Employers are now lying in order to screw workers out of unemployment benefits

[Le Jacquelope]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=12161232&ch=4226720&src=news

Employers are trying to avoid paying higher unemployment benefit premiums in the future by alleging that employees they laid off are being fired with cause (coming in late, etc.).

It's so bad now that fully 1/4th of all claims are now being contested - this means an enormous number of workers are not getting benefits, many of whom have clearly been defamed by their employer.

You know, it would be kind of odd that there would be any UI investigation of workers who are laid off en masse. But since apparently there isn't, it's high time we suspend this 'employer's right' to challenge these claims. Only deny benefits if the worker quits.

My wife and I pay UI premiums for future claims and we're ready to take the hit... then again we have swelled to over 2 dozen people now and we haven't any plans to lay anyone off.


Employers have been dropping the hammer on workers for years now. It's time the Government dropped one on them in retaliation. This is a good time to wipe out the unscrupulous employers and start all over: they're killing us slowly. Short of making a society where employers are irrelevant - a maddeningly difficult task to say the least - we can at least penalize bad behavior on their part just as much as we penalize bad behavior by employees.

Remember - employers are worth nothing when nobody has money to spend.

 

[sr71plt]

God, this is an erotica writer's "break" board. Could . . . you . . . just . . . take . . . this screamy crap to the General Board?!

 

[Le Jacquelope]

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090216/news/902160382&tc=yahoo

More Unemployment Claims Face Challenges

By Peter Whoriskey
The Washington Post

Published: Monday, February 16, 2009 at 12:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 4:40 a.m.

WASHINGTON | It's hard enough to lose a job. But for a growing proportion of U.S. workers, the troubles really set in when they apply for unemployment benefits.

More than a quarter of people applying for such claims have their rights to the benefit challenged as employers increasingly act to block payouts to former workers.

The proportion of claims disputed by former employers and state agencies has reached record levels in recent years, according to the Labor Department numbers tallied by the Urban Institute.

Under state and federal laws, employees who are fired for misbehavior or quit voluntarily are ineligible for unemployment compensation. When jobless claims are blocked, employers save money because their unemployment insurance rates are based on the amount of the benefits their workers collect.

BENEFITS CHALLENGED

As unemployment rolls swell in the recession, many workers seem surprised to find their benefits challenged, their former bosses providing testimony against them. On one recent morning in what amounts to one of Maryland's unemployment courts, employees and employers squared off at conference tables to rehash reports of bad customer service, anger management and absenteeism.

"I couldn't believe it," said Kenneth M. Brown, who lost his job as a hotel electrician in October.

He began collecting benefits of $380 a week but then discovered that his former employer, the owners of the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, were appealing to block his unemployment benefits. The hotel alleged that he had been fired for being deceptive with a supervisor.

"A big corporation like that. ... It was hard enough to be terminated," he said. "But for them to try to take away the unemployment benefits - I just thought that was heartless."

After a Post reporter turned up at the hearing, the hotel's representative withdrew the appeal and declined to comment. A hotel spokesperson later said the company does not comment on legal matters. Brown will continue to collect benefits, which he, his wife and three young children rely on to make monthly mortgage payments on their Upper Marlboro home.

Unemployment compensation programs are administered by the states and funded by payroll taxes that employers pay. In 2007, employers put up about $31.5 billion in such taxes, and those taxes typically rise during and after recessions, as states seek to replenish the funds.

With each successful claim raising a company's costs, many firms resist letting employees collect the benefit if they consider it undeserved.

"In some of these cases, employers feel like there's some matter of principle involved," said Coleman Walsh, chief administrative law judge in Virginia, who has handled many such disputes. But, he said, "nowadays it appears their motivation has more to do with the impact on their unemployment insurance tax rate. Employers by and large are more aware of unemployment as a cost of business."

THIRD-PARTY AGENTS

The cost of unemployment insurance has created an industry of "third-party agents" - companies that specialize in helping employers deal with the unemployment insurance administration. These firms represent employers in disputes with former employees over jobless benefits.

One of the largest is TALX, a St. Louis company active in the Washington area, which claims more than 8,000 clients.

The company's Web site says that it removes "over $6 billion in unemployment claims liability annually."

Joyce Dear, chief operations officer for tax management services at TALX, said firms such as hers help bring to light the issues surrounding an employee's departure.

"You are limited to what is permissible," she said. "What an employer can do is provide the facts around a separation. The awarding of the benefits is in the hands of the state."

Wayne Vroman, a researcher at the Urban Institute, has documented the rise of challenges to unemployment claims using the Labor Department data. He found that the proportion of claims challenged on the basis of misconduct has more than doubled, to 16 percent, since the late 1980s. Claims disputed on the grounds that the worker simply quit represent about 10 percent of the otherwise eligible applications.

Even as more employers have alleged employee misconduct, their success rate has stayed relatively stable - they lose on such issues about two-thirds of the time.

"What is clear is that employers have become more willing to contest claims from claimants," Vroman said.

 

[slyc_willie]

God, this is an erotica writer's "break" board. Could . . . you . . . just . . . take . . . this screamy crap to the General Board?!

Ditto.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Ditto.

And what are you and propeller boy going to do if I don't? Scream in more big red text?

Find a moderator who'll remove me, then. Or continue bitch about me. But that is exactly your role in this - a whining little bitch standing in my shadow screaming impotently about how I shouldn't be posting here, helpless to do anything at all to stop me.

 

[slyc_willie]

And what are you and propeller boy going to do if I don't? Scream in more big red text?

Find a moderator who'll remove me, then. Or continue bitch about me. But that is exactly your role in this - a whining little bitch standing in my shadow screaming impotently about how I shouldn't be posting here, helpless to do anything at all to stop me.

No, more like you're just an amusing kid. Go on and post. It's always funny watching the dog in the tu-tu dancing around. It just gets boring after a while, is all.

Carry on, jack.

 

[xssve]

Core values: if there aren't enough lifeboats - every man for himself.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

No, more like you're just an amusing kid. Go on and post. It's always funny watching the dog in the tu-tu dancing around. It just gets boring after a while, is all.

Carry on, jack.

Amusing kid? It isn't me who's screaming at people in big red text. That is what kids do.

Most of what I say flies right over your head anyway. You're like a kindergartener who just wants the adults to stop talking about anything less fun than your next blow-pop fix. The problem is, you're not even amusing from the get go.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Core values: if there aren't enough lifeboats - every man for himself.

In that situation one gets fairly surprised at who suddenly pulls out a gun and starts shooting people - or lifeboats.

Never fear the power of "If I don't get on the lifeboat, no one does". Namely, employers who screw their workers like this, may find themselves targets of violence. Why not? I mean, if you were laid off and now you can't get the money to feed your wife and baby because your EMPLOYER preyed on you and tried to steal your benefits by lying, then you don't have anything to lose. Retaliation is the next logical step.

25% of cases being contested leaves a lot of starving people and a lot of potential for revenge. This is why I remain an honest employer.

 

[slyc_willie]

Amusing kid? It isn't me who's screaming at people in big red text. That is what kids do.

Most of what I say flies right over your head anyway. You're like a kindergartener who just wants the adults to stop talking about anything less fun than your next blow-pop fix. The problem is, you're not even amusing from the get go.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

Do you just not get enough attention at home? I wonder about your emotional stability, kid.

But, as you said, c'est la vie. I'll just watch the inevitable self-immolation.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Do you just not get enough attention at home? I wonder about your emotional stability, kid.

But, as you said, c'est la vie. I'll just watch the inevitable self-immolation.

Your problem is you spent more time being heard as a child than just being seen. Bet your teachers had a hard time talking over you, too.

Most people have two ears and a mouth. Apparently for you it was the exact opposite.

 

[slyc_willie]

Your problem is you spent more time being heard as a child than just being seen. Bet your teachers had a hard time talking over you, too.

Most people have two ears and a mouth. Apparently for you it was the exact opposite.

I'm not surprised to see how easy it is to break you down to your playground mentality.

Anyway, think I'll get back to writing. Nice "talking" to you, kid.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm not surprised to see how easy it is to break you down to your playground mentality.

Anyway, think I'll get back to writing. Nice "talking" to you, kid.

Yup, just as expected, you're just a child who must continue to be heard while adults are talking.

Go back to your crayola project. Don't forget your pacifier.

 

[xssve]

In that situation one gets fairly surprised at who suddenly pulls out a gun and starts shooting people - or lifeboats.

Never fear the power of "If I don't get on the lifeboat, no one does". Namely, employers who screw their workers like this, may find themselves targets of violence. Why not? I mean, if you were laid off and now you can't get the money to feed your wife and baby because your EMPLOYER preyed on you and tried to steal your benefits by lying, then you don't have anything to lose. Retaliation is the next logical step.

25% of cases being contested leaves a lot of starving people and a lot of potential for revenge. This is why I remain an honest employer.

There is that. The art of diplomacy can come in useful at times.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

There is that. The art of diplomacy can come in useful at times.

It's not just diplomacy, it's honesty.

People won't stand being preyed on and defrauded forever.

 

[slyc_willie]

Okay, fine. Seems I hit a little snag in explaining my characters' motivations, so I figured I'd take a look at your latest beef.

Let's see. You apply the circumstances of a single employee being relieved of his job to an entire sect of employees across the country. Not exactly the best blanket statement in the world. It seems you've neglected where, in the video, Tori Johnson stresses several factors at play when it comes to being eligible to receive unemployment benefits:

1. Did you earn enough money?

2. Did you work at your place of employment long enough (according to a 'base period' which is typically outlined in any employee's handbook)?

3. The big one: Are you out of work through no fault of your own? Given the tenor of your original post, you seem to assume that anyone who loses their job was let go for selfish and malicious reasons on the part of the employer.

Essentially, the interview you provided a link to is much more centrally biased than your own post. So sorry for Mr. Stone, but if he was fired for repeated tardiness and deliberately misabusing his position (facts which are tenaciously documented in any workplace in order to protect against civil lawsuits and not, as you would probably believe, to protect the corporate bigwigs and their fat-cat payrolls), then his jobless state is most likely his fault.

I see employees all the time where I work who do the bare minimum to get the job done. They skirt the edges of their duty and often try to bend the rule to work in their advantage. Sooner or later, they get caught and often become indignant when they are canned for their behavior. At the same time, there are also those (much fewer in number) who fall victim to numerous factors outside of work and are ultimately discharged for reasons beyond their control. Such as, the single mother with a sick kid who misses too many shifts. Those, I can feel sorry for. Give them an express pass through the unemployment office so they can file a claim. By all means, I'll chip in if and when I can.

The truth is that there are far too many people out there who seek to exploit anything and everything around them to the end of receiving the greatest returns for the least amount of effort. If that means claiming unemployment at a time when the country is in a recession, for the sake of getting money for nothing, they will do so, and thereby cast shadows over those who honestly and truthfully require assistance.

The difference comes in when you follow up a year later and see who has gotten a new job and who is still sitting on the couch eating Cheetos and collecting a government check.

Hey . . . I think the writing muse is back. I'll check in later.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Essentially, the interview you provided a link to is much more centrally biased than your own post. So sorry for Mr. Stone, but if he was fired for repeated tardiness and deliberately misabusing his position (facts which are tenaciously documented in any workplace in order to protect against civil lawsuits and not, as you would probably believe, to protect the corporate bigwigs and their fat-cat payrolls), then his jobless state is most likely his fault.

A few massively gaping holes in your 'logic' here.

1) Employers tend to lose 2/3rds of these contested claims.
2) Employers are contesting more of these claims than they did before: it's now up to 25%.
3) Some of these contested claims are certain to be claims placed from mass layoffs. If you're laying off 20 people your credibility in accusing them all of being late to work is severely damaged.
4) Your own argument is biased. Who said Stone's employer had documentation? And as an employer I can alter time cards whenever I please, or fabricate "documentation". Where's the proof that he actually came in late and how can you show the proof is authentic?
5) There is GREAT motivation for an employer to fabricate this: they stand to pay lower premiums if they can successfully contest these cases.

I see employees all the time where I work who do the bare minimum to get the job done. They skirt the edges of their duty and often try to bend the rule to work in their advantage. Sooner or later, they get caught and often become indignant when they are canned for their behavior. At the same time, there are also those (much fewer in number) who fall victim to numerous factors outside of work and are ultimately discharged for reasons beyond their control. Such as, the single mother with a sick kid who misses too many shifts. Those, I can feel sorry for. Give them an express pass through the unemployment office so they can file a claim. By all means, I'll chip in if and when I can.

But you have no proof that any individual employee at another company is actually doing these things.

Plus there is a rise in the number of claims being contested. Only a fool says more employees are being bad workers in this economy. I know several employers who are letting go of their best workers to save money because they're paying them too much. You betcha if they're willing to do that, they're willing to lie and contest their unemployment.

The truth is that there are far too many people out there who seek to exploit anything and everything around them to the end of receiving the greatest returns for the least amount of effort.

That includes employers.

If that means claiming unemployment at a time when the country is in a recession, for the sake of getting money for nothing, they will do so, and thereby cast shadows over those who honestly and truthfully require assistance.

You always have it in for the workers, don't you?

Thank God we this mentality out of office.

The difference comes in when you follow up a year later and see who has gotten a new job and who is still sitting on the couch eating Cheetos and collecting a government check.

Really. With an unemployment rate pushing 10%, you're willing to bet your ass on that explanation?

Hey . . . I think the writing muse is back. I'll check in later.

Please, feel free to come back and show us all why the Republicans lost.

 

[slyc_willie]

Hey, this is fun. I'll play.

A few massively gaping holes in your 'logic' here.

1) Employers tend to lose 2/3rds of these contested claims.
2) Employers are contesting more of these claims than they did before: it's now up to 25%.
3) Some of these contested claims are certain to be claims placed from mass layoffs. If you're laying off 20 people your credibility in accusing them all of being late to work is severely damaged.
4) Your own argument is biased. Who said Stone's employer had documentation? And as an employer I can alter time cards whenever I please, or fabricate "documentation". Where's the proof that he actually came in late and how can you show the proof is authentic?
5) There is GREAT motivation for an employer to fabricate this: they stand to pay lower premiums if they can successfully contest these cases.

1) According to whom?
2) Of course they are. More claims, more contesting. And that 25% figure is workers filing claims.
3) Speculation.
4) The documentation was provided by both Stone and the interviewer in the clip. You might want to watch it again. As far as proof of authenticity, that's why there are arbitration venues for the vast majority of cases such as this.
5) Readily believable at face value, but again, speculative.

But you have no proof that any individual employee at another company is actually doing these things.

Nor do you have proof that they are not.

Plus there is a rise in the number of claims being contested. Only a fool says more employees are being bad workers in this economy. I know several employers who are letting go of their best workers to save money because they're paying them too much. You betcha if they're willing to do that, they're willing to lie and contest their unemployment.

And I'd be willing to hear out these alleged employers. And only a fool takes a former employee's claim at face value. More employees being laid off = more possibilities of dishonest claims.

That includes employers.

Of course it does. I never said it didn't. But individuals have more motivation, and less obstructions, to be selfish.

You always have it in for the workers, don't you?

And you base that from . . . ?

Thank God we this mentality out of office.

'We' what, exactly?

Really. With an unemployment rate pushing 10%, you're willing to bet your ass on that explanation?

Absolutely. You willing to stand by your predictions? Where I live, the unemployment isn't quite close to 10%, by the way.

Please, feel free to come back and show us all why the Republicans lost.

And please, feel free to explain why someone who voted gladly to put Obama in office (me) would find so many holes in your one-sided, inflammatory, 101-level economics logic.

Have a good one, kid. It's been fun watching the doggie in the tu-tu show, but I'm off for more enlightening things. Take that as you will.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Hey, this is fun. I'll play.

Translation: your ego is doing damage control.

1) According to whom?

It was right here. Learn to read.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090216/news/902160382&tc=yahoo

Even as more employers have alleged employee misconduct, their success rate has stayed relatively stable - they lose on such issues about two-thirds of the time.

2) Of course they are. More claims, more contesting. And that 25% figure is workers filing claims.

No, that 25% is employers challenging UI claims.

3) Speculation.

Really. The whole premise of the news article was layoffs. Or are we to believe your wild speculations over them?

4) The documentation was provided by both Stone and the interviewer in the clip. You might want to watch it again. As far as proof of authenticity, that's why there are arbitration venues for the vast majority of cases such as this.

You're not reading what I said. I said, the documentation provided by an employer could very well be phony.

5) Readily believable at face value, but again, speculative.

You're contradicting yourself.

Nor do you have proof that they are not.

Your logic doesn't fly when you are trying to deny someone benefits.

God, I'm glad you neither have an insurance license nor make rules for such an agency.

And I'd be willing to hear out these alleged employers. And only a fool takes a former employee's claim at face value. More employees being laid off = more possibilities of dishonest claims.

If they're being laid off, then claiming they were laid off for unemployment benefits is not dishonesty. Being laid off by definition means you're being terminated due to no fault of your own.

For all that talk of you calling me a little kid, you sure look pathetic being lectured by a "little kid": there's a difference between being laid off and being fired for cause.

You see, where I come from, I always got a layoff notice in writing. I never got terminated for cause, but I would have gotten that in writing, too, as did my coworkers who did. I don't know about your universe, but around here employers do things in writing.

So when you go file for unemployment and you have a LAY OFF notice in your hand and the BOSS comes back and bitches about you being habitually late, yeah, the employer is being dishonest.

Oh and I'm also an employer, so quit trying to bullshit me here. I can hire someone to help me bully an employee on a challenged UI claim: he usually doesn't have money to defend himself against my potential defamations. The fact that employers LOSE 66% of these fights says a lot as to how weak their cases are.

By the way, why don't you explain to me how you can lay off 20 people and tell the unemployment office that they were fired with cause. Being the big bad non-kid you are and all that.

Pity, you grew up but your brain didn't.

Of course it does. I never said it didn't. But individuals have more motivation, and less obstructions, to be selfish.

LOL!!! You just love to make an idiot of yourself, huh? Individuals have more motivation than businesses, to be selfish? Oh man that's total kook rant gold. What do you base that on?

And you base that from . . . ?

"But individuals have more motivation, and less obstructions, to be selfish." for starters.


Okay, I'm tired of you. And you've said about 20 times now that you have to tend to your muse. Your crayons are melting from all the hot air coming from your head. Please rectify that. I'm done arguing with you and trying to fill in the Death Star sized holes in that crap you just tried to pass off as logic. Go debate with scouries, or better yet, stick with your league and argue with a head of lettuce.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JACQUELOPE is correct.

Unemployed people cost government and business lots of money. If a business fires you for cause, everyone wins, except the worker. You trim the payroll, save the government money, and spare yourself increased unemployment benefit charges.

So! Business conspires to fire you for 'cause.'

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There's another reason they fire you for cause: to prevent themselves from getting sued.

When the large company I worked for laid off 10% of my department, they went about it very methodically, building up employee files of bullshit charges, bad performance reviews that had nothing to do with reality, warnings, action plans to fix performance, and all sort of Human Resource doublespeak. Once they had a couple months of documentation on your "poor performance", they shitcanned you and you were out on the street. If you complained, they could always wave their documentation in your face.

Within a three week period, 10% of the department, about 30 people, were let go for "cause".

This is the same company that brags of never having had a lay-off.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

From a Transactional Analysis point of view, we call the practice STAMP COLLECTING. Back in the 50s women collected trading stamps with all their purchases, then redeemed the stamps for nifty gifts....the pay-off.

I had a sergeant that kept notes on everyone; and when the bug crawled up his ass, he hauled you and his notebook to the Captain for a prize. I've seen supervisor's do the same trick, so employees couldnt transfer out.

 

[xssve]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_09/b4121052747799.htm?campaign_id=bwdaily_related

The sucky thing about this is that employers are being punished if the bank won't give them the money to make payroll - deadweight loss will increase accordingly, and it's going to have a chilling effect on small businesses.

Back to the temp economy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A TEMP ECONOMY is right!

Prediction: By 2010 most workers will be Independent Contractors hired for piecework with no benefits.

 

[sr71plt]

Let's see. You apply the circumstances of a single employee being relieved of his job to an entire sect of employees across the country.

Exactly right. In LaJoke's one-note sambas, he takes an isolated event (that has nothing to do with with forum), extrapolates it to universal, goes postal over it, and wants the rest of us to go postal over it too. If he just took an anger management course--or one in creating self-esteem--we'd all be the better for it.