|
blarzgh posted:Or perhaps the stabbin occurred at a cabbin in the scandinavian hinterlands; a cabbin owned by a nord with a propensity for stabbin at his cabbin?? That is preposterous. Scurrilous. Ridiculous. Ludicrous. Risible. Vituperative. Positively contumelious. It's not the hinterlands. Not close enough to civilization for that.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:That is preposterous. Scurrilous. Ridiculous. Ludicrous. Risible. Vituperative. Positively contumelious. And chainsaws aren't really for stabbing. e: thank you for the update! 
joat mon fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Oct 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
I know someone who's entire team was fired for performance which was then used to deny unemployment. That seems a bit sketchy and worth disputing (unless it turns out they actually all got fired for making meth in the office supply closet) I've already suggested they get a lawyer, but I'm curious about how these things can shake out. I assume there's some sort of penalty for firing people and classifying it improperly to get out of paying unemployment. How do these kinds of cases shake out? Is the best case scenario just that everyone gets their unemployment pay?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I know someone who's entire team was fired for performance which was then used to deny unemployment. That seems a bit sketchy and worth disputing (unless it turns out they actually all got fired for making meth in the office supply closet) Generally the now-former-employee files a claim for unemployment benefits with the state agency; the agency then reaches out to the employer to affirm or dispute the claim. If the employer disputes the claim, the agent assigned will schedule a phone conference with each side, and ask that they submit documentation about it - like a double-blind court hearing. The agent makes a decision, and if either party disagrees with the ruling, they can appeal it to a regular court (at some point). What state? Edit: if your question is, "who usually wins, employee or employer?" the answer is No One Knows, the specific facts of their situation could wildly change the chances of the outcome going one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Generally the now-former-employee files a claim for unemployment benefits with the state agency; the agency then reaches out to the employer to affirm or dispute the claim. If the employer disputes the claim, the agent assigned will schedule a phone conference with each side, and ask that they submit documentation about it - like a double-blind court hearing. Employee is in Arizona Employer is in Nebraska I think you answered my question. I don't know enough about the actual situation to tell whether it was justified or not. I was a little curious how badly an employer can get smacked down for abusing unemployment stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
In general making an argument that someone isn’t covered by some stature isn’t “abuse” I don’t know why you would think it is
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
euphronius posted:In general making an argument that someone isn’t covered by some stature isn’t “abuse” That's fair, I'm approaching this from a naive perspective. My thinking is that the actual reason for firing all the people is that they wanted to downsize, but because they didn't want to pay unemployment, they claimed it was for cause. I would guess that's challenging to prove, but I guess there's no point in thinking about it at this point, as the fired people might just get their unemployment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
euphronius posted:In general making an argument that someone isn’t covered by some stature isn’t “abuse” My question would be, do employers face any repercussions if there does turn out to be a bad-faith abuse of the unemployment system by denying benefits to former employees. My guess is that capitalism says "no" and it's just a free-roll for the company, unless they're triggering some mandatory lay-off notice threshold where there would be statutory damages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
It’s a complicated question from the employers pov (assuming the framing that the USA and capitalism and its laws are just ) I guess unemployment is set up differently in each state but also in general allowing claims doesn’t really cost anything to the employer as all the money is paid into the fund Over time (possibly not true for small employers) Also even if they are downsizing they may also have fired them for cause.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Devor posted:My question would be, do employers face any repercussions if there does turn out to be a bad-faith abuse of the unemployment system by denying benefits to former employees. No “Bad faith” is ill defined here as well
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Devor posted:My question would be, do employers face any repercussions if there does turn out to be a bad-faith abuse of the unemployment system by denying benefits to former employees. Your guess is wrong. If they employer loses the hearing/appeal they have to pay the unemployment claim. Also, committing unemployment fraud whether you're an employee or an employer is literally a crime. The amount of unemployment fraud committed by employees and employers is probably roughly equal in terms of false claims and over-payment vs. misclassifications and tax fraud. I'm confident the majority of unemployment claims are almost certainly good faith disputes. For every "friend" who says they were fired for "bullshit reasons" there is a boss out there who "has never had a worse employee." and generally the one you believe is the one you heard from first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
There is no enforcement mechanism against that kind of “fraud” btw that I know of People lie on the Stand all the time it’s nbd. Usually the hearing officer is able to identify who is lying
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
euphronius posted:There is no enforcement mechanism against that kind of “fraud” btw that I know of Isn't that perjury if it's proved? Or does it only really matter if it's serious enough that the court or the prosecution wants to pursue it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:Isn't that perjury if it's proved? Or does it only really matter if it's serious enough that the court or the prosecution wants to pursue it? euphronius posted:People lie on the Stand all the time it’s nbd. Usually the hearing officer is able to identify who is lying You are technically under oath during an ALJ hearing, however, people lie all the time. Or not really "lie" mostly; mostly people get an idea of their own narrative in their head, and after practicing it long enough, it kinda becomes their truth. There is sort of an unspoken agreement that everything except the most EXTREME forms of perjury are punishable by simply making the witness unbelievable in general through impeachment. Most people honestly disagree about the facts of a situation, and everyone tends to believe their own narrative. We couldn't really have a functioning judicial system if everyone who was to give testimony did so under the threat of prison in the event that if they get one piece of information or recollection wrong. So most "perjury" is generally ignored, or used as the basis for establishing why the other things the person said should ALSO not be believed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:Isn't that perjury if it's proved? Or does it only really matter if it's serious enough that the court or the prosecution wants to pursue it? The system is honestly set up with the expectation (not so much that people lie) but that there will be two sets of what happened and they will often be logically exclusive so , by necessity, someone is probably lying It’s ok tho as I said because the hearing officer weighs all the evidence. It would be worse with juries I guess but people are generally really pretty good at telling when someone is lying or not telling the truth
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
This kind of heads out of legal questions and more into how unemployment works, but now I'm trying to square two ideas: First, it seems like there's no reason to ever try and withhold unemployment other than spite, because it's from insurance. But second, it seems like there's also no reason to not withhold unemployment because there seems to be no consequence worse than paying what you would have had to pay in the first place. I think I have enough to go on now though. I've told my friend's friend that there's real downside to getting a consultation with a lawyer, so at this point it's just curiosity about what direction this kind of thing can go, because I'm definitely never going to hear how it worked out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
No DA in America is going to prosecute someone for perjury at an administrative law hearing
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:This kind of heads out of legal questions and more into how unemployment works, but now I'm trying to square two ideas: It’s not spite really*** There are boxes on the form that ask you the employer if it was a voluntary quit, dismissal for cause (willful misconduct) or layoff . The HR person doing the form is probably going to mark the box she thinks is right based on 20 minutes of investigation *** again I am here assuming a world view that the USA / capitalism and its systems are just. It’s entirely legitimate to say any compliance with USA law is spite
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
It's dumb as hell that any state withholds unemployment income from people just because they were fired. Unemployment income is a societal benefit that helps keep lots of people from becoming destitute and even more reliant on the state and society as a result of short-term unemployment leading to eviction, starvation, etc. It's not some kind of "well you deserve it but that guy, he sucked at his job so he doesn't deserve it" reward for good behavior. Or, well, that's exactly what it is, but it shouldn't be. You don't have to get into a discussion of whether capitalism is just or all laws are unjust or whatever; from a purely practical standpoint, it's loving stupid. It's also stupid as you point out to leave it in the hands of a random private person to make a determination about someone that could leave them losing out on thousands of dollars of public support while they look for work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Well it’s insurance. You can’t collect home insurance if you burn your house down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Well it’s insurance. You can’t collect home insurance if you burn your house down. No, but you generally can if you leave the stove on by accident. If you steal from your employer, yeah, no ui is fine. But if you just suck, that's different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Willful misconduct is as you can guess highly litigated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
yeah if you're fired for breaking the law at work such as by committing fraud, we have this whole legal system set up for people to deal with you on that basis And again, it doesn't matter whether people "deserved" to be laid off, unemployment income is an essential service to all of society because it keeps people from becoming destitute during a typical one to three months of unemployment. I really don't want another homeless person on the streets in my city who is there just because his employer thought he wasn't good enough at doing his most recent job. Maybe he wasn't! Maybe he'll do better at his next job. If he's got no home he's gonna seriously struggle to get that next job and we're all gonna pay for his misfortune in one way or another, a lot more than a few unemployment checks. But even if you disagree with that argument, there's clearly no rigorous investigation involved as a prerequisite to determining that someone "doesn't deserve" unemployment; it's just a ticked box on a form that anyone at the previous job filled out, could be a trained HR person who really knows what it means, could just be the 19 year old assistant manager at the Subway you were working at. For your home insurer to deny your fire coverage on the basis that you were the arsonist, there'd have to be some kind of rigorous investigation, by someone with expertise and hopefully some accountability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
I agree, providing basic necessities like housing for everyone in society is a material good
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
There is an investigation by the unemployment agency
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
I've worked for a company that fired someone, and nobody ever came round and asked us all if they were really bad at their jobs or if the boss was just an rear end in a top hat. Maybe it's different here in California. But I'm gonna guess that so many people are fired for cause in a given state where it matters that, unlike suspicious house fires, not a whole lot of rigorous investigation goes into determining whether or not someone deserves to have their insurance policy canceled out from under them because they intentionally or negligently caused the claim. If a boss says "yeah that guy sucked at making sandwiches" what are they going to do, interview their last 100 customers to see if their sandwiches were in fact badly made? I'm thinking maybe at least as much effort should go into denying unemployment payments as goes into catching people who are cheating with their handicapped parking placards when they're not really handicapped. But also even that much effort is not practicable, remotely so, it'd be far too expensive and difficult. So I'm gonna stand by my "it's stupid to do this" posts. I'm sorry if this is too much of a derail for the legal thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
There is a whole hearing with the right if appeal and everything. Witnesses and evidence and everything
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Every single person denied unemployment because they were fired for cause gets an investigation and a hearing? That's news to me. I guess Dr. Arbitrary doesn't need to worry about their acquaintance; they'll have a rigorous hearing automatically and experts will investigate whether they really deserved to be fired or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Every single person denied unemployment because they were fired for cause gets an investigation and a hearing? That's news to me. Yes it is an extremely common hearing Obviously the employee Must contest first
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Obviously the employee Must contest first This is the crux of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:This is the crux of the issue. In Pennsylvania this amounts to checking a box on a form saying I contest and then going to a hearing. Employer has the burden.* * technically tho it gets a little wonky with the hearing officers and they are more informal
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Who has the burden of proof? What is the standard of proof? If the employer can't provide documentation proving the employee did the bad things, does the employee automatically win? How quickly does the hearing happen? Can the unemployed person collect unemployment money until they get a job/the hearing happens, so they're not literally too destitute to deal with lawyers and hearings? It's still stupid to deny unemployment to anyone, but maybe this is marginally less lovely than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Who has the burden of proof? What is the standard of proof? If the employer can't provide documentation proving the employee did the bad things, does the employee automatically win? How quickly does the hearing happen? Can the unemployed person collect unemployment money until they get a job/the hearing happens, so they're not literally too destitute to deal with lawyers and hearings? In pa it’s a little wonky but the employer (for willful Misconduct) . Employee wins. One month. No but they obviously get full benefits when they win (there is a delay until you get benefits anyway), There usually isn’t much an period between last paycheck and start if UC
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:If the employer can't provide documentation proving the employee did the bad things, does the employee automatically win? While im sure the employer could show up and testify and then the hearing officer would decide who they think is telling the truth if it came to that, the employee also has to decide if they are going to fight the former employee getting unemployment, so there’s a filter there as well. Many times the employer doesn’t care whether the employee gets employment or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Unemployment income is a societal benefit that helps keep lots of people from becoming destitute and even more reliant on the state and society as a result of short-term unemployment leading to eviction, starvation, etc. The problem with your argument is that unemployment benefits are not a universal basic income. They are not a universal societal benefit. Unemployment insurance premiums are paid for by the employer, not the state/society, and so employers hate when unemployment is paid because it makes their unemployment premiums go up and in the long run the employers pay for all the unemployment benefits. So like, sure, as a society we really ought to set things up so you get income to keep you afloat while you get a new job. That'd be better for everyone, avoiding eviction, starvation, etc. But the way we actually set it up is completely opposite and it's a fight between the employers and employees over whose fault it is that the employee got fired and who has to cover [arbitrary] months of salary while the employee gets time to get a new gig. Leperflesh posted:Who has the burden of proof? What is the standard of proof? If the employer can't provide documentation proving the employee did the bad things, does the employee automatically win? How quickly does the hearing happen? Can the unemployed person collect unemployment money until they get a job/the hearing happens, so they're not literally too destitute to deal with lawyers and hearings? This all varies drastically by state and by state law. To stereotype, I imagine California is pretty protective of employees and Alabama hates employees. But I haven't done many unemployment cases in either state, so I don't know the detailed answer. Just remember that state legislatures can and will gently caress over disenfranchised groups and it's largely a fight between whose lobbyists are better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Employees pay into unemployment as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Employees pay into unemployment as well. It's a line on the paycheck, right? But the employer is responsible for finding the unemployment carrier, negotiating rates, and probably considers even the employee's premiums part of their overhead expenses just like in the grand scheme of things health insurance premiums for the employer-chosen health insurer are effectively the employer's costs. (Just another reason we should sever the link between health insurance and work. Option one, move it all to the government. Option two, make employer-paid premiums taxable like the rest of compensation, and give a tax deduction for all health insurance premiums so the switch is basically tax-neutral and encourages more open markets.) Arcturas fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
That’s state to state. In pa it’s all handled though the state agency and its pretty not a big deal. I’m 99% sure the amount an employer pays in is not related to claims. It’s just a big old fund everyone pays into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That’s state to state. That must be a really state-specific difference, then. I think in most states premiums are effectively tied to claims - there was a This American Life about California premiums and fraudulent claims putting employers out of business, and some random jerk in this article from eight years ago says that a claim will raise the employer's premiums by $4,000 to $7,000 over the next three years. Since that's about what a paid-out claim will pay...
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Arcturas posted:- there was a This American Life about California premiums and fraudulent claims putting employers out of business, Hahahahah Pa employer rates : https://www.uc.pa.gov/employers-uc-services-uc-tax/uc-tax-rates/Pages/Types-of-Rates.aspx#stand euphronius fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 00:35
|
|