had to quit and move back due to new company who acquired us

[1980]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California and Illinois

Here is the story. I was hired directly by Motorola back in sept 2011, in Illinois. I then transfered to the san diego location, at that time i though permanently. During some time a company by the name of Arris, bought out our particular department and basically motorola pretty much became arris at the begining of jan 1 -2013. At that moment when we became Arris employees, the company announced that they were moving over to a new payment schedule. so it went from 26 paychecks a year , down to 24. they did say that the checks, since there are 24 of them now, were going to be a tad bigger than usual. so here is my issue. i was living in san diego , and having my expenses paid, taken care of , as usually as i have been, since moving out to san diego. basically every 14 days exactly, on a thursday was payday. each and every week and so forth for the whole year etc... and now since it was changed from the standard 2 week schedule, it changed to being paid on the 15th and on the last day of the month. this whole change in company policy , had interrupted my payment schedules and had to try to change things around which involved me using more money per week than i should have, and instead of waiting 14 days for pay, now i was waiting up to 16 or 17 days at most to receive pay. all in all, my money was pretty much all used up and i told my boss that i had to leave for personal reasons. can a company policy like that , especially in pay , be illegal. and on top of that, the state of california would not pay my unemployment. is there anything i can do because of this? my life pretty much went from great to worse , and i would have never left san diego, if i had any chance. I was told by someone in HR that they would accept the claims for unemployemtn, but that was not the case. any help would be appreciated. thanks!

 

[ecmst12]

You are not going to get approved for unemployment if you quit for that reason. And it has nothing to do with the company contesting it. That simply is not a valid reason to quit. Makes no sense either - you went from getting 2 paychecks per month to zero.

 

[commentator]

You are completely misguided if you believe that a company that employs you has any responsibility for making sure you receive your paychecks on a schedule that is convenient to you. You accepted the job with the new company, Arris, and by doing such, you accepted the new pay scale and schedule. It doesn't matter, legally, whether they pay you in 24 checks or 26 checks, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly. As long as they pay you at least minimum wage for the hours you work and overtime as appropriate, that's about the only wage and hour law they have to follow.

Concerning unemployment benefits. The company does not get to say whether "they will accept the claim" or not. You file the claim with the state's Department of Labor, and they make the decision whether or not the claim is approved based on unemployment law. It is not the place of the employer to make this decision. According to unemployment law, to qualify for benefits, you must be out of work through no fault of your own. For example, you may qualify if the company had no more work for you, or they fired you without a good reason. But if you quit your job for a personal reason, which you did, that you did not like and did not find the new pay timing convenient, you would very likely not be approved. If you quit a job for a personal reason, you don't qualify for unemployment benefits, except under some very rare exception situations. This was not one of them.


What I cannot understand is that people who claim they do not have enough money to make it from paycheck to paycheck, or if they don't get paid every week while they are working will quit the job. How could you possibly be planning to get by without any income whatsoever? Managing to get a few dollars saved ahead would take care of your paycheck issues when you are still working, while quitting your job and continuing to live, even if you move back home to Illinois is going to cost you something, and from the sound of things, it's money you don't have.

 

[Zigner]

From what you are explaining, you received the exact same amount of money each month. How could this cause you to spend more?

 

[cbg]

And as I have pointed out before, no one seems to realize (sadly, even some HR people don't seem to realize) that unemployment pays a fraction of your regular earnings. If you can't get along on the previous pay, you're not going to be able to get along on what unemployment pays you even when they do approve the claim.

 

[LdiJ]

From what you are explaining, you received the exact same amount of money each month. How could this cause you to spend more?

He actually received a little more each month, instead of getting an extra paycheck twice a year.

I can see how he had the problem if he had everything set up electronically to come out every two weeks. It would start out ok, but after a few months had passed the payments would no longer correspond with his pay periods...and once six months had passed the creditors would be expecting three payments in month six instead of two.

This is one of the reasons I don't like autopay. I like paying electronically but I want control over when the payment is made.

 

[commentator]

Much easier to change banks than to change jobs, though!

 

[justalayman]

LdiJ said:

I can see how he had the problem if he had everything set up electronically to come out every two weeks. It would start out ok, but after a few months had passed the payments would no longer correspond with his pay periods...and once six months had passed the creditors would be expecting three payments in month six instead of two.

the fact it actually increased the amount of time between paychecks, he really shouldn't have had any problems at all.

 

[Zigner]

The fact is that he's making the same money. Thus, at the end of the year, he's making the same per month.


If I make $60k per year, it's $5k per month. It doesn't matter if I get it spread out over 24 checks or over 26 checks, it's still $60k, which is still $5k per month.

 

[justalayman]

The fact is that he's making the same money. Thus, at the end of the year, he's making the same per month.


If I make $60k per year, it's $5k per month. It doesn't matter if I get it spread out over 24 checks or over 26 checks, it's still $60k, which is still $5k per month.

Not disagreeing with ya zigner. I am on your side. The point I was making was there is actually more time between paychecks so the argument that there was no money in the account when a bill came in is not a valid argument. All the money that was in on any given day will be there, as long as the OP didn't spend money he thought was "left over" money after paying his bills.

the point of it being 26 checks instead of the new 24 checks per year would only make a difference if the billing dates for the electronic debits changed every month. In fact, the new system would be better for set date payments since as the 26 check system rolls around, there is no true association with the date of the paycheck and the first of the month. With every other week paychecks, you get a paycheck the first week of he month in some months but you don't in others. How is that conducive to a system where a bill shows up the first of every month?

 

[TigerD]

OP: Your problem isn't the way your employer paid you, but rather your inability to budget and manage your money. You don't need an attorney - you need Dave Ramsey.
http://www.daveramsey.com/home/

Learn to manage your money and your problem will go away.

DC