Should have been an open-and-shut case

Post #108,348 by drewk 7/3/03 12:18:24 PM Reply	Should have been an open-and-shut case Was the employer paying unemployment insurance for this employee? To which state? [pounds gavel] Case over === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #108,350 by jake123 7/3/03 1:10:12 PM Reply	Sorry, that contravenes the principle of "avoiding responsibility whenever possible" on the part of the state government in question. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #108,365 by gdaustin 7/3/03 3:01:37 PM Reply	I think that's the problem... You don't actually PAY until after you terminate someone and they file a claim. Then you pay it to the state agency, AFTER the employee has filed a claim. If the state agency won't let the employee file a claim, you're off the hook. When we talk about this, I think it's more like a tax. If you fire someone, you pay the tax. You may have to prepay some into an escrow account, but if you do, then someone should have counted her. I think that one should go to the Supreme Court. Until then, I think both states should split the tab, based on Florida's payout. But, then again, life's not fair, is it?
Post #108,366 by SpiceWare 7/3/03 3:07:37 PM Reply	How does it work for other out-of-state employees? A lot of companies have sales people that live/work in other states. I'm sure they get unemployment when they're let go. Telecommuting should be no different. A friend of mine was the only Texas employee(onsight rep at Compaq) for an east-coast company and collected unemployment when he was laid off due to the HP-Compaq merger. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass\|Artistic Overpass]\n[link\|http://www.spiceware.org/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #108,378 by jb4 7/3/03 6:23:55 PM 7/3/03 6:27:29 PM Reply	Not entirely right As an employer and an employee (I have my own consulting business), that isn't the way it works. If you are an employer, you pay "unemployment insurance", which is an "insurance premium" (read: tax) that goes to the state. You pay this regardless of whether or not you have fired somebody or not. (In my 18 years of having this business, I have never fied anyone...mostly because only my wife and I are emplowees, and they ain't no way I'm firing her or she's firing me! Yet, I pay the tax every quarter....) [edit: typos that made this look rather silly in places...] jb4 "We continue to live in a world where all our know-how is locked into binary files in an unknown format. If our documents are our corporate memory, Microsoft still has us all condemned to Alzheimer's." Simon Phipps, SUN Microsystems Edited by jb4 July 3, 2003, 06:27:29 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #108,447 by gdaustin 7/4/03 6:05:22 PM Reply	But... Do you pay per head, or in classes (small business, med business, large) business? If you pay per head and person was counted, then you should pay the unemployment. If you don't pay per head, we'll then it gets tricky. Glen Austin
Post #108,453 by Andrew Grygus 7/4/03 7:20:26 PM Reply	It's the way jb4 says . . . . in California. Payment is calculated on payroll and goes into an account which will be drawn down to pay claims. What you pay is based on your employment history. If someone files a claim which is accepted, and draws on your account, your contribution rate is increased the following year so it will eventually be replenished. If an employee files a claim, you are notified and can protest that claim. The state generally favors the employer in marginal cases. I've had two employees file claims, but neither was accepted. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]

Welcome to IWETHEY!