Talk about a bunch of Ingrates
-
-
My org’s CEO was a lobbyist for 20 years before having this job.
When the cares act came out I asked her if we were going to apply. She said ‘no, our funding is ok this year and we have money in the bank. There’s going to be a backlash over orgs that take money and don’t need it and I don’t want to be a part of that’.
-
@Mik said in Talk about a bunch of Ingrates:
Have I ever told you that I hate hastily constructed bailout bills? Here's a great example. More are coming every day.
In this case, it boils down to the flat, non-prorated $600/week extra for people who get unemployment benefits. Traditional state-funded unemployment benefits cover maybe 60% of your regular income. Because of COVID-19, the CARES Act seeks to supplement that so the unemployment benefit recipients get 100% of regular income. Statistically, adding $600/week per head gets the average to cover 100% of regular income.
Of course, the average is just the average. The very low income would see their unemployment benefits exceed regular income due to that $600/week extra, and the higher income recipients would still see their unemployment benefits remain well below regular income.
So why the flat $600 per week rather than some more sophisticated formula that adjusts the supplement by the unemployment benefit recipients's actual pre-unemployment regular income?
Blame the old COBOL programmers!It's computer systems complexity -- Congress want to put money into the unemployed people's pockets quickly, and a flat $600/week extra can be more easily and programmed into states' unemployment systems quickly. A more sophisticated formula would have required more complicated computer system changes, slow things down, and may introduce even more problems due to sheer haste.This is a case of Congress not letting perfect be the enemy of the good. And, on the whole, I think that's right thing to do under the circumstances.
-
I disagree, but there you go. First, the calculations already have to be changed. To add $600 or to calculate a percentage increase are both trivial changes compared to allowing benefits for the self-employed. It would have been a simple matter to calculate an amount that would have kept lower paid unemployed workers whole as opposed to a flat amount. They have made not working more attractive than working as demonstrated by the article.
-
We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on. -
And this...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/our-restaurants-cant-reopen-until-august-11587504885?mod=trending_now_5
My company works with local chefs to open and operate their restaurants. We are currently a partner in more than 20 of them. We closed our dining rooms March 15, two days before the governor mandated we do so, and had to lay off some 700 employees. We are doing our best to stay alive by providing takeout and delivery service at about half our restaurants. Our goal is to survive until we are allowed to reopen.
Although our limited operations leave us at only 30% of our usual revenue, takeout and delivery has worked better than expected at most locations. After two weeks of getting the systems in place and understanding the challenges of a different business model, we realized that we needed to hire back some of our staff to help with the demand. That proved harder than we expected.
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.
The starting wage for a line cook in one of our restaurants is $15 an hour. These cooks receive at least $1 an hour in tips, so at a minimum they make $16 an hour, or $640 before taxes for a 40-hour week. The overwhelming majority of our laid-off cooks qualified for Oregon unemployment compensation of 1.25% of their annual gross wages weekly, or $416 in our example. The extra $224 a week provides a strong incentive to return to work.
But as of this week, that same employee receives $1,016 a week, or $376 more than he made as a full time employee. Why on earth would he want to come back to work?
This has had the perverse effect of making it impossible for us to hire enough people even for our limited takeout and delivery business at a time of rapidly rising unemployment. It will be an even bigger problem once we are allowed to reopen our dining rooms. And it will persist at least until July 31, when the unemployment bonus expires. I’d have to offer my cooks $25.40 an hour to match what the government is paying them not to work.
The Trump administration is talking about setting a timeline for when the country can “open for business.” For my business, Congress has already locked down that date. We plan to open our dining rooms on Aug. 1, once the government stops paying people $15 an hour, on top of standard unemployment compensation, to stay home.
Mr. Huffman is owner of ChefStable LLC.
-
There were some senators worried that the overall benefit (state plus federal) would be more generous than pay for some people.
In general it isn't a concern because you can't just quit your job and get the benefit. It requires this very special case, laying off workers then trying to rehire because business is too good.
-
@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?
"My pronouns are FA/FO." - Mik, 2024
-
@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.
