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'm seeking clarification here. Would a job automatically be considered short termed in duration in at-will states
if there's nothing in writing specifying that the job is to last at least a year? Would a court look further for evidence that the job is to be considered long term?
I'm seeking clarification here. Would a job automatically be considered short termed in duration in at-will states
if there's nothing in writing specifying that the job is to last at least a year? Would a court look further for evidence that the job is to be considered long term?
As far as i know, an employer could let you go any time they want. A reason as simple as "your services is no longer needed" is enough.
I've heard of a case where an employee was let go just before he qualified for a health plan. It's situations such as this that make me think.
Not sure if that qualifies for wrongful termination. But, even if it were, it would be very hard to prove if that really is the reason the person was let go.
Honestly, i wouldn't fight it. Not worth it. My energy is best spent on finding a decent place to work at.
I would consider duration to be a past tense measurement rather than a description based upon state law.
As an example, you could be a waiter at a restaurant, a position noted for high turnover. If you worked at one location for 10 years, I would consider the duration of that employment to be long term. On the other hand, many lawyers work at one form for decades, yet I would consider one that worked as an associate for a one year stint to be short term.
Most jobs do not have employment contracts. Under your logic, wouldn't all jobs be short term?
I would consider duration to be a past tense measurement rather than a description based upon state law.
As an example, you could be a waiter at a restaurant, a position noted for high turnover. If you worked at one location for 10 years, I would consider the duration of that employment to be long term. On the other hand, many lawyers work at one form for decades, yet I would consider one that worked as an associate for a one year stint to be short term.
Most jobs do not have employment contracts. Under your logic, wouldn't all jobs be short term?
In the at-will states, then no written contracts would mean short term. But what would happen if you worked for a firm that offered a health plan where, to qualify, you have to work at this firm for at least a year and you were let go when you worked there for 11 months for a reason that wasn't satisfactory to you?
In the at-will states, then no written contracts would mean short term. But what would happen if you worked for a firm that offered a health plan where, to qualify, you have to work at this firm for at least a year and you were let go when you worked there for 11 months for a reason that wasn't satisfactory to you?
What would happen? I would be mightily annoyed, out of a job, filing for UI and getting my resume out on the street.
It is still a weird question. What does short duration vs long duration have to do with your health insurance question?
I worked in at at will state, with no contract, at the same employer for 5 years. Was I a short duration employee or a long duration employee?
What would happen? I would be mightily annoyed, out of a job, filing for UI and getting my resume out on the street.
It is still a weird question. What does short duration vs long duration have to do with your health insurance question?
I worked in an at will state, with no contract, at the same employer for 5 years. Was I a short duration employee or a long duration employee?
The difference? What if the employer were using the health plan as a carrot-and-stick approach to keep you interested in the job, but only on a temporary basis (without letting you know) so that the company would let you go before the plan could take effect (to save themselves money)?
My reasoning and experience says if it could happen, it will. Does anybody have something to add to this?
The difference? What if the employer were using the health plan as a carrot-and-stick approach to keep you interested in the job, but only on a temporary basis (without letting you know) so that the company would let you go before the plan could take effect (to save themselves money)?
My reasoning and experience says if it could happen, it will. Does anybody have something to add to this?
There are three types of group health coverage offered by employers these days.
Quote:
1)The employer pays 100% of the premiums. Rare, but some positions have this.
2)The employer pays a substantial part of the premiums.
3)The employer pays either nothing or in some states the employer is required to pay 10% of the premiums at a minimum.
You have to find out which health care option you would be covered under and how much the employer is actually paying into it, to know if that was even a possible financial factor at all of being let go. One way to find out what the total cost for the plan is per month, is ask what the COBRA premiums would be.
Most decent employers these days put you on the health plan on your start date or within 1-3 months. I don't know of any that make you wait a year, but even if that were the case I wouldn't accept such a job because there is no reason not to get group coverage for employees. I know, because I was involved with selecting group coverage for my company and talked directly with the insurance sales broker in meetings. So there is no other cost to the employer for the health plan unless option 3 or they decide to pay more for the premiums to help offset the costs to the employees.
With option 3, the employer wouldn't be saving any or not much money in letting someone go before they could use the health plan. Say the plan is $1K a month, total cost, 10% would only be $100.00. I can't see someone firing an employee after hiring them, training them, on the job experience just to replace them before they have to pay $100.00 a month towards the health plan. It would make no business sense to do this. Employers that only need employees for temporary positions often use a staffing firm.
I've heard of a case where an employee was let go just before he qualified for a health plan. It's situations such as this that make me think.
I believe that is very common. However in at will states they do not need a reason to dismiss.
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.
However in at will states they do not need a reason to dismiss.
