4 ms·
I automatically assumed this was a ploy to dodge unemployment/redundancy benefits for employees. This also happens in the US. Much harder to get benefits if you
by Klinky 6y ago
I automatically assumed this was a ploy to dodge unemployment/redundancy benefits for employees. This also happens in the US. Much harder to get benefits if you voluntarily quit versus get fired or laid off.
- loeg 6y agoWhich is why US companies sometimes pay people to voluntarily retire instead of laying them off.
- xsmasher 6y agoI was curious what the benefit was to the company if the unemployment insurance is already paid (sunk cost) so I looked it up - > Employers with more unemployment claims against them will pay a higher rate, and employers with fewer claims will pay less.
- gamblor956 6y agoYes, indirectly. Businesses in the US generally have to pay into unemployment "premiums" to the appropriate state labor dept. If the business has a lot of terminations, then its premiums go up. However, employees resigning doesn't result in higher unemployment premiums because those employees aren't eligible for unemployment benefits. However, forcing employees to resign instead of be fired is a huge labor law violation, and in many states also constitutes unemployment fraud. On top of paying fines to the state labor dept, at a minimum you'd be paying employees for lost wages due to the unlawful terminations (or lost UE benefits)...and if the company is stupid enough to fight this in court, usually a much larger settlement or award for employees' financial losses plus treble damages (aka punitive damages). Usually ends up costing the company 10x of what they thought they would save.