Protecting companies from hourly employees
-
@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.
-
I've worked as an employer, as an hourly blue collar manager, and sending someone home early for an hour, a day, a week, forever.... all exactly the same. There are two forms of doing this, one where the two of you agree as to when they will return to work, and one where you don't. Both are lay offs, but we tend to call one a furlough and one a lay off, but both are lay offs.
-
@scottalanmiller I'm not the one making wild claims about employment / unemployment without any proof to back it up. You've stated your opinion without backing it up with any real facts. You muddy the discussion by throwing in layoffs when it doesn't apply to the discussion.
-
Likewise, if you don't arrange with someone for when they need to return to work (end of furlough) whether it is the next day, next week, next month... they are under zero obligation to return and have zero obligation to give notice. Failure to return under that condition is not quitting, it is failure to agree to re-hire.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller I'm not the one making wild claims about employment / unemployment without any proof to back it up. You've stated your opinion without backing it up with any real facts. You muddy the discussion by throwing in layoffs when it doesn't apply to the discussion.
I provided citation and obvious logic as to how it works. Nothing even slightly wild in what I am saying. Not even kinda. Layoffs absolutely apply because we are talking about employees who have been sent home. The muddying comes from trying to make a new special case that does not exist in the US. I can't provide a citation to the obvious because you are asking for something that does not exist. If your claim is true, you'd be able to find a citation of it.
-
What do you call "Sending someone home and not allowing them to work until you agree to take them back?"
I call it a lay off, you call it "different things depending on criteria that you've not provided." What makes one thing a shift and another a lay off? How do you define one from the other? If you believe this to be true, you must have a definition that explains how this works. To me, this is all one thing. I can't tell how the same action is one thing in one case and another in another.
As an employee that has been sent home at the end of the day and has been through layoffs, I can assure you that to an employee it is all exactly the same - sent home and unable to work until they let you back.
-
No special case given for "only a few hours or days."
-
When, at the end of the day, I am temporarily discharged from work that meets every criteria of the word layoff, as well as any employment law description I have ever seen of it.
-
@scottalanmiller You may want to look into the difference between a layoff and a furlough.
-
What do you call someone that works an 8-5 shift M-F? In my world, that would be gainfully employed.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
What do you call someone that works an 8-5 shift M-F? In my world, that would be gainfully employed.
Yes, that's a handy way of speaking about it and people do that all the time. But I believe that it is inaccurate. It's a fuzzy term that we use to describe someone with regular work, but I believe that it is inaccurate. What do you call someone who is on furlough, not being paid, for months at a time? Are they gainfully employed?
-
@scottalanmiller Clearly not.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller You may want to look into the difference between a layoff and a furlough.
Right, furlough is a type of lay off that has an agreed upon return time, didn't I describe that earlier? I've shown without doubt, I believe, both in employment and in language, that furloughs are a form of lay off and that being sent home at the end of a shift when the next shift is known is a form of furlough and without a known next shift is not, but both are lay offs. What am I missing?
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller Clearly not.
Then what makes one one thing and one another, when both are the same in every conceivable way except an arbitrary delineation of time. I asked you this one earlier - if you use time to differentiate employed from unemployed, what is that time? How many hours before things switch by your rules? In my world, it's a general case and the same rules apply everywhere. You keep stating that there are special cases, but you've not provided what the rules are that define your cases. Provide those and we can discuss. Until you do, I can't even tell when you think people are employed and when you think that they are not. Literally, I'm not trying to push the point, I truly can't tell when you would describe people as one or the other.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Yes, that's a handy way of speaking about it and people do that all the time. But I believe that it is inaccurate. It's a fuzzy term that we use to describe someone with regular work, but I believe that it is inaccurate. What do you call someone who is on furlough, not being paid, for months at a time? Are they gainfully employed?
IMO, your logic would only apply to a day laborer.
