Need some law advice on unemployment benefits

[RealGatorFan]

My wife owns a print shop and has roughly 22 employees. From time to time she's had to fire people who either lied, stole, or just didn't perform their job (i.e. sick days = 25% of the work week or brought in less than 10% of their salary for sales people). She's had some doozies over the last 4 years and her observation is everyone can get unemployment as long as they didn't commit a crime. She still has several she fired 2 years ago still drawing unemployment.

But the worst is a girl that started out part-time and then in 3 or 4 months wanted to try out sales which required my wife to bump her to fulltime. Months later, it was determined sales was not her thing, so my wife put her in the production room, but still she couldn't do the work assigned to her. Too slow, made tons of mistakes and everyone on the team complained about it. In my wife's business she provides services to funeral homes in the form of brochures, fans, etc. You don't have room for errors because you can only do a funeral once. This girl cost my wife tens of thousands of dollars by having to render orders at no cost and in some cases, lost future business. Funeral homes want a 100% error-free order or they look bad. My wife figures this girl cost her nearly 10 times what she makes. Forget what it cost in a bad rep.

So about 4 months ago my wife tried to talk to her about improving but it didn't work so she started to cut back on her hours. That also didn't help. She didn't want to fire her because she showed great potential but not much drive.

So last week my wife received a notice that the girl had filed for unemployment benefits because her fulltime hours were cut back to part-time. This to me sounds ludacris and pisses me off as I write this. So now my wife pays her for her useless 20 hours because she's disruptive to the team but now also to have to pay her unemployment on top of that.

She has 3 options - live with it as she also continues to disrupt the team, increase her hours (even more disruptive) or fire her. For those that don't have businesses, all owners have to pay unemployment insurance for every employee they hire. Obama makes it sound like the government pays for the benefits but the employer pays a chunk of it for every employee - every employee. The insurance also depends on the ratio of hired employees vs fired employees. The more you fire, the higher your insurance. So that's always in the back of her mind when she gets to the point where talking to an employee about their performance or productivity.

Any lawyers out there ever hear of unemployment being given to someone while they still work for their employer? This girl is going to receive 20 hrs/week unemployment in addition to the 20 she works.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by RealGatorFan

My wife owns a print shop and has roughly 22 employees. From time to time she's had to fire people who either lied, stole, or just didn't perform their job (i.e. sick days = 25% of the work week or brought in less than 10% of their salary for sales people). She's had some doozies over the last 4 years and her observation is everyone can get unemployment as long as they didn't commit a crime. She still has several she fired 2 years ago still drawing unemployment.

But the worst is a girl that started out part-time and then in 3 or 4 months wanted to try out sales which required my wife to bump her to fulltime. Months later, it was determined sales was not her thing, so my wife put her in the production room, but still she couldn't do the work assigned to her. Too slow, made tons of mistakes and everyone on the team complained about it. In my wife's business she provides services to funeral homes in the form of brochures, fans, etc. You don't have room for errors because you can only do a funeral once. This girl cost my wife tens of thousands of dollars by having to render orders at no cost and in some cases, lost future business. Funeral homes want a 100% error-free order or they look bad. My wife figures this girl cost her nearly 10 times what she makes. Forget what it cost in a bad rep.

So about 4 months ago my wife tried to talk to her about improving but it didn't work so she started to cut back on her hours. That also didn't help. She didn't want to fire her because she showed great potential but not much drive.

So last week my wife received a notice that the girl had filed for unemployment benefits because her fulltime hours were cut back to part-time. This to me sounds ludacris and pisses me off as I write this. So now my wife pays her for her useless 20 hours because she's disruptive to the team but now also to have to pay her unemployment on top of that.

She has 3 options - live with it as she also continues to disrupt the team, increase her hours (even more disruptive) or fire her. For those that don't have businesses, all owners have to pay unemployment insurance for every employee they hire. Obama makes it sound like the government pays for the benefits but the employer pays a chunk of it for every employee - every employee. The insurance also depends on the ratio of hired employees vs fired employees. The more you fire, the higher your insurance. So that's always in the back of her mind when she gets to the point where talking to an employee about their performance or productivity.

Any lawyers out there ever hear of unemployment being given to someone while they still work for their employer? This girl is going to receive 20 hrs/week unemployment in addition to the 20 she works.

What state are you in?

[RealGatorFan]

Alabama

[gtr2x]

Don't know about bama, but I'm in fla and I'd just cut my loses and fire her. Any potential slight increase in the tax rate is more than offset by the the elimination of her salary and bad attitude. Adios I'd say. Of course you could make her life miserable and hope she quits. Doesn't sound like that would be your wife s style tho.

BTW, not a lawyer but sounds like she is entitled to partial benefits. In fla, you could probably contest her benefits for cause under the new rules.

[Gatormb]

In Fl if you can prove you fired "with cause" she can't collect. Wife needs to document, document, document and have employee sign reviews. Have a witness during the counseling meetings. She will improve or you fire with cause. UE will give it to her and then you appeal. Have witness and documentation ready. The poor performances should get you off the hook but not if you didn't document her person ell file with warnings.

[LeafUF]

Its different by state but this is very common here in Nevada. Its not like they get full wages though. For example if they file and unemployment determined they should earn $400 a week they cover the difference between that and actual wages.

Either way it kinda sucks for the employer and I don't know if there is much you can do when someone is determined to be nothing more than a drain on others.

[gatorjjh]

florida's top UCB rate is 275 per week- paid bi-weekly

[RealGatorFan]

Thanks for the info. I agree she should let her go considering the circumstances. Hard to interact knowing what happened behind the scenes. There are people there who would be pissed if they knew she was getting paid full pay for half the work. Shame too. If she put just a bit more effort in, she'd be making much more than unemployment could ever pay.

BTW, my wife has documented everything on everyone and she lost faith in the system about 2 years ago when the government started paying out unemployment on everybody. Her best case was a guy who was a drain on the company in so many ways and he received full unemployment to which is still receiving it. He plans on doing it until he is forced to look for a job. Guys like him is why I have a hard time with unemployment benefits.

My 60 yr old brother worked for Ritz Camera for 35 years before they went under and he changed careers 3 months later. Thank goodness Florida requires you to take courses while on unemployment. He took computer courses that lead to a job he's had for almost 2 years. In 35 years, he's missed just 2 days of work. You just don't see that kind of work ethic anymore.

[demosthenes]

Originally Posted by Gatormb

In Fl if you can prove you fired "with cause" she can't collect. Wife needs to document, document, document and have employee sign reviews. Have a witness during the counseling meetings. She will improve or you fire with cause. UE will give it to her and then you appeal. Have witness and documentation ready. The poor performances should get you off the hook but not if you didn't document her person ell file with warnings.

Fired for cause is akin to misconduct, NOT incompetence.

If it was my business I'd just go ahead and fire her. Yes, you take a hit on unemployment but it sounds as if the incompetence is far more costly.

[panamacitygator]

What I would recommend in the future is have new employees sign a contract when they are hired. Basically that they are on a 90 day probationary period and can be terminated by either party in that term. Might cut down on the deadbeats.

[hoosier_gator]

Not a lawyer, but I do serve as an HR Director for a company with 150+ employees.

1) Can she get unemployment benefits for the reduced hours? Yes. But as noted above, it is generally much smaller.

2) Should you terminate her? Probably. I encourage our management team to remove all staff who are low productivity or average productivity and high maintenance. These employees are bad for morale and the cost of the employee is generally greater than the potential exposure in unemployment.

3) Paying on so many former employees? It seems odd that if you are documenting thoroughly and meeting the threshold for just cause that you would pay on all the employees. I'd recommend researching the unemployment statutes and case law in your state so you can more accurately and correctly state your claims when protesting the unemployment.

Hope that helps some.

[wci347]

I think your question was whether she can be working part time and still receiving unemployment. The answer to that question is yes but it depends on the numbers. The length of time that she was a full time employee will factor in. The benefits are based upon time employed and rate of pay received. It would appear from your synopsis that she was employed full time several months - perhaps three quarters of a year (9 months). In all likelihood, a reduction in business, assuming that is the reason she claimed she was bounced to part time, would entitle her to benefits.

Your wife was probably notified by the state as to why she claimed benefit entitlement and was afforded an opportunity to respond or challenge her justification. It seems like she was bounced to part time not because there was not enough work, but because of competency issues. Had this been properly communicated to the Department of Labor, it would have been a basis for denial of all benefits.