Unemployment Ridiculousness

Nicole

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-14-04 AT 03:37PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I wasn’t sure where to post this so I’ll try here.

I’ve been in HR for the past 17 years with the same company dealing with all aspects of HR but this was a first for me and totally blew me away!!

The employee was coached several times concerning his performance and attitude with co-workers and our customers. (Scary thought since he was a Customer Care Rep in the field). In his most recent coaching session the manager asked her boss, the department director, to sit in and help her coach the employee. The employee wasn’t a happy camper and ended up storming out of the office yelling at the Director that he could kiss his a$$.

Needless to say the employee was terminated. He filed unemployment and I contested the claim stating gross insubordination as the reason he was terminated. The claim was paid in spite of his behavior. Yes, I did consult our corporate attorney who told me we would lose but I pushed on anyway.

So, in the great state of Florida I guess it’s now OK for you tell your boss (or their boss) to kiss your posterior and still get to collect unemployment benefits!

Thanks for letting me vent..
Sign me off as ………
Incredulous in Florida!

sonny

I am not surprised at this..it is amazing. We recently sent 16 pages to UE documenting the gross misconduct of a former employee. Not only did the employee get the benefit, but to add insult to injury, we got a letter back to the effect that we had not provided documentation! I frankly think they do not even read the stuff. .

ray a

I recently had a similar situation where a former ee was granted UI because we did not give sufficient warning prior to terminating for poor attendance. Maybe, this guy was granted UI for the same reason, someone believed he was given sufficient time to correct his attitude and his outburst was just an emotional reaction to an adverse situation and the company overreacted. Doesn't seem fair does it?

Betty I_O

Such situations are not limited to the state of Florida! Massachusetts has pulled a few "boners," too--one of our best was the employee who struck his supervisor. We terminated; he filed. He claimed he was overwrought about his kids--his wife had left him--and he temporarily "saw" his wife's boyfriend's face when the supervisor was speaking with him and only reacted to that! He's still collecting!

Don D

Our state did away with the term "Gross Misconduct", altogether. The only way the employer would have won that one in this state is if the handbook specifically included that statement in it's list of violating remarks, the employee had signed acknowledging receipt of the handbook and there was at least one other counseling document in his file for related behavior. Otherwise, it would probably be dismissed as an ill-thought-out, off-the-cuff remark that did not warrant dismissal. No union grievance arbitrator would have upheld the dismissal either, anywhere in the country. You accomplished three things in this scenario: You cut your losses and got rid of an undesirable employee, you learned a lesson about unemployment insurance, and, you got it off your chest.

mcmel

I can't help but add to this . . . our recent fired employee just qualified for unemployment also, even though we had a major amount of documentation regarding horrible attendance, insubordination, several no shows / no calls.

I honestly think the ex EE spoke with the case manager at Unemployment and played on his emotions, based on a conversation I had with the case manager about hardships the employee had been having. The case manager badgered me to death about "did we give the employee enough chances for improvement", etc. Oh my god! Severe attendance and performance problems and now he's lounging around on unemployment dollars.

Grrrrrr

LindaS

I just have to add my "two cents" as well. Here in the great state of Wisconsin it seems that employees (or should I say ex-employees) are able to collect UI for just about any reason.

I recently had an employee who missed three days of work due to illness. On the third day when he called in he was instructed to speak with me and he informed the supervisor, "I ain't dealing with that s***!" and didn't contact me. When he came to work the next day he refused to start working until he spoke with me. We explained that he needed to obtain a physician's slip allowing him to return to work in accordance with our attendance policies. He stated that he would do that and would call me later in the day. Never heard from him again. We terminated based on job abandonment. He filed for UI and, even though I provided 12 pages of information and felt he quit due to job abandonment, he was still granted benefits!!!

It's so frustrating that the states allow people to do pretty much whatever they want and grant them these benefits!!!

Don D

I'm reading these horror stories and can't help wondering if you guys are requesting and attending the official appeal hearings. If you're not, you share the blame for the outcome. I can't imagine losing the hearing in these cited examples. Maybe you need to fly me to your hearings. I'll review your documentation and go with you. I need a break from here anyway.

mcmel

What an offer! Come on up, we'll get you set up, treat you special and you can straighten a few things out for us! x;)

Do I have to arrange special accommodations for you, can you handle the Wisconsin temps?

Don D

Don't know. How many temps do you have?

mcmel

I know, I should have been more clear, smarty pants.

The temperature is currently 13 degrees. Pack your long johns and get up here. I'm appealing his unemployment determination because you told me to.

djacobs475

Not surprising...
I attended a seminar being given by one of the Commissioners of Unemployment Compensation office in Florida, and he specifically said that Unemployment Compensation was designed to give benefits to those who have lost their jobs. He explained that the only reason people are turned down is due to "gross misconduct" - when pressed for examples, he mentioned deliberate and aggregious acts of specifically targeted safety "violations" or acts of deliberate aggression, i.e. setting the building on fire, or documented theft (which had to be witnessed).

Since then, we no longer fight unemployment claims unless we can meet their definition of "gross misconduct".

And although we don't agree with their definition of "gross misconduct", we no longer waste the time to fight claims we feel fit our definition.

Hope this helps.

E Wart

So sorry to hear about your experience. Does make you mad when you see the UI rates go up and up!!
I truly do not believe this would have happened in Georgia. They do ask for documentation, but also don't let the employee get away with things of this nature. (That is one reason our fund has been fairly solvent.)
I too wonder if you requested a "live/face to face" hearing or was it done through the mail and on the phone. Often times the employee tells things that are exactly true (or he sees it differently) but if in person they tend not to or the hearing officer asks more questions. I have lost very few cases I have taken to appeal and gone in person. (May be I select my "fights" because I don't consider myself "that good".) Have you apprealed it all the way up? If not, you might want to examine the state unemployment law and see if you can't point something out that would reverse the decision.
E Wart

KAMINSKI

On a similar note....

Since 9/11, Government has not at all been reluctant to agree with employers who use gross misconduct where any threatening language is present.

In a number of cases where employees walked out saying things like "I'm going to kick your a$$" or the like, unemployment in Massachusetts was denied.

As HR personnel we need to always consider how we record our reasons for termination. If any kind of threat was involved make sure you put that in the documentation.

Remember: In Massachusetts, kissing is ok whereas kicking is not!

neveradull

Having won a few and lost a lot more, I have came to the conclusion that we lose because the state prefers employer paid welfare.

KathiHR

We recently ran an "experiment" in HR. Our particular work gives opportunity for fraud in that a supervisor can report hours worked with a client even if they haven't worked them. We have ways of checking & always terminate immediately when we find fraud. We noticed that sometimes we win & sometimes we lose on UI. We constructed 2 carefully worded explanations, one that included the words "gross misconduct," & one that only included the word "fraud." We found that when our explanation was "fraud in reporting hours worked in services to clients," we lost. But if our explanation included "gross misconduct in fraudulently reporting hours worked in services to clients," then we won. Figure that out - same conduct, different wording. You just have to learn how to play the game.

And as Don said, always appeal.

Kathi

Don D

Don't mind telling you that I have participated in hearings in 48 contiguous states and have lost one, ONE. California. For the person who repeated what a 'commissioner' told them at a meeting, I would dismiss that and certainly not pattern my responses based on his comment. Don't forget those heads roll every couple of years and certainly with the governor's whim if their appointment is up. I've won many telephone hearings in Florida. The commissioner was correct in saying that Unemployment Insurance is designed to be paid to people who are unemployed, of course that is true. What he didn't say, and probably doesn't even know, is that the state legislature passes the laws and the rules conform to those laws. UI is not designed to pay people to live on the dole, although we all often think it works that way. Challenge each and every decision you get and never fail to return the forms and phone calls asking for your side of the issue, unless you don't want to protest one in particular.

safety

I feel fortunate that out turnover rate is typically less than 4%. Having said that I have lost one and won all of the rest. The first hearing I participated in was similar to KathiHR in that the way we worded the termination made all of the difference. The past ee in that case had three no call/ no show events and we termed for violating our attendance policy. It turns out in KS that is considered general misconduct thus we lost. The claimant never collected as he found other employment so don’t know if our ‘experience rating’ went up or not.

Last month I participated in a telephone hearing for a previous ee who was terminated for repeated attendance violations. I faxed over 30 pages of documentation to the administrative law judge, in the correct time frame, participated in the hearing and won due to several factors (I believe). One, the former ee did not participate in the hearing. Two, our documentation was all in order and three; we had the correct wording in the termination documentation. I agree with Don that unless there is a valid reason not to protest, always try to contest these.

Ranger

Too bad! i've lost only 1 case in 19 years. And then, it was because we termed someone for performance reasons and hadn't given him a warning to improve or lose his job. I personally attend every hearing. Usually the former ee has no "evidence" and rambles on about nothing relevant. I have memos they have signed acknowledging receipt stating what will occur if _________ doesn't happen. So, if their final written warning says termination if they are no call-no show again, e.g., we're okay. But, like another post said, I regurgitate UI's language regarding gross misconduct. It certainly makes a difference.

Rockie

This does not surprise me. South Carolina is very similar in its "friendliness" towards employees.

We recently terminated a medical assistant because of her skill level. She had been trained, counseled, etc. in the proper way to perform certain patient care functions. She advised us before hire that she knew how to perform these duties. Because of the inherent danger to patients, we terminated. Unemployment ruled that she was entitled to benefits because of "no willful wrongdoing on her part."

We also had a case where an office person stole medication from the medical closet where non-authorized personnel are not to enter. A patient actually saw the employee wait until someone came of the closet and she snagged the door before it locked. She was observed taking the medication, hiding it and taking it out in a trash bag to her car. Of course, she was terminated. She filed and took it to the highest level she possibly could. She utlimately lost, but what a waste of time for our company to have to attend such ridiculous meetings.

Unemployment is just another example of a benefit that was put in place for good intentions - to help people until they could find other employment, but it has been so abused that many deserving people are embarassed to file when they need it.