| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: [1] 2 |
Christine2
LIF Adult
Member since 2/09 1216 total posts
Name:
|
Another spinoff to unemployment
I always look at this from the perspective of a small business owner, so I am curious to hear other viewpoints. I work in an essential healthcare business that is now open. We've cut back to a skeleton crew. Those employees with school aged children were laid off and allowed to file for unemployment. However 3 employees remained on, at their original full time schedules.
One employee, in light of the situation "does not feel comfortable staying on." Again, because she probably stands to make more in unemployment, I see this as a major fed gov mistake, but I digress... It is my contention that we should contest her unemployment.
An otherwise good person and excellent employee, why should she be allowed to get unemployment while the others without children are putting themselves in harm's way? Again, we are essential workers. She is being offered her regular FT hours without any change in pay. Reduced workload, CDC precautions, etc are taking place.
It is a strictly business decision. Thoughts?
|
Posted 4/5/20 8:36 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
LSP2005
Bunny kisses are so cute!
Member since 5/05 19453 total posts
Name:
L
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Is it your decision, or you are another employee who is upset? Frankly, cutting the staff with just kids could and should open your company up to a discrimination lawsuit. She would get way more money from that than any unemployment check.
|
| Posted 4/5/20 8:52 PM |
| |
|
queensgal
Smile
Member since 4/09 3287 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
You aren’t giving a person unemployment. This isn’t charity. You went down to a skeleton crew and don’t have enough work for everyone.
If this person came to work, wouldn’t someone else then be unemployed?
I’m confused on what your stance is, or is it just because this person doesn’t have kids that’s an issue and you only want to “give” unemployment to parents. Air quotes because I’m being sarcastic, again this is an entitlement not your charitable contribution.
If your people are making more on unemployment than working full time, you should be paying a higher livable wage. $600 a week does not go far on Long Island. I’m not sure why people are acting like 30k would make someone live high on the hog.
Message edited 4/5/2020 11:57:17 PM.
|
| Posted 4/5/20 11:53 PM |
| |
|
klingklang77
kraftwerk!
Member since 7/06 11486 total posts
Name:
Völlig losgelöst
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
You don’t get more on unemployment. I also think it’s pretty crappy that you offered those with kids to be laid off. That’s discrimination.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 12:39 PM |
| |
|
RainyDay
LIF Adult
Member since 6/15 3986 total posts
Name:
|
Another spinoff to unemployment
Why is one employee's health more important than another's just because they have kid's? Quite honestly if I was this employee I would be looking for a new job after this was all done and over. It's wrong IMO to ask certain employees to stay on just because they don't have kids. If I was this employee I would probably also report the employer.
Message edited 4/6/2020 4:44:43 AM.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 4:43 AM |
| |
|
Blazesyth
*yawn*
Member since 5/05 8129 total posts
Name:
|
Another spinoff to unemployment
Wow.
The employee "Does not feel comfortable staying on."
Why are you second guessing this? If this employee is such a good person and excellent worker, why are you thinking they would suddenly lie and try to 'take advantage' of the situation. They dont feel comfortable. Period.
And if you think they are lying and are doing it to be spiteful towards you because you put the parents on unemployment, this is the consequence of your decision. If you would have opened it up to anyone then the person may have decided to stick it out.
This is a ****** situation for everyone - but no one is at fault. It feels you are trying to find someone to blame. The government for 'allowing' this to happen, the worker for being uncomfortable, etc.
As for your idea of the childless can be sacrificed so your business can have a good schedule for staffing, I just can't. Besides he fact that this worker's life is just as important as anyone elses, they may have someone at home who is elderly or immunocomprimised. But the employee should not have to prove it to you. People shouldn't have to justify their feelings.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 5:19 AM |
| |
|
blu6385
Member since 5/08 8351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by queensgal
You aren’t giving a person unemployment. This isn’t charity. You went down to a skeleton crew and don’t have enough work for everyone.
If this person came to work, wouldn’t someone else then be unemployed?
I’m confused on what your stance is, or is it just because this person doesn’t have kids that’s an issue and you only want to “give” unemployment to parents. Air quotes because I’m being sarcastic, again this is an entitlement not your charitable contribution.
If your people are making more on unemployment than working full time, you should be paying a higher livable wage. $600 a week does not go far on Long Island. I’m not sure why people are acting like 30k would make someone live high on the hog.
its $600 on top of the max NYS pay so someone can now bring home $1100 before taxes a week. If you were making that much money a week or more great you should get it but if you are not why do they need it now. Not everyone makes that much money a week and clearly are surviving on it. why all of a sudden because there is a Pandemic going on they cant all of a sudden not live on what they have always been making  Now is not the time to solve the liveable wage problem in this country.
OP -
I dont think you can contest it because they wouldn't be applying for normal Unemployment if they quit they would be applying for the new PUA : PUA
|
| Posted 4/6/20 7:16 AM |
| |
|
jeanyus27
Life is beautiful
Member since 8/08 2543 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
If they receive a W-2 then they would be getting normal unemployment. The PUA, I believe, was created for those that wouldn’t normally qualify...like independent contractors for example.
Regardless...I don’t think it’s fair to only allow people with children to stay home & collect, that was a crappy decision.
However, if she stays home & decides to file for unemployment...they ask you if you’ve turned down any work. She would have to lie & say “no” in order to qualify I think.
If she’s uncomfortable being around people everyday, I’d give her the option to either work from home...or collect unemployment.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 7:41 AM |
| |
|
blu6385
Member since 5/08 8351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by jeanyus27
If they receive a W-2 then they would be getting normal unemployment. The PUA, I believe, was created for those that wouldn’t normally qualify...like independent contractors for example.
Regardless...I don’t think it’s fair to only allow people with children to stay home & collect, that was a crappy decision.
However, if she stays home & decides to file for unemployment...they ask you if you’ve turned down any work. She would have to lie & say “no” in order to qualify I think.
If she’s uncomfortable being around people everyday, I’d give her the option to either work from home...or collect unemployment.
the PUA is more than that. The link i have about specifically states : Quit job as a direct result of COVID-19
basically I feel like the PUA was created for anyone who cant work for any reason because of the covid-19 and wouldn't be able to get unemployment under the normal guidance
here is another link
What you need to know
i wont get into if what the OP is doing correct or not just that I dont think she can contest because if the employee is quitting they are not getting unemployment anyway
|
| Posted 4/6/20 7:52 AM |
| |
|
blu6385
Member since 5/08 8351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
I will admit i have not looked in to the whole bill yet but I thought that they were offering small business loans to pay your employees their full salary that you dont have to pay back as long as you keep them on. something to that extent
|
| Posted 4/6/20 8:10 AM |
| |
|
Mrs213
????????
Member since 2/09 18986 total posts
Name:
|
Another spinoff to unemployment
Well were they laid off or furloughed?
|
| Posted 4/6/20 9:02 AM |
| |
|
lululu
LIF Adult
Member since 7/05 9508 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by RainyDay
Why is one employee's health more important than another's just because they have kid's? Quite honestly if I was this employee I would be looking for a new job after this was all done and over. It's wrong IMO to ask certain employees to stay on just because they don't have kids. If I was this employee I would probably also report the employer.
I don't think it's about that - it's about the fact that if you have children you now have no daycare, no school, no babysitter. Who is supposed to care for your children if you are at work? It makes sense to let those people go first since they probably won't be able to work regardless. I understand it feels like discrimination but these are extremely extenuating circumstances. Does it make it fair? No. Is it possibly discrimination? Yes. But people need to bend a little on this one, in my opinion.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 9:21 AM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7272 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by lululu
Posted by RainyDay
Why is one employee's health more important than another's just because they have kid's? Quite honestly if I was this employee I would be looking for a new job after this was all done and over. It's wrong IMO to ask certain employees to stay on just because they don't have kids. If I was this employee I would probably also report the employer.
I don't think it's about that - it's about the fact that if you have children you now have no daycare, no school, no babysitter. Who is supposed to care for your children if you are at work? It makes sense to let those people go first since they probably won't be able to work regardless. I understand it feels like discrimination but these are extremely extenuating circumstances. Does it make it fair? No. Is it possibly discrimination? Yes. But people need to bend a little on this one, in my opinion.
That's a decision for the employee to make, not the employer.
If I were laid off because I have a child, I'd sue the employer so fast their head would spin.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 9:25 AM |
| |
|
lululu
LIF Adult
Member since 7/05 9508 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by lululu
Posted by RainyDay
Why is one employee's health more important than another's just because they have kid's? Quite honestly if I was this employee I would be looking for a new job after this was all done and over. It's wrong IMO to ask certain employees to stay on just because they don't have kids. If I was this employee I would probably also report the employer.
I don't think it's about that - it's about the fact that if you have children you now have no daycare, no school, no babysitter. Who is supposed to care for your children if you are at work? It makes sense to let those people go first since they probably won't be able to work regardless. I understand it feels like discrimination but these are extremely extenuating circumstances. Does it make it fair? No. Is it possibly discrimination? Yes. But people need to bend a little on this one, in my opinion.
That's a decision for the employee to make, not the employer.
If I were laid off because I have a child, I'd sue the employer so fast their head would spin.
Yes, I was looking at it from the perspective that most people would be happy about the temporary lay off since they would be scrambling for childcare otherwise. Clearly every situation is different though and if an employee wanted to stay on they should have been given that opportunity.
The other issue though is that unfortunately for people that have children and/or significant others at home, and they work in healthcare, it has been a large issue because they are now putting their family at risk. I know many healthcare providers that have had to find alternative living arrangements to avoid getting others living in their home sick. So to the extent that someone lives alone it makes it much easier for them to continue working. Under normal circumstance any of these considerations would be discrimination but these are not normal circumstances.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 9:46 AM |
| |
|
Christine2
LIF Adult
Member since 2/09 1216 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Obviously this is not the best forum to discuss this as I think a lot of you don't really understand the issue at hand.
No, it is not discrimination. If an employee quits due to childcare, even if an employer were to contest their unemployment they would likely still likely be approved (in this situation) as the schools have been closed. If they HAVE COVID-19, if an employee quits they would also win unemployment.
Basically, we are NOT laying this person off...there is work for her. But this person is essentially quitting without good cause. Obviously, she is worried about her health, but coronavirus itself is not a good enough reason to quit and as an employer you can contest unemployment.
This issue isn't laying someone off BECAUSE they have kids....No one wants to come to work at this point. However, we need the help. Those that are filing for unemployment we wouldn't bother contesting as they would likely qualify based on schools being closed and lack of childcare.
So, question is....to contest or not to contest. If we contest, we'd likely win. Yes, seems sh*tty, but why hire a NEW employee and pay an increased rate in unemployment when an employee essentially quits.
Message edited 4/6/2020 4:29:48 PM.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 4:12 PM |
| |
|
lululu
LIF Adult
Member since 7/05 9508 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
My question would be: Are you contesting it just because you are p*ssed about the situation that this employee is putting you in by quitting? If the answer is yes, don't contest it. You've already paid the insurance. Nothing will happen to you as an employer for having these people on unemployment. People are genuinely freaking out about having to be out and about right now. You can't really fault them for it. Ask some of the people you've let go if they might want to come back. You might be surprised. Everyone is home and some people might want to get out at this point. They might have a spouse that can watch the kids while they go to work.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 4:32 PM |
| |
|
RainyDay
LIF Adult
Member since 6/15 3986 total posts
Name:
|
Another spinoff to unemployment
You said the parents were laid off not that they quit. Why was the decision made to lay off only the people that had children. Seems really unethical. So no I as a business wouldnt contest it.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 4:46 PM |
| |
|
Christine2
LIF Adult
Member since 2/09 1216 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by RainyDay
You said the parents were laid off not that they quit. Why was the decision made to lay off only the people that had children. Seems really unethical. So no I as a business wouldnt contest it.
No, not unethical. NY state is an "at will" state, so you can fire/lay off anyone for any reason as long as it has nothing to do with race, gender, or ethnicity. Many factors go into who is laid off (salary, skills set, etc). The ones with children cannot be contested was my point. Again, this was not the right forum, but I wanted to get a layman's opinion.
The poster above made a good point in saying why not just give benefits during this stressful time. I am balancing a difficult business decision.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 6:14 PM |
| |
|
LSP2005
Bunny kisses are so cute!
Member since 5/05 19453 total posts
Name:
L
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by Christine2
Posted by RainyDay
You said the parents were laid off not that they quit. Why was the decision made to lay off only the people that had children. Seems really unethical. So no I as a business wouldnt contest it.
No, not unethical. NY state is an "at will" state, so you can fire/lay off anyone for any reason as long as it has nothing to do with race, gender, or ethnicity. Many factors go into who is laid off (salary, skills set, etc). The ones with children cannot be contested was my point. Again, this was not the right forum, but I wanted to get a layman's opinion.
The poster above made a good point in saying why not just give benefits during this stressful time. I am balancing a difficult business decision.
The reason you may be in a legal pickle is that you *only* let go parents, and no childless people. Normally young and single is not a protected class in an at will state. But when you do something for one group of people who all have something in common but not an out of group person, this is a reason why you have inadvertently discriminated. Since the person is a woman she can claim discrimination. So you are really really treading on thin ice. If this was written on any work device or a good attorney asked for your personal devices you would be in a terrible position. You are actively contemplating things that are discrimination.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 6:56 PM |
| |
|
jlm2008
LIF Adult
Member since 1/10 5092 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by LSP2005
Posted by Christine2
Posted by RainyDay
You said the parents were laid off not that they quit. Why was the decision made to lay off only the people that had children. Seems really unethical. So no I as a business wouldnt contest it.
No, not unethical. NY state is an "at will" state, so you can fire/lay off anyone for any reason as long as it has nothing to do with race, gender, or ethnicity. Many factors go into who is laid off (salary, skills set, etc). The ones with children cannot be contested was my point. Again, this was not the right forum, but I wanted to get a layman's opinion.
The poster above made a good point in saying why not just give benefits during this stressful time. I am balancing a difficult business decision.
The reason you may be in a legal pickle is that you *only* let go parents, and no childless people. Normally young and single is not a protected class in an at will state. But when you do something for one group of people who all have something in common but not an out of group person, this is a reason why you have inadvertently discriminated. Since the person is a woman she can claim discrimination. So you are really really treading on thin ice. If this was written on any work device or a good attorney asked for your personal devices you would be in a terrible position. You are actively contemplating things that are discrimination.
ITA. But the OP thinks she is smarter than us all and that we don't understand the situation, as she's stated many times. Wasting your breath getting her to realize it.
|
| Posted 4/6/20 7:05 PM |
| |
|
PhyllisNJoe
My Box Is Broken
Member since 6/11 9145 total posts
Name:
Phyllis
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by blu6385
I will admit i have not looked in to the whole bill yet but I thought that they were offering small business loans to pay your employees their full salary that you dont have to pay back as long as you keep them on. something to that extent
With this, it’s not as easy as it sounds. We had to lay off our entire staff 2 weeks ago so they can start collecting something while we wait to get this loan. We were finally able to fully apply today and it was not that easy to get it all together. We are now waiting for approval.
You have 8 weeks to use the entire loan on payroll, rent and utilities. If at least 75% of it is NOT used within that 8 weeks for those reasons , you have 24 months at .98% to pay it back. If you do use at least 75% on that within 8 weeks, you may have that 75% or the entire loan forgiven. YOU MAY. it is not definite.
I see a shit show coming real soon because what if we get the loan in 2 weeks. But can’t reopen the business for another month ? There is nobody to answer whether this starts from date you open OR from date you receive the $ in your account. Nobody can answer a question straight forward.
Better off having employees collect UI for now. The SBA thing still remains a mystery
|
| Posted 4/6/20 8:42 PM |
| |
|
klingklang77
kraftwerk!
Member since 7/06 11486 total posts
Name:
Völlig losgelöst
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by jlm2008
Posted by LSP2005
Posted by Christine2
Posted by RainyDay
You said the parents were laid off not that they quit. Why was the decision made to lay off only the people that had children. Seems really unethical. So no I as a business wouldnt contest it.
No, not unethical. NY state is an "at will" state, so you can fire/lay off anyone for any reason as long as it has nothing to do with race, gender, or ethnicity. Many factors go into who is laid off (salary, skills set, etc). The ones with children cannot be contested was my point. Again, this was not the right forum, but I wanted to get a layman's opinion.
The poster above made a good point in saying why not just give benefits during this stressful time. I am balancing a difficult business decision.
The reason you may be in a legal pickle is that you *only* let go parents, and no childless people. Normally young and single is not a protected class in an at will state. But when you do something for one group of people who all have something in common but not an out of group person, this is a reason why you have inadvertently discriminated. Since the person is a woman she can claim discrimination. So you are really really treading on thin ice. If this was written on any work device or a good attorney asked for your personal devices you would be in a terrible position. You are actively contemplating things that are discrimination.
ITA. But the OP thinks she is smarter than us all and that we don't understand the situation, as she's stated many times. Wasting your breath getting her to realize it.
Even though the response is crass, ITA. It’s hard out there for the childFREE women. And if I were that employee, I would sue.
I recently had to leave a job. It was a small job paying $50 a week. They wouldn’t allow online teaching at home. All of my other jobs, which pay much more, allow online teaching. I was not going to risk getting sick at this small job because they weren’t offering any sick pay for my other jobs. So we parted ways.
Yes, you are having to make a “difficult business decision,” but you can’t run a business with sick or dead people.
|
| Posted 4/7/20 2:22 AM |
| |
|
TTCwithHope
LIF Infant
Member since 4/10 296 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
As I understand it you don’t want to give the single employee unemployment because she wasn’t fired and is a good employee. Were the other employees you laid off also good employees or do you have evidence of why you fired them? I know in NY you don’t really need a reason but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t lay of some good employees but not others based on if they have kids or not. That’s super discriminatory. You would have to prove you chose those you laid off based on some other type of criteria. If you can’t do that you can be easily sued by this single person. Let single person go and hire others who are desperately looking for a job right now.
|
| Posted 4/7/20 5:07 AM |
| |
|
Bebelove
LIF Adolescent
Member since 8/12 742 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by Christine2
Obviously this is not the best forum to discuss this as I think a lot of you don't really understand the issue at hand.
No, it is not discrimination. If an employee quits due to childcare, even if an employer were to contest their unemployment they would likely still likely be approved (in this situation) as the schools have been closed. If they HAVE COVID-19, if an employee quits they would also win unemployment.
Basically, we are NOT laying this person off...there is work for her. But this person is essentially quitting without good cause. Obviously, she is worried about her health, but coronavirus itself is not a good enough reason to quit and as an employer you can contest unemployment.
This issue isn't laying someone off BECAUSE they have kids....No one wants to come to work at this point. However, we need the help. Those that are filing for unemployment we wouldn't bother contesting as they would likely qualify based on schools being closed and lack of childcare.
So, question is....to contest or not to contest. If we contest, we'd likely win. Yes, seems sh*tty, but why hire a NEW employee and pay an increased rate in unemployment when an employee essentially quits.
If you contest, this person will likely turn around and sue you and you’d lose your business. Admit that your pay and your job is not worth it to this person and let them collect unemployment. I’m not going to mince words , But how dare you value a parents life over a single persons life. And be prepared for this person to bash you and your small business if you do something as petty as this.
|
| Posted 4/7/20 12:02 PM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7272 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another spinoff to unemployment
Posted by Christine2
Posted by RainyDay
You said the parents were laid off not that they quit. Why was the decision made to lay off only the people that had children. Seems really unethical. So no I as a business wouldnt contest it.
No, not unethical. NY state is an "at will" state, so you can fire/lay off anyone for any reason as long as it has nothing to do with race, gender, or ethnicity. Many factors go into who is laid off (salary, skills set, etc). The ones with children cannot be contested was my point. Again, this was not the right forum, but I wanted to get a layman's opinion.
The poster above made a good point in saying why not just give benefits during this stressful time. I am balancing a difficult business decision.
Would you have laid off a man with children?
You're setting yourself up for a lawsuit. I don't know how you don't see that.
Not that it's any of my business but I'm unclear as to what sort of healthcare establishment was non essential and is now essential. I can't think of anything that would have been non essential at any point.
|
| Posted 4/7/20 12:25 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 |
