Unemployment question

[LdiJ]

OP wants to hasten the departure of her assistant by telling her boss(es) not to worry about the assistant getting unemployment.

I have never really understood why employers are so dead set against giving a badly or poorly performing employee at chance at collecting unemployment that they will put up with the badly or poorly performing employee rather than firing them. If an employer has a history of firing employees without cause then they are already at the maximum tax rate (or at least a very high one) for employer tax. If they have an history of little to no employees collecting unemployment compensation then one former employee collecting it is going to have a negligible effect on their unemployment tax rate. If they fall somewhere in the middle, it is not going to have enough of an effect (in my opinion as a former employer) to make it worth keeping them on.

Plus, for most employers the cost of fighting an employee collecting unemployment isn't worth it either in my opinion.

So, if she wants to hasten the departure of the employee, why not prove to the employer just how little of an effect her potentially collecting unemployment would be compared to the poor productivity and/or other problems it is causing to keep her?

 

[AlmostThere]

I was wondering if the employee already has a PIP..

 

[commentator]

It costs the employer money when people draw unemployment benefits from them. The mistake they make is in allowing a poorly performing employee to linger until the poor work becomes the norm, and then they do not have much chance of keeping the person from being approved for benefits, as in, "It was all right for four years, and you gave the person no feedback that it was do better or your job is in danger" and then up and fire them. This is bad procedure on the part of the employer, but is on them. Certainly not anywhere near the responsibility of the other employees.