I am a manager at a dealership. One of my fellow managers, and friend, was laid off for poor job performance. He didn't do anything flagrantly wrong, but he just was unable to do the job that we needed here. He was given two weeks severence. He worked her for just under two years.
Our owner is fighting his claim for unemployment. If you are laid off for doing something like sexual harrassment or not showing up on time repeatedly, I could see fighting it because I believe the employer can be end up paying for unemployment for this in PA, but not if he is let go because of job performance.
It just doesn't seem like the right thing to do. I don't think I would if I were in the owner's position - wouldn't feel right.
I could also see if the ex-employee was looking to live off unemployment for a year
2007-03-19 09:00:55 · 10 answers · asked by bjmarchini 2 in Business & Finance ➔ Careers & Employment
Just as the employee has the right to file for it, any employer has the right to fight it. If your friend was not performing up to standards after 2 years of employment, I think your boss will have a hard time fighting it, unless they do a super job documenting poor performance and counseling of the employee.
2007-03-19 09:09:12 · answer #1 · answered by Insurance Biz CT 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as you know the COMPLETE story, then I would agree with you that the owner is being a jerk.
However, I have owned a company and have fought unemployment and I am sure that to someone not completely in the know, that I looked like a jerk that didn't want to pay unemployment.
What wasn't seen was the fact that I allowed the terminated employee to tell everyone that he was let go for performance reasons...and he convienantly left out that he was busy surfing the net for porn from the company's computers; sending threatening hate email to his previous employer from our computers and a variety of other similar reasons...however due to privacy concerns, I could not talk about this aspect of the termination with the other employees...
One other thing...was he laid off or fired? If he as laid off that indicates that there is a potential that he will come back to the job and will probably be successful in filing for UI; if he was fired, then he probably won't get it...the law is very particular about the words used in the termination.
2007-03-19 09:08:39 · answer #2 · answered by Gotta Question 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have terminated him as well and would fight the claim. The inability to do the job for which you were hired is grounds for termination. I am a business owner and will not pay salary or wages for a job that isn't accomplished. As a matter of fact if PA is a right to work state, the owner could've fired him for nothing and not had to pay unemployment.
He needs to move on. He won't do his reputation any good fighting the claim. As a matter of opinion, he should be spending the time he is on fighting the claim looking for a new job.
2007-03-19 09:07:18 · answer #3 · answered by Jim from the Midwest 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not "wrong" exactly, the employer has a right to fight it if he wants too. Doesn't mean he'll win. If the guy just couldn't do the job they should have noticed sometime before he had worked there for two years but that's just my opinion. There may be other things going on that you are unaware of though. Perhaps you don't have the whole story.....
2007-03-19 09:09:10 · answer #4 · answered by PRS 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most businesses routinely fight UI claims, not usually because of what the employee did or didn't do, but because it costs them money. The employee and employer both pay into the employee's UI account via payroll taxes. if the employee successfully claims UI, the employer's account is subject to charges.
The real question is why the owner is discussing your friend's performance, disciplinary action, and/or UI proceedings with other employees. That's not cool.
2007-03-19 09:09:29 · answer #5 · answered by Mel 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, PA is a right to work state. They can fire you for anything, but it sounds like your friend just wasnt good at his job. He wasnt "laid off," he was fired for poor performance. I live in NV, also a right to work state, and here if you get legitimately laid off (company downsizes, outsources or goes out of business) then you can have unemployment. But it sounds like your friend wont be getting any unemployment
2007-03-19 09:34:12 · answer #6 · answered by Together 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure, this is an insurance, like domicile or motor vehicle insurance this is paid in to so which you have money obtainable in case of an accient. You and your business enterprise make contributions in case you lose your activity at no fault of your man or woman. while you're laid off, you're gaurunteed your insurance advantages. in case you stop, you left on your man or woman accord and are not in many circumstances eligable to gather, except you prepare you have been forced to stop via undesirable working circumstances. while you're fired, you probably did something to get fired and are not in many circumstances eligable for the advantages.
2016-10-19 02:31:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The unemployment office is going to determine if the cause of his unemployment was his fault or if it was the company's fault. If he quit or was warned before being fired then i know he wont get it but if he was laid off then he will get his benifits.
2007-03-19 09:06:30 · answer #8 · answered by Ebony 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The employer is fighting it as his insurance premiums will go up if the claim is approved.
2007-03-19 09:05:29 · answer #9 · answered by Akbar B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Something's wrong. He should appeal.
2007-03-19 09:05:39 · answer #10 · answered by Barry auh2o 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋