Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I live in Arizona and work for a large international company that just had another set of lay-offs. This time around it was a lot of exempts, some of which like the OP, had uprooted there families and moved across country to take the job.
This is just another tale of people needing to be cautious of their actual job title and what they are being paid to do. When a company is booming they create frivolous jobs because they have the ability to improve their product. Business excellence teams, safety or quality improvement positions, etc. But when times are stressed these are the very first positions to be cut. Every time, because they don't make money. They may save money, but they don't actually produce profit. There is a huge difference.
No idea, all I know is that I've had several acquaintances whose UE was denied or delayed because they got a severance check/package.
Here's my experience on this. I was terminated from employment on July 29 of 2013 and was given a decent severance package. Due to the amount of money, my unemployment compensation was delayed, as was to be expected. That would happen if you had accrued vacation or bonuses yet to be paid out.
However, in my case, my former employer chose to fight my unemployment. At the hearing, the unemployment commission ruled in my favor. My former employer refused to comment on why I was terminated except to say it was "for performance". Nothing else. No additional facts given. There were no warnings. No nothing. The unemployment commission said it's highly unusual to terminate an hourly employee then give them a severance package. If the termination was for cause, then there would be no need for a severance package.
So, I'd say, keep your chin up. It will get better.
Delaying UE is pretty standard for those with a severance package. It makes sense. If your employer has given you a month's pay, then that means you have income for that month. There s no need for the state to supplement that.
You will still get your UE after the severance package runs out.
From what I'm reading in this thread, I'm picking up on "at will employment" being more to the point than 'right to work'. Under 'at will', so long as your civil rights haven't been infringed upon, they seem capable of showing you the door whenever they like.
At will allows either employer or employee to end the relationship in all 50 states , barring a contract limiting those rights.
RTW simply allows folks not to be forced to join a union.
This is correct, however, I find it interesting that most employers want you to sign a one-sided non-compete these days. I have no trouble with a non-compete when the employer too, experiences financial pain in letting you go. But that's not how corporate America works. They want to limit your future opportunities and pay, while being allowed to let you go at any time for any reason. I'm pretty sure they won't be happy until most rank and file are making $30k a year.
Wow. None of this makes any sense. Gross misinterpretation of the "right to work" laws.
It was a rant applicable to the OP whining about being fired for no reason. In a nutshell right to work laws (at least in my home state) mean an employer can fire you without reason or cause as long as a protected class is not violated.
I know exactly how you feel. About 8 years ago I was "let go", from a job I had for almost 9 years. No warnings, no bad evaluations, nothing. They said there was a decline in business. I was pissed and stunned.
The phrase "it's business, it's not personal" was used for me as well, and I have to say, that I don't buy it. I was there the longest, and no complaints about my work, but I felt a shift in the office temp. For quite a while I had lunch with my boss every couple of weeks -- no work talk, just about our lives outside of the office; then the lunches just stopped. All of a sudden they let a coworker go, and I realized I was the only one there that was not hired by my boss or her boss and it gave me a cold feeling.
3 months later I was let go. I saw it coming, so started taking home a few personal items (but not enough for them to catch on) & I still needed 2 boxes to pack up all my stuff.
I believe it was personal, because the only people left were hired after my boss arrived; plus one of my coworkers did everything but work -- in fact, I tried to tell my boss about it -- that was probably the nail in my coffin,. I now realize that was STUPID, but a few weeks after they let me go, they saw all the crap she pulled and how awful her work was and they let her go!!! And about 6 months later the "teachers pet" was fired for lying on her timesheets (which our boss approved) and shortly after that they laid off the HR Manager! Karma -- it can be a beautiful thing!
I found work 6 months later and after 3+ years I was laid off again (budget) same month as the first one. However, because I had proven myself I was told of a position at another office (plus a promotion), took it and 1 year later was promoted again and back in my target area.
Benefits and pay are not great, but I'm better off in other ways.
I know you wish there were consequences to the company for letting you go, but you have to accept it (it's not easy).
This is correct, however, I find it interesting that most employers want you to sign a one-sided non-compete these days. I have no trouble with a non-compete when the employer too, experiences financial pain in letting you go. But that's not how corporate America works. They want to limit your future opportunities and pay, while being allowed to let you go at any time for any reason. I'm pretty sure they won't be happy until most rank and file are making $30k a year.
That seems to be the goal. And it's working! Good thing the big Corps are making money hand over fist.
In a nutshell right to work laws (at least in my home state) mean an employer can fire you without reason or cause as long as a protected class is not violated.
and what is the state where it means what you say?
In A Nut Shell, RIGHT TO WORK is about labor unions. AT WILL means an employer can fire you without reason or cause, etc...
Can't you idiots get the two correct? If this is an indication of employee's intelligence, no wonder so many are unemployed!
However, in my case, my former employer chose to fight my unemployment. At the hearing, the unemployment commission ruled in my favor. My former employer refused to comment on why I was terminated except to say it was "for performance". Nothing else. No additional facts given. There were no warnings. No nothing. The unemployment commission said it's highly unusual to terminate an hourly employee then give them a severance package. If the termination was for cause, then there would be no need for a severance package.
Most likely the severance package wasn't a determining factor. Most employees do not know this but "performace" is not a disqualification for unemployment in most states. If you read the unemployment section here on CD you'll see post after post of people winning their unemployment hearing when performance was the only reason an employer gave.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
