request for college financial aid paperwork to be completed. That got forwarded as well.
I’m just relieved that it’s over, and that there won’t be future drama… until the next quirky character shows up (flatlined seems to have a mystical pull on them).
I know, very boring. No forks went missing, but the hand sanitizer disappeared. It most likely wasn’t him, but we can gossip, right?
I will admit to being amused about work stressing him out. If getting paid for sitting at home not working is too stressful, what’s going to happen when he graduates and gets a real job?