4 ms·

I’m not saying you’re wrong legally, but I don’t quite follow your argument. You say “between those two dates, the employee has the same expectation of employme

by baddox 8y ago

I’m not saying you’re wrong legally, but I don’t quite follow your argument. You say “between those two dates, the employee has the same expectation of employment” but then immediately follow it up by saying that the unemployment benefits should extend indefinitely outside of that date range. You may be right legally, I really couldn't say, but it makes perfect sense to me that the unemployment benefits would extend only to the announced separation date.

jawns 8y ago
What I mean is that even in an at-will state, employees have an expectation of continued employment, unless their employer has given them a defined end date. An employer can decide to fire an employee at any point without cause or notice, but until that happens, the employee has an expectation that they're going to be coming in to work and doing their job. To put it another way: Even in at-will states, you're employed until you aren't. But if an employer fires an employee, that upends the arrangement, whether or not the employee was planning to stop working at future date, and whether or not the employee has given the employer notice of that fact. Frankly, the only reason it's considered common practice to give notice is because there is an implicit expectation that you will continue to be employed until your date of planned separation and can make arrangements based on that fact. If employers regularly fired anyone who gave notice, and offered them no severance, no one would give notice. So, for the purposes of qualifying for unemployment benefits, it should not matter whether you had planned to stop working for your employer on some future date. The firing has nullified those plans. The employer has prevented you from working until the date on which you intended to stop working, and so it's almost nonsensical to say, "Well, now you're out of a job, but let's treat you as if you still have a job that you're still planning to quit on the date you specified."
ahi 8y ago
The announced separation date was based on the assumption of gainful employment up until that date. Being thrown into unemployment makes that decision irrelevant. Giving notice is a courteous statement of intentions. The courtesy and intention no longer apply if they get fired in the interim.
pnutjam 8y ago
If the employee quit, but he never quit; he was fired before he could quit. If 5 people are planning to share a cake and I say I'm going to eat that cake on Friday, all by myself. If you eat the cake on Tuesday. Everyone doesn't get to switch to being mad at me on Friday. You still ate all the cake.
daveFNbuck 8y ago
He was planning to leave after 2 more months of full pay. He never got those 2 months of full pay. The loss of that puts him in a very different position on Jan 1 than he would have been in had he not been fired.

by baddox 8y ago

jawns 8y ago

What I mean is that even in an at-will state, employees have an expectation of continued employment, unless their employer has given them a defined end date. An employer can decide to fire an employee at any point without cause or notice, but until that happens, the employee has an expectation that they're going to be coming in to work and doing their job. To put it another way: Even in at-will states, you're employed until you aren't. But if an employer fires an employee, that upends the arrangement, whether or not the employee was planning to stop working at future date, and whether or not the employee has given the employer notice of that fact. Frankly, the only reason it's considered common practice to give notice is because there is an implicit expectation that you will continue to be employed until your date of planned separation and can make arrangements based on that fact. If employers regularly fired anyone who gave notice, and offered them no severance, no one would give notice. So, for the purposes of qualifying for unemployment benefits, it should not matter whether you had planned to stop working for your employer on some future date. The firing has nullified those plans. The employer has prevented you from working until the date on which you intended to stop working, and so it's almost nonsensical to say, "Well, now you're out of a job, but let's treat you as if you still have a job that you're still planning to quit on the date you specified."

ahi 8y ago

The announced separation date was based on the assumption of gainful employment up until that date. Being thrown into unemployment makes that decision irrelevant. Giving notice is a courteous statement of intentions. The courtesy and intention no longer apply if they get fired in the interim.

pnutjam 8y ago

If the employee quit, but he never quit; he was fired before he could quit. If 5 people are planning to share a cake and I say I'm going to eat that cake on Friday, all by myself. If you eat the cake on Tuesday. Everyone doesn't get to switch to being mad at me on Friday. You still ate all the cake.

daveFNbuck 8y ago

He was planning to leave after 2 more months of full pay. He never got those 2 months of full pay. The loss of that puts him in a very different position on Jan 1 than he would have been in had he not been fired.