4 ms·

The employee files for unemployment insurance regardless, lying and claiming they were laid off. You file a dispute, claiming they were terminated for cause. Th

The employee files for unemployment insurance regardless, lying and claiming they were laid off. You file a dispute, claiming they were terminated for cause. The unemployment office makes it quite clear that you will lose your dispute and should drop it. You refuse, because you have a good clear case where clearly this guy was fired for cause. You present your good clear case, and you lose anyway, and the person fired for cause still gets unemployment, and your unemployment insurance rates go up. That's just how it works. It's not how it's written, and it's not how it's supposed to work, but it's how it works.

adient 15y ago
I find it odd when people create such strange generalizations in their head. Whether this comment is from your own anecdotal experience or not, it is just plain wrong as a general matter. Defeating an unemployment appeal is certainly possible and not that difficult if you've done your due diligence during the process.
riverlaw 15y ago
You are wrong. I won every case (~5) filed against me over ~3 years working at Tech Support. If you have proper documentation as to why you fired someone you do not have to pay unemployment insurance.
- pkteison 15y ago
  I'm flat out wrong? I see your anecodote and raise you a statistic: "In 2009, employers filed 405,153 appeals to deny benefits to former workers and 36% won, a figure that hasn't changed too much in recent years, according to the U.S. Department of Labor." Wall Street Journal "Feeling Blue about Pink Slip Taxes" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303960604575158214061078180.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230396060457515... 36% won. So 2/3rds of the time (read: most of the time), employee wins. By all means, still appeal. But odds are not fantastic. Plan on having to pay out some unemployment that you shouldn't have to. A written employee handbook and records showing when policies were violated will save you some money sometimes, but don't count on it. You can fire employees, for cause, and still see your insurance go up, even with an appeal.
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    Your (ridiculous) assessment doesn't mean that 64% of workers fired for cause end up getting unemployment. Far from it. Like you said, these are appeals - not initial claims. That means they're cases in which the court has already reviewed the fairly clear-cut criteria for awarding benefits, determined that they are justified, and has proceed accordingly. Indeed, a court that reverses itself 36% of the time seems remarkably open to appeal by employers. As far as the 64% of appeals that are rejected are concerned, it IS flat out wrong to say that these are all justified dismissals that they employer had to pay for anyway. After all, this figure also includes cases where employees quit for cause (e.g. flagrantly abusive work environments, failure to pay wages in full and on time, efforts to avoid paying unemployment claims by radically demoting or cutting hours instead of laying off, etc.), as well as cases in which the termination was wrongful, and likely to do lasting damage to the employee (e.g. by way of demonstrably slanderous performance reviews, for refusing to engage in abusive or deceptive practices on behalf of the employer, etc.) You're also disregarding the way incentives function here. Since the employer is on the hook for damages - and the cost of an appeal is trivial - they have a strong incentive to fight, even in cases where they are monstrously in the wrong. Indeed, HR people will tell you that they automatically appealing everything, no matter what, as a matter of standard operating procedure. The idea is that by developing a reputation for reflexive fighting, they can use the notoriously slow pace of justice to delay payments for the better part of a year. Accordingly, people with limited savings who simply want to get the hell out of a truly unbearable situation can't count on unemployment insurance to finance their job search. Instead, they have to line up their next job before they quit their current one, rendering the question of unemployment moot.

adient 15y ago

I find it odd when people create such strange generalizations in their head. Whether this comment is from your own anecdotal experience or not, it is just plain wrong as a general matter. Defeating an unemployment appeal is certainly possible and not that difficult if you've done your due diligence during the process.

riverlaw 15y ago

You are wrong. I won every case (~5) filed against me over ~3 years working at Tech Support. If you have proper documentation as to why you fired someone you do not have to pay unemployment insurance.

pkteison 15y ago
I'm flat out wrong? I see your anecodote and raise you a statistic: "In 2009, employers filed 405,153 appeals to deny benefits to former workers and 36% won, a figure that hasn't changed too much in recent years, according to the U.S. Department of Labor." Wall Street Journal "Feeling Blue about Pink Slip Taxes" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303960604575158214061078180.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230396060457515... 36% won. So 2/3rds of the time (read: most of the time), employee wins. By all means, still appeal. But odds are not fantastic. Plan on having to pay out some unemployment that you shouldn't have to. A written employee handbook and records showing when policies were violated will save you some money sometimes, but don't count on it. You can fire employees, for cause, and still see your insurance go up, even with an appeal.
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Your (ridiculous) assessment doesn't mean that 64% of workers fired for cause end up getting unemployment. Far from it. Like you said, these are appeals - not initial claims. That means they're cases in which the court has already reviewed the fairly clear-cut criteria for awarding benefits, determined that they are justified, and has proceed accordingly. Indeed, a court that reverses itself 36% of the time seems remarkably open to appeal by employers. As far as the 64% of appeals that are rejected are concerned, it IS flat out wrong to say that these are all justified dismissals that they employer had to pay for anyway. After all, this figure also includes cases where employees quit for cause (e.g. flagrantly abusive work environments, failure to pay wages in full and on time, efforts to avoid paying unemployment claims by radically demoting or cutting hours instead of laying off, etc.), as well as cases in which the termination was wrongful, and likely to do lasting damage to the employee (e.g. by way of demonstrably slanderous performance reviews, for refusing to engage in abusive or deceptive practices on behalf of the employer, etc.) You're also disregarding the way incentives function here. Since the employer is on the hook for damages - and the cost of an appeal is trivial - they have a strong incentive to fight, even in cases where they are monstrously in the wrong. Indeed, HR people will tell you that they automatically appealing everything, no matter what, as a matter of standard operating procedure. The idea is that by developing a reputation for reflexive fighting, they can use the notoriously slow pace of justice to delay payments for the better part of a year. Accordingly, people with limited savings who simply want to get the hell out of a truly unbearable situation can't count on unemployment insurance to finance their job search. Instead, they have to line up their next job before they quit their current one, rendering the question of unemployment moot.