Talk about a bunch of Ingrates
-
@Mik said in Talk about a bunch of Ingrates:
@QuantumIvory said in Talk about a bunch of Ingrates:
We started making the calls last week, just as our furloughed employees began receiving weekly Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation checks of $600 under the Cares Act. When we asked our employees to come back, almost all said, “No thanks.” If they return to work, they’ll have to take a pay cut.
Maybe it should be called the 'Who Cares Act'. There should be a way for employers to tell the state they offered this guy his job back. Otherwise folks are going to ride the unemployment horse until it drops, and who can blame them?
Yes, I wonder how that would/should work? Not sure about other states, but in Indiana if you're receiving unemployment insurance payments you're required to submit a weekly voucher (online) and one of the questions is: Have you been offered work?
Seems like the employer should have a way to inform the state that they've called this person back to work.
Otherwise, it's a recipe for disaster.
-
Except this is such a rare case it took the wsj two weeks to find one.
There are a lot of problems with this bill. This isn’t really one of them.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc Well, then the WSJ didn't try very hard. I personally know two restaurant owners very well who are being impacted in the same way as the guy who wrote the article. I also know several more restaurant owners in the area (although not well) and I'm sure they are experiencing the same thing. When I talk to them, I'll get back to you.
I think it's a huge problem.
-
@Improviso said in Talk about a bunch of Ingrates:
Personally, I hope after she qualifies for the loan to be forgiven, she fires everyone of those employees.
I thought you said you were worried about unemployment?
-
@QuantumIvory said in Talk about a bunch of Ingrates:
I think it's a huge problem.
Rethinking this, I think this could become a problem, especially for food service workers who might not make 600 a week and aren't tied to a particular job over the long haul.
It seems rare now, because it would require some to have laid off staff and then have their business bounce back. Seems like today that would be rare.
But it won't be rare once we start reopening.
State unemployment handles this, if you get recalled from a layoff you lose benefits. Why they didn't put that same little clause in the Federal bill I don't know.
-
I don't think it's rare at all.
One of my workers (primarily moving assistant, and light shop work) stopped coming in for 'fear of covid'. While I can't have him in the shop, moving is still considered essential services--and I am still getting moving calls.
In any case, not only has he been collecting, but as the employer, I never received any paperwork or notice from the state. Under normal circumstances, if an employee quits-they cannot collect. So now he's collecting, and is working for cash at a junk removal "company".
Others I talk to in the moving business are experiencing much the same. Some don't seem to mind, since they operate half-under the table anyways, but for those of us who try to do this stuff above board, it's pretty frustrating.
-
Wait - you can get it if you quit? You don’t have to be laid off?
Or is it just 1099 folks?
If that’s the case I can totally see it being abused at a pretty wide scale.
-
Well, if you worked at a job you viewed as easily replaceable, maybe not. You might think 'I'll ride out the 13 weeks and if Chipotle won't take me back, I'll go to Cheesecake Factory' or something like that.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
You're not supposed to be able to get it if you quit. In normal times, the employer (me) would get a letter from unemployment stating I had an employee filing for unemployment. If contesting the filing, I could respond saying he was Terminated for X Reason (employee almost automatically wins those around here), or he quit on his own (the employer can often 'win' these cases)
My guess is my employee probably lied on the form, and the states system--overwhelmed with filers, isn't in all cases doing their normal diligence in determining whether someone qualifies.
In my particular case---I don't care about losing an easily replaceable employee. But it sure would piss me off to see the premiums I pay go up because of a fraudulent filing.
But then--how much time do I have to pursue this? Not much. I'm busy trying to get some shop work done, and handle the moves that do come in.
The cases of the restaurant workers are a little less blatant than what's happened with my worker...But it's still gaming the system, and it wouldn't surprise me to see it happening on a pretty large scale in certain industries.
-
Yeah, that's the state level though. I guess I'm not clear on the exact requirements on the Fed stuff.
