4 ms·

I know a ton of employees who have declined employment because of unemployment paying better. If Employers rat out these employees, then they come back angry. i

I know a ton of employees who have declined employment because of unemployment paying better. If Employers rat out these employees, then they come back angry. its a nasty spot to be in.

slg 6y ago
Like I said: >Certainly there will be some people who do it, but you would basically have to commit fraud to do it. Also the extra unemployment benefits expired so anyone still doing this is not making more than they would at their job. Their only incentive to continue this fraud is for their own personal safety. You can't call a preference for one's own personal safety "perverse".
- abfan1127 6y ago
  While it wasn't my statement, I think its perverse as the "free money" distorted those employees from making "normal decisions". For those employees, its a perfectly reasonable (short term) decision to prefer the larger payout. I'd argue its a bad long term decision.
  - slg 6y ago
    The money isn't "free" if you have to commit fraud to get it. I get that the temporary boost in benefits skewed the incentives a little bit more towards committing unemployment fraud and that might have been enough to sway some people who wouldn't do it under "normal" circumstances, but unemployment fraud is not a new option and this incentive to commit fraud has always existed.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
adamsea 6y ago
I wonder if that says more about the employer than anything else.
- abfan1127 6y ago
  what would it say about employers? They don't want to jeopardize relations, but they need employees back... I personally know small mom/pop restaurants, a small private security (rent-a-cop) firm, and a large casino that can't get people to come back because the $600/week bonus. These aren't 6 figure engineering jobs. these are low skill jobs where the most important skill is showing up on time consistently.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Well, cry me a river for the casino, which could afford to pay a living / more competitive wage, but I see your point about the other ones. Maybe then it says more about our current economic system as a whole. But my point was it seems like if $600 / week is enough for folks to choose not to work, that says more about the work not being meaningful or the employer being unable to (or choosing not to) pay the worker well.
    - abfan1127 6y ago
      while I can't speak for other casinos. This particular one paid them full wages for the 6 weeks they were originally shut down. it wasn't $600/wk. It was $600/wk plus UI. If $600/wk is enough not to work, then it can also speak to the quality of the worker and their lack of skills. Spending time complaining about how hard life is, rather than doing something about it. Not everyone is like that, and not no-one is like that either.
      - smileysteve 6y ago
        > it wasn't $600/wk. It was $600/wk plus UI Severance is counted against eligibility for unemployment in most states. Source; had a friend not understand this, to wonder where their unemployment was, to get their first check after their severance ran out.
        abfan1127 6y ago
        these particular people were furloughed with pay. I won't speak for all people because obviously there are many diverse situations.

I know a ton of employees who have declined employment because of unemployment paying better. If Employers rat out these employees, then they come back angry. its a nasty spot to be in.

slg 6y ago

Like I said: >Certainly there will be some people who do it, but you would basically have to commit fraud to do it. Also the extra unemployment benefits expired so anyone still doing this is not making more than they would at their job. Their only incentive to continue this fraud is for their own personal safety. You can't call a preference for one's own personal safety "perverse".

abfan1127 6y ago
While it wasn't my statement, I think its perverse as the "free money" distorted those employees from making "normal decisions". For those employees, its a perfectly reasonable (short term) decision to prefer the larger payout. I'd argue its a bad long term decision.
- slg 6y ago
  The money isn't "free" if you have to commit fraud to get it. I get that the temporary boost in benefits skewed the incentives a little bit more towards committing unemployment fraud and that might have been enough to sway some people who wouldn't do it under "normal" circumstances, but unemployment fraud is not a new option and this incentive to commit fraud has always existed.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

adamsea 6y ago

I wonder if that says more about the employer than anything else.

abfan1127 6y ago
what would it say about employers? They don't want to jeopardize relations, but they need employees back... I personally know small mom/pop restaurants, a small private security (rent-a-cop) firm, and a large casino that can't get people to come back because the $600/week bonus. These aren't 6 figure engineering jobs. these are low skill jobs where the most important skill is showing up on time consistently.
- adamsea 6y ago
  Well, cry me a river for the casino, which could afford to pay a living / more competitive wage, but I see your point about the other ones. Maybe then it says more about our current economic system as a whole. But my point was it seems like if $600 / week is enough for folks to choose not to work, that says more about the work not being meaningful or the employer being unable to (or choosing not to) pay the worker well.
  - abfan1127 6y ago
    while I can't speak for other casinos. This particular one paid them full wages for the 6 weeks they were originally shut down. it wasn't $600/wk. It was $600/wk plus UI. If $600/wk is enough not to work, then it can also speak to the quality of the worker and their lack of skills. Spending time complaining about how hard life is, rather than doing something about it. Not everyone is like that, and not no-one is like that either.
    - smileysteve 6y ago
      > it wasn't $600/wk. It was $600/wk plus UI Severance is counted against eligibility for unemployment in most states. Source; had a friend not understand this, to wonder where their unemployment was, to get their first check after their severance ran out.
      - abfan1127 6y ago
        these particular people were furloughed with pay. I won't speak for all people because obviously there are many diverse situations.