• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Employer reneging on promised raise

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Chyvan

Member
Texas law cuts no ice outside of Texas.
This isn't a law. It's a concept of what constitutes "good cause." Stop acting like the states operate in a vacuum when it comes to UI. When you find enough states (I found three, and can post two more), that if you have to go to a hearing, board of review, or court, someone is going to accept the precedents from the other states and not reinvent the wheel.
 
Last edited:


commentator

Senior Member
This isn't a law. It's a concept of what constitutes "good cause." Stop acting like the states operate in a vacuum when it comes to UI. When you find enough states (I found three, and can post two more), that if you have to go to a hearing, board of review, or court, someone is going to accept the precedents from the other states and not reinvent the wheel.

No, they are bleeping not.

The different states' agencies (those involved in adjudication) have nice little regional meetings with the other states in their region where they share ideas, policies and precepts. They discuss some cases and go over the federal regs and decide what the new regs possibly mean. They look at some of each other's decisions within their regions, mostly to judge if the federal regulations are being followed, NOT to set precedent for future decisions just because one decision was made in one state, or because one state is tending one way or another on some particular issue. And that is just in their particular region. This is far far beyond anyone's ability to google old decisions and imagine stuff about how things work in an agency where they've never been.

And once again, we're taking a post about something else entirely and making it all about something that was never brought up by the original poster simply so we can verbally ...well... piddle around is a cleaner way to put it.
 
Last edited:

Chyvan

Member
No, they are bleeping not.

This one's not that old.

Up until this decision, it was long standing precedent in PA that when a claimant voluntarily accepted a severance unless the claimant could show that he was going to actually lose his job anyway, he was going to be denied.

The court didn't reject the claimant's argument because he borrowed from an Ohio case and an Arizona one.

The OP was looking if there was ". . . anything, they can do."

UI might not be the answer for most, but if he's 61-1/2 and wants to retire at 62, starting 6 months earlier and not leaving empty handed might be something he wants to do. Since he's worked there 30 years, it's not impossible. So give him a chance to come back. I wasn't going to write another word about it until cbg had to put in her digs.

cbg didn't need to say, " I am not even remotely convinced that it is" like it was some off the wall theory to get UI. I posted the link from her own state. I can't help that she's never heard it before.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Chyvan should probably learn to read everything in the links she posts and not just the parts she likes. It really doesn't say what you claim it says, no matter how hard you try to make it.

I can't help laughing at someone who thinks their discovery of Google trumps other people's real life experiences, particularly when they've done for a living what she's trying to do vicariously.

Run away, chyvan, and let the grownups talk. No one has any interest in your pretentions of expertise.

cbg out.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Yes, dear, we know that your favorite game is playing "UI administrator". Now, go find something else to do before someone gets hurt, okay?

That's a good child.
 

Sponsored Ad

Top