Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I think my boss got me to sort of quit today?Follow

#27Almalieque, Posted: Sep 05 2012 at 12:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I wouldn't say that too loud..... You might get banned.. Jus' sayin'
#28 Sep 05 2012 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
I don't know how it works in The US of Screweveryone over, but up here, we're required to get it in writing that the employee is giving notice.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#29 Sep 05 2012 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Oh. Silliness.
Camelot.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Sep 05 2012 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't know how it works in The US of Screweveryone over, but up here, we're required to get it in writing that the employee is giving notice.


Definitely not like that. Most states are "at will" employment, which means an employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.
#31 Sep 05 2012 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Guenny wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't know how it works in The US of Screweveryone over, but up here, we're required to get it in writing that the employee is giving notice.


Definitely not like that. Most states are "at will" employment, which means an employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.
I have to check with 2 agencies. first, check the labor laws in the Department of Employment. If everything's good there, I then have to check Human rights and that's where ****** comes up.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#32 Sep 05 2012 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Guenny wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't know how it works in The US of Screweveryone over, but up here, we're required to get it in writing that the employee is giving notice.


Definitely not like that. Most states are "at will" employment, which means an employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.

They can't however, discriminate. So, they can fire you for just not liking you, but you have to ask yourself, "why don't they like me?". If it's because your female, non-white, ***, x-military, or handicapped then they can't fire you. Also you can't be fired for asserting your rights as an employee like if you whistle-blowed or filed a workers comp claim.

If you have a contract with your employer, that makes firing at will harder, and even a verbal agreement to employment is a contract as such.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#33 Sep 05 2012 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,795 posts
Guenny wrote:
Definitely not like that. Most states are "at will" employment, which means an employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.


That's pretty much the case. With the exceptions of the discirmination factors outlined in federal and state law, employers can terminate employment and you can quit your job at anytime. Nixy has effectively shown that, I believe, in recent events.

I would use the next 6 months (if she gives you that much time) to finish up the transcription course and get started on looking for something else. She may wait, she may not. You're going to want to be prepared if she decides to cut bait and fish for for her next unwitting victim/employee.
#34 Sep 05 2012 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Thumbelyna wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Definitely not like that. Most states are "at will" employment, which means an employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.


That's pretty much the case. With the exceptions of the discirmination factors outlined in federal and state law, employers can terminate employment and you can quit your job at anytime. Nixy has effectively shown that, I believe, in recent events.


But I think we're talking about two different things here. Being in an at will state means that in either case, you still get unemployment benefits. All it means is that your employer can't deny you those benefits if you quit, and you can't sue your employer if you are fired. I believe the only exception is if you are "fired with cause". To do that the employer has to document that you have violated some requirements for employment (late X number of times, violations of codes of ethics, stealing, cheating, etc). And trust me, it has to be documented very well.


It's a lot harder than some people seem to think to be terminated and *not* be eligible for unemployment benefits.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Sep 05 2012 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Quote:
And trust me, it has to be documented very well.


'fraid not. One ambiguously worded write-up is all it takes.
#36 Sep 05 2012 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Guenny wrote:
Quote:
And trust me, it has to be documented very well.


'fraid not. One ambiguously worded write-up is all it takes.


Write up for what? If you have a policy that says employee may not be late more than X times, you can't just one day say "You've been late X times, so you're fired!". You have to document (on actual paper) each time that employee was late, and show that you communicated this to that employee (often requiring that they sign something stating that they were informed that they were officially written up for it). Failing to have this level of documentation will get the employer laughed out of the unemployment hearing.

At least, that's how it is here in California. I suppose other states may differ.

EDIT: Let me be clear. I'm talking about what is required for the employer to not have to pay his share of the unemployment costs. Obviously, he can just say "you're fired" for any reason at all and fire the employee (in an at will state at least). That's not the issue.

Edited, Sep 5th 2012 1:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Sep 05 2012 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Ok. She says that she doesn't want me to leave, which I believe whether I should or not. But today she asked if she could have something in writing saying that I'll be here for six months. Her reasoning being that she doesn't want me to jump ship sooner than that. Supposedly. She said, "Or you can just say that you want to stay here and you're happy."

I told her I would have to think about it but I defintely won't leave her high and dry. I mean, two weeks is standard notice. She said the other day that a MONTH notice wasn't enough in her opinion. Oh, and telling her I will stay and hopefully do her job at some point is not an option, because she has already said in the past that she would love for me to take over for her at some point.

It's not that I'm afraid she wants to fire me. It's more I'm worried that if six months comes up and I do t have a new job lined up, she'll let me go and say that I resigned.

I hate my big mouth. I should've just lied. But I honestly don't want her or the company to be left unprepared when I leave.
#38 Sep 05 2012 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
Sounds like you work somewhere pretty specialized, and that two weeks isn't really enough to train someone new to take over once you're gone. A month is pushing it on her end, in my opinion. Tell her the best you can do is give two months notice because there is simply no way you can tell what is going to happen half a year in the future, and that whole speel about how you'd be more than happy to stay indefinitely.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Sep 05 2012 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Sounds like you work somewhere pretty specialized, and that two weeks isn't really enough to train someone new to take over once you're gone. A month is pushing it on her end, in my opinion. Tell her the best you can do is give two months notice because there is simply no way you can tell what is going to happen half a year in the future, and that whole speel about how you'd be more than happy to stay indefinitely.


I wouldn't even put it in those terms though. Tell her you'll be staying at least 6 months, and will give her as much advance notice when you do decide to leave as possible. The last thing you want to do is make her worry that you might leave at any time without giving her enough time to hire a replacement. If I were her (and if you were too if you think about it), you'd immediately start looking for someone else to hire to replace you *today* if you had even the slightest concern that you might be left high and dry at some point down the line.

Form a trust relationship with your boss. Reassure her that you wont ***** her over. The street runs both ways here, and you need to be aware of it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Sep 05 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"I can't see that far in the future, but if my plans change you'll be the first to know" is what you should have said.


That, or "if you're asking for a longer commitment I'll need to see some incentive, bitCh."


New De Beers advertising campaign, right here.



Best. Minion. EVER.

"You know those blood diamonds we keep hearing about? Yeah, gimme. I want some sweet, sweet African suffering right here on my finger, *****."
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#41 Sep 05 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
1. Do you have a contract? If you do, the terms of it will dictate separation.
2. If you don't have a contract they can fire you tomorrow. The only thing of concern is unemployment benefits if you care about them. If you care about them, lie about verbally committing to a 6 month timeline.
3. Don't work without a written contract.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#42 Sep 06 2012 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,795 posts
gbaji wrote:
Thumbelyna wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Definitely not like that. Most states are "at will" employment, which means an employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.


That's pretty much the case. With the exceptions of the discirmination factors outlined in federal and state law, employers can terminate employment and you can quit your job at anytime. Nixy has effectively shown that, I believe, in recent events.


But I think we're talking about two different things here. Being in an at will state means that in either case, you still get unemployment benefits. All it means is that your employer can't deny you those benefits if you quit, and you can't sue your employer if you are fired. I believe the only exception is if you are "fired with cause". To do that the employer has to document that you have violated some requirements for employment (late X number of times, violations of codes of ethics, stealing, cheating, etc). And trust me, it has to be documented very well.


It's a lot harder than some people seem to think to be terminated and *not* be eligible for unemployment benefits.


Unemployment benefits and termination claims are 2 different beings, but are complementary. California's standard is that to one of the factors it that someone has to be "Be unemployed through no fault of his/her own" to receive unemployment benefits. If you quit, and the employer reports on the Employment Development Department's inquiry form that you voluntarily quit, there's typically a telephone interview to resolve that issue. It's fairly easy to get around that inquiry. It's not the employer that gives out those benefits, it's the state and after going through the benefits process for a few of my former employees, I am seeing that the state is becoming more and more vigilant about loosey-goosey claims. Hawaii is the same way and I think Hawaii and California have a waiting period for those to get on benefits if they voluntarily quit their job.

If the employer terminates your employment with cause (you would never be rehired in their eyes), it's the same situation, there's a telephone interview to resolve that issue. If the employer terminate your employment and they would rehire you, your claim typically gets approved. Most employers (my office included) usually does not fight an unemployment benefits claim because the time and expense in doing that is not cost-effective.

For employment litigation, it's still drawn-out and typically when a termination claim comes about, the employee and personnel file does come to light and there better be documentation for an employer to prove that. However, some verdicts have favored the employee if the employee can be shown that the employee's behavior was reacting to a hostile working environment (consistently late because of sexual harassment from another worker as an example). But most employers still want to avoid the litigation so it's more cost effective to ask the employee to sign a resignation letter with the understanding that the employer will not fight the employee's claim for benefits.
#43 Sep 06 2012 at 10:07 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Being in an at will state

All states are "at will" states.

means that in either case, you still get unemployment benefits.

No state pays unemployment benefits for people who quit.


All it means is that your employer can't deny you those benefits if you quit, and you can't sue your employer if you are fired.

See above, and, while there are unique statutory exceptions in many states, in no state can you sue for being fired. The exceptions generally mirror public policy in the states, and of course federal law frequently applies as well, but your not someone we need to get into nuance with, are you. There is no state where "you're fired, get out" is actionable without the addition of "you're black" or "you wouldn't blow me" or whatever.


I believe the only exception is if you are "fired with cause". To do that the employer has to document that you have violated some requirements for employment (late X number of times, violations of codes of ethics, stealing, cheating, etc). And trust me, it has to be documented very well.


This is all about liability. It's mostly overkill, documenting that Mary wasn't fired because she wouldn't blow her boss or whatever. Largely it's best practice for large corps that occasionally deal with unions or need a structured CYA process that can be applied universally.


It's a lot harder than some people seem to think to be terminated and *not* be eligible for unemployment benefits.


No it isn't. Quit. Get fired for any sort of reasonable reason. Get fired for an unreasonable reason and have a ****** appeal during the benefits process, etc.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Sep 06 2012 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Actually, I recently found out that there are certain scenarios where Hawaii, at least, will pay if you quit. One of those, which I found odd, is if there is a change in your maritial status.
#45 Sep 06 2012 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
State regulation (§12-5-47) also provides that a voluntary separation may still be eligible if resignation was for good cause, which may be found for the following reasons:

Change in working conditions and the change is prejudicial or detrimental to the health, safety, or morals of the claimant;
Change in conditions or terms of employment, including, but not limited to: change in rate of pay, position or grade, duties, days of work, or hours of work;
Discrimination which violates federal or state laws regarding equal employment opportunity practices;
Change in employee's marital or domestic status;
Acceptance of a definite, firm offer made of other employment where the offer is substantially withdrawn and the former employer refuses to rehire the employee;
Retirement under a mandatory retirement imposed by a collective bargaining agreement; or
Any other factor relevant to a determination of good cause.


That is odd. I'm too lazy to look into what that actual means, likely not anyone that gets married can quit and collect, but who knows.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Sep 06 2012 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
I wasn't aware of the marital status part, but that list is pretty much what I was talking about earlier. I assumed we weren't talking about a case where someone just quit because they felt like being unemployed for a while. The most common scenarios are likely either health reasons or someone lines up another job, it falls through, and they can't get their old job back.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Sep 06 2012 at 6:46 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
I wasn't aware of the marital status part, but that list is pretty much what I was talking about earlier.

You understand no one believes this, right? We can't see inside your head (thank god), but the idea that you "assumed" something entirely different than what you posted is just seen as comical and slightly sad. I don't want to get into your mental illness again, but why bother posting this sort of thing. Even were it true, it's so implausible as to be meaningless.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#48 Sep 06 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
That is odd. I'm too lazy to look into what that actual means, likely not anyone that gets married can quit and collect, but who knows.


It may have something to do with if you got a divorce and... Well, I'm not sure and what. Maybe if you get married and your husband lives somewhere else and you have to move there? Or you get divorced and are forced to move because you can't afford your mortgage? Or your spouse dies and... well, anyway. Still a little odd.
#49 Sep 06 2012 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I wasn't aware of the marital status part, but that list is pretty much what I was talking about earlier.

You understand no one believes this, right? We can't see inside your head (thank god), but the idea that you "assumed" something entirely different than what you posted is just seen as comical and slightly sad. I don't want to get into your mental illness again, but why bother posting this sort of thing. Even were it true, it's so implausible as to be meaningless.


Um... Ok.

I was talking about how the law allows employees to quit while still getting unemployment benefits, and you assumed that I wasn't restricting that to the set of criteria that the law allows employees to quit while still getting unemployment benefits? Really? That seems kinda insane. It's your MO, I suppose. So have at it.

Always amazes me how hard some people will work to find the one way to interpret what someone says so that it makes no sense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Sep 07 2012 at 2:31 AM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,345 posts
I'll try to help.

In flyover country:

I quit=no unemployment payments.
You are fired for no fault (downsize/whatever) yes unemployment insurance.
You are fired for fault (theft/************************ = no unemployment payments.

Yes, documentation (rule of 3) is important, but not absolutely neccesary.


You understand, g, that California is NOT like the rest of the country right?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#51 Sep 07 2012 at 5:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
I was talking about how the law allows employees to quit while still getting unemployment benefits, and you assumed that I wasn't restricting that to the set of criteria that the law allows employees to quit while still getting unemployment benefits? Really? That seems kinda insane. It's your MO, I suppose. So have at it.

Great. As mentioned previously, I can't determine your intent post hoc. Assert whatever you want, I just thought it would be useful for you to understand that absolutely no one else finds it at all plausible. This isn't an isolated incident. This is likely the 100th+ time that you've made a post, been corrected then asserted that what you meant all along was entirely different. One more time, I stipulate there's no way to prove or disprove the two possible cases: 1. You're so insecure that you have a compulsion to claim to have been correct regardless of facts. or 2. You are, hands down, the WORST communicator in written English in the history of the world (worse than the translators of Zero Wing, no joke).

Given my extensive study of human behavior, and particularly group dynamics, I have to say case 1 is vastly more likely. You assert that case 2 is actually occuring. I'm stating to you in no uncertain terms: No one, literally no one else, other than you believes this to be the case.

I can see how my first post confused you though. Let me clarify after the fact. I assumed you'd understand that I was talking about you being a fucking idiot the rest of the board tolerates for comic relief like the fat high pitched voice character in a Hong Kong action film. I can't believe you didn't understand that.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)