Demotion an end run to hide wage theft?

[Zigner]

She's getting a 40% cut in pay. Unless she's got money in the bank or has low overhead, her bills will not get paid doing things your way.

40% pay cut vs. 100% pay cut for an indefinite period...are you a product of the New Math movement?

ETA: And where did you get the 40% number from?

 

[cbg]

She'll be able to pay more with 60% of her income than she will with none.

 

[HC1432]

40% pay cut vs. 100% pay cut for an indefinite period...are you a product of the New Math movement?

ETA: And where did you get the 40% number from?

In the first post the OP stated that it was a reduction to 4 days per week and a 20% pay cut. I think Chyvan thinks that these are two separate reductions but I am interpreting the same way that I suspect many here are which is that the reduction of 1 day per week is the 20% pay cut.

 

[Zigner]

In the first post the OP stated that it was a reduction to 4 days per week and a 20% pay cut. I think Chyvan thinks that these are two separate reductions but I am interpreting the same way that I suspect many here are which is that the reduction of 1 day per week is the 20% pay cut.

Right 4/5 is 80%, or a 20% reduction.

 

[Chyvan]

are you a product of the New Math movement?

Apparently, because no one seems to get it. I lived it. I would have been working for $280/wk after the adverse changes, or getting $240/wk on unemployment. I can't even buy a week's worth a gas for the incremental $40, let alone the FICA, and I put a value on my time. I'd have been working for a net loss vs UI.

If you're so worried about your ability to get another job, then sure, play it safe. However, be factual: you can get UI when you dump your job because your employer changes the terms and conditions of employment. I've done it, others I've helped have done it, and it really depends on the numbers and the circumstances of the poster as to whether it makes sense, but to just try to scare people and not let them decide for themselves isn't really helping.

 

[Zigner]

Apparently, because no one seems to get it. I lived it. I would have been working for $280/wk after the adverse changes, or getting $240/wk on unemployment. I can't even buy a week's worth a gas for the incremental $40, let alone the FICA, and I put a value on my time. I'd have been working for a net loss vs UI.

If you're so worried about your ability to get another job, then sure, play it safe. However, be factual: you can get UI when you dump your job because your employer changes the terms and conditions of employment. I've done it, others I've helped have done it, and it really depends on the numbers and the circumstances of the poster as to whether it makes sense, but to just try to scare people and not let them decide for themselves isn't really helping.

YOU are pushing these folks to up and quit...nobody else here is doing that.

 

[cbg]

Yes, there are circumstances when one CAN get UI when you quit.

That does not mean that it is guaranteed. It does not even mean that it is likely. And I say again, it's easy for you to push people into quitting when you do not have the ability to guarantee them a win, and you will not be the one left with no job and no income if you are wrong.

 

[Chyvan]

It does not even mean that it is likely.

Besides myself, I've taken 7 others through the "substantial change." They've all collected. Stop acting like it's some aberration or luck. It's rooted and backed up by case law and US DOL publications.

1 was in ID, 1 in SC, 1 in NJ, 2 in CA, 1 in AZ, and 1 in TX.

 

[commentator]

My only response is "caveat emptor."

If somebody has already quit the job, I've no problem with someone helping them take the only option they have left and trying to get approved to draw unemployment benefits. Understanding that it is not a guaranteed thing by far. Heaven knows I've seen many many of them who've done this very thing. "Grabbed my pride and walked out!" Or even worse, "worked a few days and figured out I just couldn't make it!"

But for someone who is confronted with a pay cut and benefits cut, as has just happened to someone I know personally, there's wisdom in waiting and considering the options.

A friend has just been told that in response to new rules, he's being made hourly, cut to part time, and his health care benefits taken away. He will at the new rate be making about $28,000py, with no health care. Okay, in this state, should this totally self-supporting single person without savings or other sources of income continue to work and bring in his paychecks at a reduced rate until he can find another job? Or should he up and quit the job, file a claim for Tennessee unemployment ($275 per week max) and wait approximately three months for them to reach some kind of decision which, at the very best, would eventually gross him $7500 in the next six months? And with a very real possibility that there will be NO money ever coming in from it.

I would be very hesitant to tell him, "Sure, quit your job, you can get unemployment." In reality, almost any kind of job is usually better than unemployment benefits, which were never intended for anything except a stop gap emergency program. And re-employment is meant to be a huge aspect of that program.

 

[Zigner]

Besides myself, I've taken 7 others through the "substantial change." They've all collected. Stop acting like it's some aberration or luck. It's rooted and backed up by case law and US DOL publications.

1 was in ID, 1 in SC, 1 in NJ, 2 in CA, 1 in AZ, and 1 in TX.

I'm glad all eight of you had the funds to be able to survive without pay until everything was decided. Of course, even at 8, your stories are still anecdotal and very fact specific. The results in the 8 cases you speak about are in no way indicative or even suggestive of how other cases will play out.

 

[cbg]

Besides myself, I've taken 7 others through the "substantial change." They've all collected. Stop acting like it's some aberration or luck. It's rooted and backed up by case law and US DOL publications.

1 was in ID, 1 in SC, 1 in NJ, 2 in CA, 1 in AZ, and 1 in TX.

The question still remains as to whether they collected because of your advice, or in spite of it.

 

[Chyvan]

The question still remains as to whether they collected because of your advice, or in spite of it.

For the one in ID, and SC, those two were all mine. I wrote the board of review appeal that got the claimants benefits.

I'm also taking credit for the one in TX because she wanted to go down the path that she was too sick, and I had her go down the "substantial change" route at the hearing.

The other 4, yeah, they could have been in spite of me, but the decisions were all based off substantial change, so it's possible the judge would have gone that route, and nothing I told the claimant to say would have made any difference.

 

[cbg]

For the one in ID, and SC, those two were all mine. I wrote the board of review appeal that got the claimants benefits.

I'm also taking credit for the one in TX because she wanted to go down the path that she was too sick, and I had her go down the "substantial change" route at the hearing.

The other 4, yeah, they could have been in spite of me, but the decisions were all based off substantial change, so it's possible the judge would have gone that route, and nothing I told the claimant to say would have made any difference.

Q4P

So even you admit that your advice could have hurt those claimants.

Good to know. I trust that having come to that realization, you will now stop telling people to quit/deliberately get themselves fired because they'll get unemployment as long as they do what you say.

I'm glad you've finally acknowledged that your advice can be dangerous.

 

[Chyvan]

So even you admit that your advice could have hurt those claimants.

No. I'm admitting that what I told them might have had no bearing on anything.

They already quit. I told them to go with "fired from the job they had."

3 already got adverse decisions, and the 4th was awarded benefits with an employer appeal in the works.

All four ended up collecting, and it's not conclusive whether what I had them do made any difference, but it would be a real stretch for you to characterize what I told them as the polar opposite, and yet the judge awarded benefits.

cbg, just point to one thread where you somehow single-handedly, against-all-odds got someone a big payday on a UI matter.

 

[CTU]

No. I'm admitting that what I told them might have had no bearing on anything.

They already quit. I told them to go with "fired from the job they had."

3 already got adverse decisions, and the 4th was awarded benefits with an employer appeal in the works.

All four ended up collecting, and it's not conclusive whether what I had them do made any difference, but it would be a real stretch for you to characterize what I told them as the polar opposite, and yet the judge awarded benefits.

You ought to be very careful, chyvan.