|
Arcturas posted: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... If that's what a paid out claim will pay they should self insure since they're still on the hook for the full amount plus the monthly premium
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
In pa here is uc claims influence how much an employer pays Benefit Ratio Factor The benefit ratio factor is a short term comparison of the employer's taxable payroll and UC benefits charged. This factor is determined by dividing the employer's average annual benefit costs for the last three fiscal years (July - June) by the employer's average annual payroll for the last three fiscal years ending on the computation date (June 30). The benefit ratio factor is determined annually and ranges from 0 percent to 5 percent. This factor is identified on the Contribution Rate Notice (Form UC-657). So for any employer who is large one claim isn’t a real issue
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
Almost half of all american jobs are in/for small businesses (fewer than 500 employees), and a third are 100 employees or fewer, though. There's a shitload of jobs where the system would seem to significantly incentivize a small employer to find any excuse to fire for cause instead of laying someone off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/biancaxunise/status/1186692052764876801?s=12
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
A great excuse to post a classic: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Attorney forgets about Australian Aboriginals. I know that's not what the witness was going for, but I would have started laughing if he'd called them on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
The funniest part is that he'll 100% get away with it .
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Almost half of all american jobs are in/for small businesses (fewer than 500 employees), and a third are 100 employees or fewer, though. There's a shitload of jobs where the system would seem to significantly incentivize a small employer to find any excuse to fire for cause instead of laying someone off. Washington State found in 2011 that there were 9,000 cases of workers filing fraudulent claims resulting in $21 million dollars of overpayment to employees, and 13,000 "misclassified" workers by employers (fraud the other direction) resulting in $3 million of underpayment by employers. https://esd.wa.gov/newsroom/unemployment-insurance-fraud-FAQ If the question is, "who is the bigger drain on the system?" the answer is workers filing fraudulent claims.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"misclassified" At least you put quotes on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Ghostnuke posted:The funniest part is that he'll 100% get away with it . Being a jackass in a depo or on the stand doesn’t actually work very well. It’s very bad for the judge/jury to think that it’s your client that is wasting everyone’s time
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Washington State found in 2011 that there were 9,000 cases of workers filing fraudulent claims resulting in $21 million dollars of overpayment to employees, and 13,000 "misclassified" workers by employers (fraud the other direction) resulting in $3 million of underpayment by employers. https://esd.wa.gov/newsroom/unemployment-insurance-fraud-FAQ the very first item in the loving article you quoted posted:Q. What kind of fraudulent practices are committed against the unemployment-insurance system? The article goes on to clarify that the tax fraud committed by employers is mostly from misclassifying employees. So, completely unrelated to employers fraudulently claiming laid off employees were fired for cause. Fortunately, all of this is irrelevant, because the question definitely was never "who is the bigger drain on the system."
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
nm posted:Attorney forgets about Australian Aboriginals. Speaking of Australia, here's one the thread might enjoy. A guy got a God awful haircut, which became a bit of a meme (photo is in the article linked). He then sued some media outlets for reporting on it, as you do when you clearly suffer from impaired judgement. The judge ruled the memes funny and the case was dismissed. Today was the three year anniversary. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The article goes on to clarify that the tax fraud committed by employers is mostly from misclassifying employees. So, completely unrelated to employers fraudulently claiming laid off employees were fired for cause. Wow, somebody's got a red rear end about a pretty innocuous recital of information
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
You quoted me, and then made a post that was simultaneously misrepresentative of the thing you linked, and not relevant to what I was saying. I think it's not especially "red assed" of me to point these things out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
Maternity leave question: State of Illinois, USA My wife and I live in the USA in the state of Illinois. She has 6 weeks maternity leave and is not planning to return after her leave ends. She would like to provide appropriate notice to her employer of her intentions. However, she is concerned they will cut off her leave once they find out she is not coming back. So my question is does an employee have any rights here in this regard? Are you entitled to your maternity leave if you make the employer aware you are resigning after it is over? The company is sort of a disorganized mess. She has no intention of ever working for them again. However, she will likely work in this industry in the future, so we don't want to burn bridges. Any advice? TLDR: If you intend to resign at end of maternity leave are you entitled to the benefit if you let them know in advance? Thanks! Doctor Party fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Oct 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
Doctor Party posted:Maternity leave question: I feel like you're going to need to specify a country and/or state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Sorry I edited above post. This is in the USA in the state of Illinois.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
Does she want to burn bridges or not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Does she want to burn bridges or not? No. So that's our concern. We would otherwise always give plenty of notice. But we also don't want to lose the leave we feel she deserves. That being said I don't know if maternity leave is legally just something for people returning to work after leave. Or if it's something you've earned and no one can take from you even if you never had intended to return.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Doctor Party posted:No. So that's our concern. We would otherwise always give plenty of notice. But we also don't want to lose the leave we feel she deserves. There’s no legal requirement that an employer give you (paid) maternity leave at all, so it’s purely a question of the employer’s policies with respect to whether leave can be taken as terminal leave or not. Most employers don’t allow terminal leave, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Quitting right after maternity leave ends will burn bridges regardless of how you do it and regardless of how the employers policies and laws are set up. Some employers will care more or less than others, but it’s kind of a dick move even if you’re legally entitled to do it, so it burns bridges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Quitting right after maternity leave ends will burn bridges regardless of how you do it and regardless of how the employers policies and laws are set up. Some employers will care more or less than others, but it’s kind of a dick move even if you’re legally entitled to do it, so it burns bridges. Well this company is terrible. If she hadn't been pregnant then she would have changed jobs. But given she had a clear end point to her working it didn't make sense to end this job and find another one with such little time. We use my job for insurance etc. That being said down the road she will likely work in this industry to some degree. So we don't really care about this company. Of course if possible we would rather not leave on bad terms. Also I think it's pretty common for new moms to not come back to work. So I am guessing terminating during maternity leave isn't the same as quitting on vacation or over the holidays. Either way she's not going back so just wanted to think about best way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Doctor Party posted:
Her company likely won't see it this way. Sorry but there's no magic bullet here. She's either going to have to give notice and risk losing her paid leave or not give notice and risk burning that bridge. Maybe they'll be cool and allow her to take her paid leave but it seems unlikely and nobody here can tell you concretely what is going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:or not give notice and risk burning that bridge. To be clear, this isn't just a "risk", this is not only burning that bridge but making that employer think twice* before hiring any pregnant woman or possibly any woman of childbearing age next time. *Yeah, I know it's illegal under most** circumstances to discriminate on the basis of gender or pregnancy status. **Sufficiently small businesses being the usual obvious exception.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Why not just work the extra month and then give notice, saying she’s wanting to prioritize her child? That’s the closest to a win-win I can see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
In my unemployment hearing, I had the lawyer who was helping me sue my boss with me on the call, I laid out my case and I got my unemployment no issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Her company likely won't see it this way. Sorry but there's no magic bullet here. She's either going to have to give notice and risk losing her paid leave or not give notice and risk burning that bridge. Maybe they'll be cool and allow her to take her paid leave but it seems unlikely and nobody here can tell you concretely what is going to happen. ulmont posted:To be clear, this isn't just a "risk", this is not only burning that bridge but making that employer think twice* before hiring any pregnant woman or possibly any woman of childbearing age next time. She is a retail pharmacist and that profession is like 65-70% female. So your theory wont be an option for any company working in this industry. I also resent the nature of your commentary. This notion that her employer would consider not hiring females of child bearing age because surprise surprise they may get pregnant is despicable. Yes lots of terrible things happen all the time. But let's not propagate this non sense as advice or something to consider when making a decision like this. By considering it, you are in a way justifying the behavior. Moreover, our personal decision about working vs not working as a parent is really going to have no effect on some mega companies hiring strategy. And the thought that we would consider it is laughable. "well I know you want to be a stay at home mom, but have you considered whether your employer might view women as less hirable as a result?" "you're right I'll just keep working, and we'll change our parenting philosophy, we shouldn't risk it". They already know young women can get pregnant, this isn't breaking news. They will have calibrated themselves for good or evil with this already in mind. So no, we will not be considering the impact her decision may have on her employers future hiring of women. The entire concept is absurd, "don't do xyz or in the future the company may not hire people who want to do xyz." As far as burning that bridge, again we are pretty meh about it. The employer is a large but disorganized national chain of grocery stores who also own pharmacies. They have ridiculous HR policies in general and she would never work there long term. In the future she will continue to be a pharmacist but probably will not work retail, because retail has too much bs associated with it. sephiRoth IRA posted:Why not just work the extra month and then give notice, saying she’s wanting to prioritize her child? That’s the closest to a win-win I can see. Have you tried breast pumping while working haha? Also I work a completely unpredictable schedule and am an unreliable care provider at any given time. So we'd need child care any time she may not be home (which can be evenings, late nights, weekends etc), which is very expensive and sort of defeats the purpose. So in theory she works and makes x and spends 1/2 her time with baby and we spend some % of x on child care OR she doesn't work makes 0, spends 0 on child care and all the time with baby...so goes the thought process. Many people may reach an alternative conclusion but for us, this is what we chose. We were always going to have her not go back; no matter how that plays out. Our only issue was when and how to break the news. Anyway thanks for the responses. Interesting the VERY male perspectives, I mean I am a guy and I've been on SA a long time, but don't come here as much as I used to. I guess I should have expected this haha. Maternity leave isn't akin to being off with the flu or a broken ankle. You know, there's a child now that somehow must be cared for 24/7 even after you've "recovered". So you know it is sort of life altering for most people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
Look, it sounds like you've already decided what you want to do, so our advice won't change your, or her, mind. And that's fine. But you should know that my initial thought process assumed she was going to a different employer after maternity leave, not quitting to be a stay-at-home parent. If she's quitting working for a while, then everything I said stands, it just matters much less to her because burning bridges matters much less. And even if she burns bridges, after four or five years, or however long she's planning on being out of the workforce, the burnt bridge of quitting at the end of maternity leave will matter much less to a prospective employer than the not-working gap on the resume.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Look, it sounds like you've already decided what you want to do, so our advice won't change your, or her, mind. And that's fine. But you should know that my initial thought process assumed she was going to a different employer after maternity leave, not quitting to be a stay-at-home parent. If she's quitting working for a while, then everything I said stands, it just matters much less to her because burning bridges matters much less. And even if she burns bridges, after four or five years, or however long she's planning on being out of the workforce, the burnt bridge of quitting at the end of maternity leave will matter much less to a prospective employer than the not-working gap on the resume. Yeah I should have been more clear. We weren't asking for advice on her potential return, our decision in that regard was made up. She will likely not work for a year, maybe more, maybe she wont go back. We will just see how it goes. Now she works retail, in the future we are hoping she can do part time in a hospital or something more convenient. If nothing more convenient comes along, she probably wont go back, no big deal. So the burning bridges isn't that big of an issue from an employment standpoint but never ideal. My main issue and what I should have focused in on better was whether a benefit like leave could be revoked due to notification of resignation. Like someone is mid leave and say hey I am not coming back, can the company cut the pay right away. I think what I am finding is this is probably more of a contract specific issue than a broad legal issue. Anyway thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
Yeah, that’s mostly going to be a contract question. I don’t know Illinois law so there might be something at the state level, but at the federal level FMLA leave is unpaid so there’s no general bar on terminating an employee on maternity leave. If the contract is silent they can probably terminate her and end leave. At will employment and all that. Obviously check with an Illinois lawyer etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
Hey dude here’s my male response: my wife went back to work after four weeks. We tag teamed the childcare. I’m sorry you and your wife aren’t as awesome as we were 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
Doctor Party posted:Have you tried breast pumping while working haha? Have you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 08:11
|
|
|
as a European* i think this is where I’m contractually obliged to jump in and tell everybody how much statutory paid parental leave we get * for at least several more days lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
Doctor Party posted:Well this company is terrible. If she hadn't been pregnant then she would have changed jobs. But given she had a clear end point to her working it didn't make sense to end this job and find another one with such little time. We use my job for insurance etc. IANAL, but several women who worked for my company handled this by taking their maternity leave, then came back to work for a few weeks, then put in their notice. We do give substantially more than six weeks of maternity leave, though (I think we give 12 or 16), so I think it was probably easier for them than it would be for your wife.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
quote:I also resent the nature of your commentary. This notion that her employer would consider not hiring females of child bearing age because surprise surprise they may get pregnant is despicable. Yes lots of terrible things happen all the time. But let's not propagate this non sense as advice or something to consider when making a decision like this. By considering it, you are in a way justifying the behavior. Moreover, our personal decision about working vs not working as a parent is really going to have no effect on some mega companies hiring strategy. And the thought that we would consider it is laughable. "well I know you want to be a stay at home mom, but have you considered whether your employer might view women as less hirable as a result?" "you're right I'll just keep working, and we'll change our parenting philosophy, we shouldn't risk it". They already know young women can get pregnant, this isn't breaking news. They will have calibrated themselves for good or evil with this already in mind. So no, we will not be considering the impact her decision may have on her employers future hiring of women. The entire concept is absurd, "don't do xyz or in the future the company may not hire people who want to do xyz." Sorry you don’t like it but this is a 100% thing that happens In many industries and companies off all different sizes and acting like your decision isn’t going to effect future hiring Decisions (at a company you already said is a mess) it’s just being naive https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/10/09/some-question-warrens-pregnancy-discrimination-claim-women-tweet-their-own-stories/ Also lol at the “very male perspective” comment while you are arguing that pregnancy discrimination doesn’t exist
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
Call practice who takes our insurance. Schedule wife with doctor they suggest. Doctor orders MRI. Imaging place checks our insurance before scheduling, it's only $140 out of pocket which we pay at the time. Find out the doctor they scheduled her with is out of network and we are on the hook for 500 for the visit with him and $1,200 for the MRI. don't even know where to begin with how stupid this is. Can I sue somebody?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Call practice who takes our insurance. Schedule wife with doctor they suggest. Doctor orders MRI. Imaging place checks our insurance before scheduling, it's only $140 out of pocket which we pay at the time. Find out the doctor they scheduled her with is out of network and we are on the hook for 500 for the visit with him and $1,200 for the MRI. Probably not, but you can prob work something out with the practice who ostensibly checked your insurance but didn't verify the provider was in network. Technically that's your responsibility but if they told you 'yeah this guy's in your network' you might be able to get them to figure something out. Also if you check w/your insurance and they say he is, they need to resubmit with his correct provider info. P frequently practices have poo poo that's out of date and can cause providers/facilities to come back OON just because they don't exactly match what insurance has on record.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Sorry you don’t like it but this is a 100% thing that happens In many industries and companies off all different sizes and acting like your decision isn’t going to effect future hiring So...yeah its like you're making an argument with someone else but not me haha. First, yes, I do not like discrimination against pregnant women do you? Ok so we both don't like it I am assuming. Second, I do realize that it happens and never said it did not happen. I am well aware it happens and in fact I even point that out in my post. That companies will calibrate themselves for good or evil, ie discriminating or not with the knowledge that yes young women may get pregnant. So again, I am not sure who you're arguing with? My point is not that this is not happening...My point is you should not make personal decisions based on the perception that it may lead to further discrimination or bad behavior by a company. That concept is laughable. Follow the entire thought through, how far should we take this concept? So ok the argument is, by quitting after pregnancy you'll lead the company to be a bad actor in not hiring women in a discriminatory way. Ok so should my wife also consider not getting pregnant at all? Or maybe why even get married? My point is, everyone is going to, and should, make their own life decisions. They should choose what is best for them and do it. Companies will choose to be bad actors on their own. By suggesting mothers leaving after maternity will somehow make them more likely to do this is excusing or mansplaining away their bad behavior. So again uhhh? where in my post did I suggest pregnancy discrimination did not happen haha? Are you able to read? Of course it happens you nincompoop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
quote:This notion that her employer would consider not hiring females of child bearing age because surprise surprise they may get pregnant is despicable quote:So again uhhh? where in my post did I suggest pregnancy discrimination did not happen haha? Are you able to read? Of course it happens you nincompoop. quote:My point is you should not make personal decisions based on the perception that it may lead to further discrimination or bad behavior by a company. That concept is laughable. Follow the entire thought through, how far should we take this concept? So ok the argument is, by quitting after pregnancy you'll lead the company to be a bad actor in not hiring women in a discriminatory way. Ok so should my wife also consider not getting pregnant at all? EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Dude you're embarrassing yourself. You didn't read my whole post. You just read a little and posted a holier than thou poo poo post. And now you're shamed and feel like you have to pretend like you actually did read it and comprehend it. Here's the thing...plenty of people are being discriminated against. They all are making hard decisions every day about how to succeed. As a white male I've been fortunate not to be exposed to a lot of that. My point is my wife feels she would like to devote all of her time and effort to motherhood. She should feel free to make that decision whether some bad actors won't to use it as an argument for why not to hire women or not. The argument I was debating was the opposite. That my wife and I should consider the implications of her quitting during leave because it may provide cover for her company to discriminate against people. That's a ridiculous notion. How about instead people do what they feel is right and we call out bad actors when we see them. This is text book victim shaming haha. Edit to include this Also your article is just examples of women being discriminated against for being pregnant. Yeah no poo poo. Women are definitely being discriminated against. My argument is not that they are free of this. Also many of those examples are of women who lost their jobs or were told they wouldn't have a job or whatever due to being pregnant. What the argument someone else made was basically "if she quits you'll be causing that to happen to other women". OK nope sorry that doesn't fly. My wife choosing what's right for her does not cause someone else to lose their job or get discriminated against. That's still on the person discriminating. And by suggesting it is on her makes that person on par with the person doing the discriminating. Haha. It's a discriminating thought process to blame the pregnant woman for other pregnant women being discriminated against. This is my point. I am sorry it went over your head. Doctor Party fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 05:32
|
|