|
The Slithery D posted:A lot of entitled people ITT who think other people owe them money to do nothing because they won't take whatever work is available or try not to piss of their boss or move to another area with better opportunities or just generally accept responsibility for their own lives. Maybe whining about people not feeling sympathetic towards your self pity is not the best way to solve the problem? "A lot of whiny people in this thread that want to have control over their lives. loving Christ just treat your boss like a master and don't create any personal needs for healthcare. Easy peasy." There, I unmasked your "counter-argument"
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
The Slithery D posted:A lot of entitled people ITT who think other people owe them money to do nothing But this is not the thread for business owners?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There's a provision for voluntary quits where the employee can show they made every reasonable attempt to maintain the employer/employee relationship. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH GOOD LUCK! Where are you even going to get the proof to back up your quit? Email it to yourself? Justified termination! quote:This is the section that would probably apply in that circumstance, assuming the employee can show they tried to get management to address their issues. For better or worse, though, unemployment insurance in the States is not designed to make it easier for you to quit. Trying to get management to address your issue gets you fired for performance reasons. Remember, you and your golf buddies were puffing on cigars and laughing about it a page ago? And guess what happens when you get fired for performance reasons? YOU GET DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT quote:Being fired means being fired for cause. If the employer wants to do that they need to go to the unemployment board and contest your unemployment. If you're let go "just because", you are elligible for unemployment. At-Will employment just means your employer doesn't have to go through a specific process to separate you. It doesn't mean they can fire you for cause without showing cause. "cause" is defined by the employer in at-will states. It is very, very easy for an employer to prove cause and they aren't even required to furnish evidence of cause unless you appeal, and who has time for the appeals process when you're unemployed and have no income coming in? Spend months fighting for unemployment, great, if you get it awarded it'll keep you supplied with all the booze you need to keep you warm since you're now a homeless person Here, let me break down how to collect unemployment in an at-will state: 1. Get laid off in a mass layoff 2. Get fired by a company whose headquarters and company policies are based in a state that isn't an at-will state, since they don't always go after unemployment claims Mirthless fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There's a provision for voluntary quits where the employee can show they made every reasonable attempt to maintain the employer/employee relationship. The employee has to prove that. While having no income. Good luck with that. Employers also have a bajillion reasons they can use to bullshit their way into a firing with proper cause. I don't think you understand just how badly at will employment fucks over workers. The other side is that the burden of proof there is on the employee while the employer can just say things like "not productive enough" or "had a bad attitude." Good luck proving that. Guess which side of that equation the government is going to side with? This is especially true if the employee has been disciplined at work for any reason at all. If you've ever made even the slightest mistake (which you have) they have some excuse to contest unemployment and get you booted off. That's assuming the employee can afford to quit in the first place, of course. Even so I don't think you quite understand the fact that employers can, in at will employment states, just make up bullshit reasons to fire people and count it as "firing with cause." I think you're missing my point; the job fairs are very frequently bombarded by rear end loads of people in this state. If they exist at all. In some places there are literally zero jobs. Maaaaaybe a few minimum wage things at a gas station. If there are no jobs other than minimum wage crap you must take it if you've been offered it. If there is nothing else that's what you get stuck with. Then even if you do manage to ride unemployment until it runs out (which is pretty unlikely) well...then what? Unemployment and assistance may as well not exist in this state for all the good they do. If you have children you can maybe squeeze sub-poverty existence out of the system but even the you'll very possibly get dicked over anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Emails to your manager or HR where you say "hey poo poo be a problem" then later emails where you say "Hey poo poo still be a problem" would probably do it. IANAL so maybe consult an employment attourney in your area to get an idea of what would satisfy the burden of proof. Mirthless posted:Trying to get management to address your issue gets you fired for performance reasons. Remember, you and your golf buddies were puffing on cigars and laughing about it a page ago? And guess what happens when you get fired for performance reasons? YOU GET DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT I...guess? I mean, that seems like courting a lawsuit and you'd have to be pretty dumb to put yourself in that position as an employer vs. not contesting and enjoying the person you don't want around not being around anymore. Mirthless posted:"cause" is defined by the employer in at-will states. It is very, very easy for an employer to prove cause and they aren't even required to furnish evidence of cause unless you appeal, and who has time for the appeals process when you're unemployed and have no income coming in? Spend months fighting for unemployment, great, if you get it awarded it'll keep you supplied with all the booze you need to keep you warm since you're now a homeless person There are [url= http://www.uc.pa.gov/unemployment-benefits/Am-I-Eligible/benefit-eligibility/Pages/Discharge.aspx]specific causes[/url] laid out in, for instance, Pennsylvania, and the employer needs to supply proof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Things I've been fired for since moving to Oklahoma You probably would have gotten unemployment if you had appealed any of those! The initial decisions by unemployment boards are intentionally low-effort, but if the applicant appeals the denial then it goes to a hearing where the employer has to actually prove what they said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:42
|
|
Mirthless posted:lol Well, the people did thunk probably cut out some expenses, saved some money, got support from their family, or chose not to have children if they were the sort of people who couldn't provide support to their family. And yes, getting on someone's nerves is entirely a rational reason to fire someone. If you do that you're a drag on everyone else's mental health and productivity. Go find a job where your repulsive personality is less of a factor, would be my advice. If losing your only source of income wasn't a big enough fear to convince you to keep your mouth shut and not aggravate other people, why should they be concerned? Mirthless posted:Things I've been fired for since moving to Oklahoma Does "lower down on the ladder than me" mean he was your subordinate? Because giving orders to other people's subordinates isn't a really good way to enhance your popularity or enhance productivity. Inability to make it to work is a completely legitimate reason to fire someone. If they'd known you didn't have reliable transportation, or are so devoid of friend or other support as to be able to recover from minor setbacks, they probably wouldn't have hired you. Reliability, whether from personality, resources, or distance to work, is valuable. If you don't have it and your employer needs it, they should get someone who does. Pissing off your boss enough that he'd yell at you, combined with the rest of this, suggest that you've got some personality issues. Normal people don't get fired three times because of a combination of alienating those at work and those in their personal lives who didn't provide help suggest that maybe the problem is you, not "the man" or the "system." Twerkteam Pizza posted:"A lot of whiny people in this thread that want to have control over their lives. loving Christ just treat your boss like a master and don't create any personal needs for healthcare. Easy peasy." Making people do things they don't want to do (like employ you) is demanding control over their lives.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Here, let me break down how to collect unemployment in an at-will state: growing up in louisiana the only person i ever even heard of who was able to successfully collect unemployment was working at a hardware store that closed down when the land got sold so 3. have your employer suddenly shut down
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The employee has to prove that. While having no income. Good luck with that. Employers also have a bajillion reasons they can use to bullshit their way into a firing with proper cause. I don't think you understand just how badly at will employment fucks over workers. The other side is that the burden of proof there is on the employee while the employer can just say things like "not productive enough" or "had a bad attitude." Good luck proving that. Guess which side of that equation the government is going to side with? This is especially true if the employee has been disciplined at work for any reason at all. If you've ever made even the slightest mistake (which you have) they have some excuse to contest unemployment and get you booted off. You're mixing different issues. 1) Quitting and applying for benefits. The burden of proof is on the employee, which is how the system is intended to work and not a bad thing. Since the employee chooses when they quit they should have their loving ducks in a row before they leave and not have to scramble for proof that they took reasonable measures to get their problems addressed. 2) Employers firing for cause. The burden of proof is on the employer and, while they'll generally have their facts straight and case tight before contesting (because they chose when to fire the employee and they presumably employ people whose job it is to know how to do this) it's not nearly as easy as just going "lol bad performance" or there would be no uncontested unemployment claims in the state of PA. In PA there is a body of law and precedent setting forth what is cause and what isn't and what constitutes proof. ToxicSlurpee posted:Even so I don't think you quite understand the fact that employers can, in at will employment states, just make up bullshit reasons to fire people and count it as "firing with cause." See above. ToxicSlurpee posted:I think you're missing my point; the job fairs are very frequently bombarded by rear end loads of people in this state. If they exist at all. In some places there are literally zero jobs. Maaaaaybe a few minimum wage things at a gas station. If there are no jobs other than minimum wage crap you must take it if you've been offered it. If there is nothing else that's what you get stuck with. If you can't manage your pool of job offers given that you manage all your applications and the job search there is no hope for you (because you're terrible) and you should resign yourself to pumping gas if that's the corner you painted yourself into. ToxicSlurpee posted:Then even if you do manage to ride unemployment until it runs out (which is pretty unlikely) well...then what? IDK dude. Apply for SSDI for depression or become a wandering murderhobo or commit petty crimes and get into the prison system. You get more or less six months plus extentions to figure it out, which is what the system is designed to do for you rather than taking care of you in all circumstances no matter what forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I...guess? I mean, that seems like courting a lawsuit and you'd have to be pretty dumb to put yourself in that position as an employer vs. not contesting and enjoying the person you don't want around not being around anymore. AGHGTHG AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHG AGGFHH HOW ARE YOU THAISIERJn YOU CANNOT SUE YOUR EMPLOYER FOR TERMINATING YOU IN AN AT WILL EMPLOYMENT STATE UNLESS YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A PROTECTED CLASS THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF AT WILL EMPLOYMENT!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Trying to get management to address your issue gets you fired for performance reasons. Remember, you and your golf buddies were puffing on cigars and laughing about it a page ago? And guess what happens when you get fired for performance reasons? YOU GET DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT Mirthless posted:YOU CANNOT SUE YOUR EMPLOYER FOR TERMINATING YOU IN AN AT WILL EMPLOYMENT STATE UNLESS YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A PROTECTED CLASS You mean like the muslim woman in the example we were talking about earlier who mouthed off to her boss about religious descrimination? Or at the very, very least they appeal their unemployment denial and now you have to spend time / money showing cause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You mean like the muslim woman in the example we were talking about earlier who mouthed off to her boss about religious descrimination? How? With what savings? How is someone going to afford to spend 2-3 months fighting through appeals without any income coming in? They can't get a job or their claim is automatically going to get closed. I'm not saying employers shouldn't be able to fire people. I am saying they shouldn't be able to fire people for literally any reason they can think of without their employee having some kind of safety net in place to keep them from ending up on the streets. This whole thread started in the first place because a toddler/diaper baby in SF couldn't handle seeing any homeless people - do you think they just materialize into the world in an electrical storm, ala The Terminator? Reproduce by budding? Spore colonies? The Slithery D posted:Well, the people did thunk probably cut out some expenses, saved some money, got support from their family, or chose not to have children if they were the sort of people who couldn't provide support to their family. When rent, electricity, food, phone and internet (the five things you need to get a job) take up 80% of your income and basic day-to-day expenses take up the other 20% I don't know how you're expected to block out five grand to save money, and you don't have to have kids to live in poverty and be in a completely untenable position if you lose your job. If I bother you, sure, fire me. But your mild irritation at me does not outweigh the consequences that your purely convenience based firing decision bring down on my own life. Pay unemployment - the pittance that it is - and move on with peace of mind that you don't have to be bothered anymore. Or suck it up, rally, and show up to work with people you hate every day like LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD DOES YOU NARCISSISTIC EGOMANIAC Mirthless fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:IDK dude. Apply for SSDI for depression or become a wandering murderhobo or commit petty crimes and get into the prison system. You get more or less six months plus extentions to figure it out, which is what the system is designed to do for you rather than taking care of you in all circumstances no matter what forever. Average time to find a new job after losing one is still far, far over six months, assuming you can even get it in the first place. Hey great the system as advertised is woefully inadequate in the first place. To make it worse it's geared in a way that makes it difficult to even use in the first place. At its peak the average time somebody spent unemployed in recent years was almost a year. Now it's still like 9 months. The current system doesn't even begin to function as advertised let alone like it was intended to. I've never met a single person that's gotten an unemployment extension, even if they didn't manage to find a job. Fact is the system sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You probably would have gotten unemployment if you had appealed any of those! The initial decisions by unemployment boards are intentionally low-effort, but if the applicant appeals the denial then it goes to a hearing where the employer has to actually prove what they said. It's Oklahoma. A state where people have to be actively reminded "Hey you're part of the United States and people have rights that you just can't rescind.".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:It's Oklahoma. A state where people have to be actively reminded "Hey you're part of the United States and people have rights that you just can't rescind.". I probably could have appealed on the second one at least and won but if I'd waited the three months or so it took for the process to resolve I would have been homeless
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Average time to find a new job after losing one is still far, far over six months, assuming you can even get it in the first place. Hey great the system as advertised is woefully inadequate in the first place. To make it worse it's geared in a way that makes it difficult to even use in the first place. Yeah the last time I lost my job I actually did get awarded unemployment and it ran out because it took me 13 months to find a permanent job in my field I had a couple temp contracts along the way but I looked hard, had my resume professionally looked over, had tons of connections on linkedin... I got screwed by timing, one of the biggest IT houses in town was in the process of moving to contractor-only and suddenly there was 500 IT professionals with similar experience sets looking for jobs. I don't know what I would have done without unemployment for the first portion of it, but I know when I ran out of money I had to sell nearly every valuable thing I own, and donate plasma and start reselling garage sale/thrift store pickups for small profits because it was the only option I had to pay the bills while I was looking Being unemployed in this country is awful, even with unemployment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Mirthless you realize wateroverfire is a Chilean business owner (expat?) who unironically supported/s augusto pinochet, right
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Mirthless you realize wateroverfire is a Chilean business owner (expat?) who unironically supported/s augusto pinochet, right The Pinochet thing was SedanChair being SedanChair, fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Mirthless you realize wateroverfire is a Chilean business owner (expat?) who unironically supported/s augusto pinochet, right haha, I didn't  btw, haha: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba424 In Chile you get unemployment even if you get fired (they use your state retirement benefits that you pay into, kind of like social security) It's almost like we could use some other system for unemployment benefits. I don't know, maybe like some sort of... social security net?* wateroverfire posted:The Pinochet thing was SedanChair being SedanChair, fwiw. You don't exactly make it easy to refute edit: To expound on this, an easy way to reform unemployment insurance would be to just issue the unemployed a social security check until they're employed again and if they go over a certain number of months you let them borrow against their "balance". I know you don't actually pay into social security, but a repayment of the benefits you collect (after a certain amount) at 0 interest (or a temporarily delayed retirement age, alternatively) would be a good way to defray costs and a lot better than our current "unemployment extensions not available? You're hosed!" system that we have in place now. You can make up the rest of the budget by taking the unemployment tax companies are already paying and dumping it straight into the social security fund. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:haha, I didn't Unemployment in Chile has two parts. The first part is a private account you pay into with an employer match. It's a mandatory savings scheme. You get that no matter what. The second part is a joint fund that will continue to pay your benefits if your account runs out, if your separation meets the right criteria. Source, in spanish. quote:¿Qué trabajadores tienen derecho a recibir prestaciones del Fondo de Cesantía Solidario? Translation: Which workers have the right to receive payments from the solidarity fund? Those who: 1) Are unemployed at the time they apply. 2) Have insufficient resources in their personal accounts to finance the benefits set out in the law. 3) Have at least 12 monthly payments into the fund during the last 24 months, with the last three at the same employer. and 4) Whose labor contract terminated because it reached its duration, because the work or service specified in the contract ended (the building you were working on got built, that sort of thing), force mejure (a meteor fell on your employer´s HQ, etc), your employer lays you off because of "business need" (ie: not your fault) or your employer goes bankrupt. Basically it's not that different from the states, except that you pay into a personal account that on the plus side you get no matter what, but on the downside you have to deplete before you get public money. edit: Essentially it's a 401k with a lovely ROI + unemployment insurance up to 5 months if you qualify. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Do you still believe this in context of this conversation, wateroverfire:"wateroverfire posted:Unironically, public assistance should be more annoying than it has to be so that people have an incentive to better themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Basically it's not that different from the states, except that you pay into a personal account that on the plus side you get no matter what, but on the downside you have to deplete before you get public money. This would still be a preferable alternative to the American system of "You're hosed if you lose your job, so I hope you're good at giving handjobs to your boss"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Average time to find a new job after losing one is still far, far over six months, assuming you can even get it in the first place. Hey great the system as advertised is woefully inadequate in the first place. To make it worse it's geared in a way that makes it difficult to even use in the first place. Data updated through Feb. 2016 Average time to find a job is right around 29 weeks as of February. IDK man, for awhile benefits were available out to 99 weeks and I know plenty of people who used them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Do you still believe this in context of this conversation, wateroverfire: Yeah, I do. It's not a bad thing that people need to jump through some hoops to get benefits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:This would still be a preferable alternative to the American system of "You're hosed if you lose your job, so I hope you're good at giving handjobs to your boss" You can duplicate it privately by putting like 3% of your income into a savings account every period and not touching it unless you lose your job, or contributing to a 401k.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yeah, I do. It's not a bad thing that people need to jump through some hoops to get benefits. welp
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Welp what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You can duplicate it privately by putting like 3% of your income into a savings account every period and not touching it unless you lose your job, or contributing to a 401k. You realize that you're making some pretty huge assumptions here, yes? Not everybody can afford to do that. In America increasingly large swathes of our population are desperately, wretchedly poor and are being deliberately made more so. Every time you turn around there's something getting more expensive, some other fee, or some other fine. But if you want a raise (or, for many people, any loving job at all) the response is "nah, gently caress you. Should've gone to college or majored in something different when you were there, pleb." I have a STEM degree and can't even find a drat job. wateroverfire posted:Welp what? You basically just outed yourself as a sociopath. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:You basically just outed yourself as a sociopath. He's a libertarian business owner, but then I'm just being redundant
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You mean like the muslim woman in the example we were talking about earlier who mouthed off to her boss about religious descrimination? Dude, no offense but you sound like you literally have 0 experience with any of this poo poo and when people are coming in saying "In practice this is how it works," and then you just come back with more silly hypothetical "but-but the system is DESIGNED to work this other way!" Per your previous posts the burden is on the ex-employee, and yeah you can appeal but every step takes time. Time where the ex-employee isn't receiving unemployment. At least with CA I've dealt with, usually within 2 weeks to a month after letting someone go we get a response from the state verifying the termination and it's a matter of checking a box to deny benefits. It helps of course to fill in an explanation field but it isn't needed. Then a week or two later the person filing for unemployment will be notified they've been denied and can appeal. Then the clerk or some agent may contact us to verify/investigate and after that maybe a month or two later there might be a hearing. If at any point in this the person gets a new job the whole things ends, and of course the employee doesn't get to get the money for the X months of "legitimate" unemployment if they find a job before they get their money. I've seen dubious denials upheld without even getting to a hearing, and I've seen black-and-white dude fired for being drunk while operating heavy machinery around hazardous chemicals drawn out. It's arbitrary and dumb. If unemployment insurance was just some cool service we offered as a society that came out of the general fund as needed, such denials and an uphill struggle would make sense, but employees lose a chunk of their paycheck directly to pay for unemployment, and get capped on benefits based on their pay-in. Why is society not obligated to pay that back? wateroverfire posted:Yeah, I do. It's not a bad thing that people need to jump through some hoops to get benefits. Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:AGHGTHG This is utterly wrong Also I don't think I've ever met anyone fired for cause three loving times that wasn't a total gently caress up. My guess from your absolutely insufferablely entitled posting is that they were seizing on an opportunity to get rid of you without having to pay a surcharge on their unemployment insurance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:You realize that you're making some pretty huge assumptions here, yes? I'm not making any assumptions. The Chilean system is forced savings. It's "take this pool of money you would have received as comp and put it in an individual account you can only access when you lose your job or retire." The employer match is ultimately paid by the worker because we offer a little less to compensate. If you want to duplicate the effect, put around 3% of your income in an account you can't touch and you're there except that you can start collecting unemployment in the States before you've drawn down the account. ToxicSlurpee posted:You basically just outed yourself as a sociopath. Oooookay then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:If unemployment insurance was just some cool service we offered as a society that came out of the general fund as needed, such denials and an uphill struggle would make sense, but employees lose a chunk of their paycheck directly to pay for unemployment, and get capped on benefits based on their pay-in. Why is society not obligated to pay that back? Yeah I just want to point out that while employers pay an unemployment tax in practice, 100% of that is taken out of their employees checks in the form of lower overall earnings. Any expense passed onto the employer is passed on to the employee. If we're going to pay for it anyway, we should be entitled to it regardless. I'd rather see it show up on my paycheck as another 3% tax. Jarmak posted:This is utterly wrong Please give me an example of a time a person was fired in an at-will state for a non-discriminatory reason and won their wrongful termination case And when you can't do that, please give me an explanation for the point of at-will termination because afaik there was never a law on the books in any state that said "If you fire your employee without a good reason you are going to jail or getting fined". AWE is designed to make it easy for employers to deny unemployment and to shield employers from legal consequences from frivolous terminations. A good example is firing people for trying to organize unions. (this is why AWE has been paired with RTW in most of the country, just saying) also I'm sorry for seeming so entitled  I sure am such an entitled loser for not wanting to be rendered homeless because my employer didn't think an inch of ice on the road was a valid reason to not drive to work. Really, people like me should just be lined up in front of a furnace to be used as fuel, that's all us poors are good for, right? wateroverfire posted:Data updated through Feb. 2016 29 weeks is longer than the maximum amount of time you can collect unemployment in nearly any state in the union, hth also the 99 weeks thing happened when our economy was on fire and our unemployment rate in some cities and states was cresting 20% so great example there Mirthless fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is utterly wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Dude, no offense but you sound like you literally have 0 experience with any of this poo poo and when people are coming in saying "In practice this is how it works," and then you just come back with more silly hypothetical "but-but the system is DESIGNED to work this other way!" Cool. That's the way it works in CA, and things often don't work as well in practice as they do on paper. It could absolutely work better, I agree. I disagree that it's arbitrary. Did you check the box for every unemployment claim or just select ones? Coolness Averted posted:Surely you don't think it's okay for a firefighter to make you do a song and dance before they'll put out a fire? Or a relay race required to get to police to come stop a burglar, why is this benefit different? They're different in kind. Why do you think those three benefits are similar?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Yeah I just want to point out that while employers pay an unemployment tax in practice, 100% of that is taken out of their employees checks in the form of lower overall earnings. Any expense passed onto the employer is passed on to the employee. If we're going to pay for it anyway, we should be entitled to it regardless. I'd rather see it show up on my paycheck as another 3% tax. That not what at will employment even means, it literally has no impact if you're fired for cause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:51
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yeah, I do. It's not a bad thing that people need to jump through some hoops to get benefits. Second.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:They're different in kind. Why do you think those three benefits are similar? They're the same in practice, a form of social insurance that is inelastic and paid through taxes. Why are they different?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Cool. That's the way it works in CA, and things often don't work as well in practice as they do on paper. It could absolutely work better, I agree. I disagree that it's arbitrary. Did you check the box for every unemployment claim or just select ones? Because not having income is as good as being robbed or having your house burn down because they can all put you on the street Why are you so opposed to the idea of your employees having a basic out if things don't work out? Wouldn't it make it even easier for employers to get rid of employees if there was a good social security net in place? Or is the real reason you're opposed to this the thought that maybe your employees could use the leverage guaranteed unemployment gives them to negotiate for better pay or find a job that will offer them better benefits?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
The Slithery D posted:Second. any other hot takes you got like your support for the genocide of native peoples its really amusing to me that people employed or formerly employed by the US army, the biggest source of welfare in the country, have anything critical at all to say about other people wanting to receive the benefits they've earned ex post facho fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:55
|
|