Protecting companies from hourly employees
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
What's the difference?
Easy... one is employed and the other is not.
But the similarity is that neither is employed at the time of the action.
-
Because 1 just isn't enough for the entertainment in this thread today. -
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
What's the difference?
Easy... one is employed and the other is not.
This begs the question, is an hourly employee even employed when they are off of the clock?
Yes, unless you explicitly fired him/her.
That's the question, if you explicitly tell someone that they cannot work for a month, that's a lay off. Do it for a week, it is too. What makes a day any different?
And I'm completely serious here, this is something I've wondered about a lot. Salaried employees are employed "all the time" but hourly are not. That's why you can work a second hourly job without asking permissions, once you are off the clock the company can make no demands on your time, you are free of the job. You just have an agreement to come into work at the next agreed upon time.
This is how jobs are able to "schedule off" people that they don't like. They don't have to fire them, they can just stop giving them hours. If they were "still employed" it wouldn't be that simple. But as the end of every shift is an agreed upon furlough, it works. But since it is, the person that never worked at McDonald's, the person that did two years ago and the person who did five minutes ago are technically all the same - not currently employed.
-
What makes one a big deal and the other not is that unemployment reporting requires a wait period. If you get scheduled off, even though you are still "employed" you get to still claim unemployment legally. Since unemployment works that way, I think that it means that my theory is correct that it is a sixteen hour furlough, or whatever, legally between when you clock out and clock back in.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
What's the difference?
Easy... one is employed and the other is not.
But the similarity is that neither is employed at the time of the action.
Not true. The employee is employed from the date he was hired until the date he quits or is terminated. Just because he works at an unscheduled time does not make him unemployed.
-
@scottalanmiller You can tell an employee to go home for the day, evening, whatever. That's not the same as terminating their employment.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
What's the difference?
Easy... one is employed and the other is not.
But the similarity is that neither is employed at the time of the action.
Not true. The employee is employed from the date he was hired until the date he quits or is terminated. Just because he works at an unscheduled time does not make him unemployed.
It does by law, that's how you get to claim unemployment.
-
@scottalanmiller Again... cite?
Edit: I read too quickly and thought you were responding to my other post. Still, I stand by my post that a person working at a non-scheduled time is still employed up until the point that he gets terminated for said work.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller You can tell an employee to go home for the day, evening, whatever. That's not the same as terminating their employment.
Are you sure? Because it acts exactly the same in every way. They have no rights any different from anyone else that is terminated. All legalities behave identically when you send someone home, furlough them or lay them off.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller Again... cite?
Cite how unemployment works? Do you really need a reference? Otherwise I could employee everyone in the country and simply refuse to give them hours, they'd be unable to claim unemployment because they would be "employed". Obviously that isn't true, it should need no citation because it is so obvious. I doubt that there is a citation to be made, it is that obvious. I'm not even sure what to call it. Because it is literally the same as being laid off, lay off rules would apply to it.
-
And if you say that the employee can opt to quit when no hours are given - that does not work because quitting a job doesn't give you unemployment benefits.
-
Lay Offs are defined in Texas, clearly being sent home at the end of the day is exactly like any other action:
"Laid Off
Layoffs are due to lack of work, not your work performance, so you may be eligible for benefits. For example, the employer has no more work available, has eliminated your position, or has closed the business."
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/jobseekers/eligibility-benefit-amounts
That's Texas, but all states basically work the same.
-
No, cite how a person would be considered unemployed when they are between their daily shifts.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
No, cite how a person would be considered unemployed when they are between their daily shifts.
Right, one and the same. Which was easier to cite than I would have guessed.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
No, cite how a person would be considered unemployed when they are between their daily shifts.
Try it the opposite, cite how daily shifts are exempt from the normal lay off rules? You'd need the exception for the daily shifts, you are trying to make a special case out of a general one, no citation is needed unless a an exception exists. You are wanting me to prove the negative, which cant be done. If they are a special case, you should be able to find a citation of this to show how daily shifts are different than weekly, monthly, annual or whatever shifts.
For example, why is the break between Monday and Tuesday different than the one between one year and another for annual employees?
-
All I am saying is that no special cases is needed nor do I believe that one exists.
-
@scottalanmiller You mentioned layoffs. That's not what I was discussing. Sending someone home early (discipline, lack of work, etc) isn't a layoff and wouldn't qualify someone for unemployment.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller You mentioned layoffs. That's not what I was discussing. Sending someone home early (discipline, lack of work, etc) isn't a layoff and wouldn't qualify someone for unemployment.
But it does. It is and it does is what I am saying. It's a layoff "for the day" and if you don't give them additional hours before the unemployment wait window hits, they get unemployment for it. It every way that I know of, it acts like a layoff because, AFAIK, it is. I have no idea what makes it different than any other layoff.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller You can tell an employee to go home for the day, evening, whatever. That's not the same as terminating their employment.
Are you sure? Because it acts exactly the same in every way. They have no rights any different from anyone else that is terminated. All legalities behave identically when you send someone home, furlough them or lay them off.
Yes, I'm sure.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller You can tell an employee to go home for the day, evening, whatever. That's not the same as terminating their employment.
Are you sure? Because it acts exactly the same in every way. They have no rights any different from anyone else that is terminated. All legalities behave identically when you send someone home, furlough them or lay them off.
Yes, I'm sure.
Then provide a citation. Because everything I know and can find says exactly the opposite. As does all of my training on employment law.
