Reduced Hours (unfair business practice?)

[cbg]

Because your hours were reduced one hour a day, no.

If you quit because your hours were reduced by one hour a day, no.

If they fire you because they get fed up with listening to your whining about having your hours reduced to what everyone else has had all along, maybe.

 

[dan-palmer]

No, what he can do is go complain to his manager and manager's boss and all the way up the line, making an absolute pest of himself complaining about something that's absolutely legal and only unfair in his own mind, and making absolutely certain that the next time layoffs occur, his name will be on the wrong list.

Now that (layoffs)would be covered in my contract as seniority would be to my advantage.

 

[Just Blue]

Thanks all for the feedback....appreciate the conversation. I'm going to try one more avenue and see what it brings me. Don't suppose I could qualify for Unemployment huh.

I want to say I'm sorry for the comment I made to you on that other thread. I was wrong.

Though I do think you sould wait till advising others for a bit.

I hope this all works out for you..

Blue

 

[cbg]

Never underestimate the power of an employer who really wants to get rid of a bothersome employee to find a legal way to make it happen.

 

[dan-palmer]

Because your hours were reduced one hour a day, no.

If you quit because your hours were reduced by one hour a day, no.

If they fire you because they get fed up with listening to your whining about having your hours reduced to what everyone else has had all along, maybe.

I'm not quitting nor have I even complained to anyone yet.....I only made a grievance as contract procedure and that's what I did whether it was in the language or not. If they were to fire me because they saw me as whining surly that would be wrongful termination or even retaliation.

 

[cbg]

No, it wouldn't.

A wrongful termination means that there is a specific law that prohibits them from terming you. Illegal retaliation means you were fired for a characteristic protected by law. Your grievance didn't go anywhere and now you're talking about continuing to push the issue.

Show me the law that says you continue to be protected from pursuing a failed grievance outside the union.

 

[eerelations]

If they were to fire me because they saw me as whining surly that would be wrongful termination or even retaliation.

Nope, nothing illegal about firing an employee for whining.

 

[dan-palmer]

No, it wouldn't.

A wrongful termination means that there is a specific law that prohibits them from terming you. Illegal retaliation means you were fired for a characteristic protected by law. Your grievance didn't go anywhere and now you're talking about continuing to push the issue.

Show me the law that says you continue to be protected from pursuing a failed grievance outside the union.

I wouldn't say I was pushing the issue but just seeing what and if I have any other options....just because management says one thing doesn't necessarily mean it's gold. If you don't ask, you don't get. I'm not trying to be a trouble maker either....not my style....I want to see if there is a chance that it can be resolved in a positive manner where I exercised my right to know.

 

[cbg]

What right to know is that? You do not have a right under the law to be given a reason for the reduction.

 

[commentator]

If the reduction in hours lowered your weekly gross wage to a lesser amount than you would qualify for in unemployment benefits, then you could, while still unemployed, possibly qualify for partial unemployment benefits. The way to find out what your weekly benefit amount would be and whether or not you are qualified for benefits in your state, file an unemployment claim. If you have wages to set up a claim, even though you are still working, you will find out what your weekly benefit amount would be for the next year. And if your hours are reduced again, or you get yourself fired or laid off or let go because you raised such a stink about your three or so hours a week, then you'll have an unemployment claim already filed. The thing is, unemployment in any state is usually not as much as you could make, even working 37 hours a week, and you are only able to draw it for a maximum of six months while looking for other jobs. So it's pretty unlikely, if you're still getting 37 hours a week, that your wages are going to be less (gross, remember) than your weekly benefit amount in unemployment would be.

However, IF YOU QUIT you will very likely not be able to get approved to draw benefits! How plain can we make this? Okay, if you were working 40 hours a week and they reduced your work assignment to say, 10 hours a week, you might stand a small slight chance of being approved to draw, as this move was just a completely legal effort to get rid of you, encourage you to quit. But such a small reduction in wages, to make your wages commensurate with the other people who work there, is not illegal, is not going to be considered a valid job related reason to quit the job, and you are very possibly NOT going to qualify for unemployment benefits.

You always have the right to quit the job or to find another job that you like better, but it is not illegal or wrong for an employer to slightly reduce your hours instead of raising everyone else's hours up to what yours are. That's all there is to it, and you are 'way out of your element when you talk of complaining and whining and appealing to the big bureau of fairness that most people think is up there somewhere.

 

[eerelations]

I wouldn't say I was pushing the issue but just seeing what and if I have any other options...

We've told you like, nine times already that you don't have any other legal options.