5 ms·
Well, generally speaking "firing" reduces the amount of unemployment insurance you get, while a layoff gets you the full amount. So an employer that shrouds a l
by krschultz 12y ago
Well, generally speaking "firing" reduces the amount of unemployment insurance you get, while a layoff gets you the full amount. So an employer that shrouds a layoff in a firing is screwing the employee twice.
I generally think that the employer should have a very high bar on proving that it was performance based when you are laying off significant % of the workforce at one time. Every time I was involved in an employee firing, it happened out of phase with the typical performance review cycle, and it was typically one person at a time.
- seanflyon 12y ago> "firing" reduces the amount of unemployment insurance you get Could you describe how this works? Do you get unemployment for a longer period of time or larger payments if you were laid off?
- ranran876 12y agoseverance pay is given out for layoffs and not firings. It always seemed like a weird system to me b/c if you're laying people off, you're probably already strapped for cash - so you'd try to find an excuse to fire the person.
- FireBeyond 12y agoYes and no... if your fiscal management is that shoddy that severance is a problem, you're beyond screwed as a company. The idea is that "Well, we're running down our funds, best to get these people out the door now with x month's salary, rather than hope something turns around in x+y months."