How does unemployment compensation work?

[AllyCat]

I know it varies by state, but my husband's boss is asking him to take two weeks a quarter unpaid, but still remain at work. He now thinks he won't claim unemployment because it would hurt him later if he loses this job. I think the fact that he cannot be "looking for work" will make him ineligble. Frankly, I think what she is doing is illegal, but he's afraid to rock the boat because nearly everyone else has been layed off.

[brewens]

1. In my state there is a waiting week when you are layed off.

In a situation where you were basically layed off for two weeks every quarter you could get a check for one week then be back to work.
I'm not sure what they would say about still being on the job without pay. That sounds illegal.
The best thing to do is document everything and start looking for another job. He could demand his back pay when he leaves or threaten to turn her in for it.

[AllyCat]

3. So he might be better off taking two weeks unpaid in a row rahter than

splitting it up into two separate weeks. I'll have to check. I think our state might be the same.

[Gman]

4. He has to be available for work

And this sounds like he would not be available for other work. It also just looks
like a cut in pay rather than being available for work and there is none. I don't think he would qualify without outright quitting because there is no work.

[prolesunited]

6. Dangerous advice

In some states, you are *denied* unemployment for quitting and are ineligible to file. Best to check with your state specifically before doing anything like this.

[Gman]

9. In general very true and always check for the rules in your state

HOwever, the OP says essentially, there is work, but no pay. To work for no pay is a violation of federal wage and hour laws and probably state laws depending on the state. If there's overtime involved, that's an even bigger can of legal worms. I think technically he can't quit because he has already been laid off and laid off always qualifies for benefits. The company is just trying to do an illegal end run around the law.

[cbayer]

16. Could you point me to more information about this?

I am aware of a situation where the employees have been "laid off", are collecting unemployment and are still working for their employer without pay. Everything about this seems wrong to me, but I have been unable to find anything substantive about whether this is illegal or what laws it may violate.

Any help would be appreciated.

:hi:

[Gman]

25. Every state has a workforce commission

or something similarly named and a website where the info can be found. Check your local state's info.

[Statistical]

18. Unless the employee is "exempt".

Salaries employees for example can be made to work >40 hours with no additional compensation.

An employer could also reduce said salary and not violate the law (depending on state).

Not saying it is right but it would be legal.

For example in VA my employer could require me to work 10% more (44 hours per week) while at same time drop my salary 10%.

Now you and I might see it as working 20 hours with no pay but since I am salaried it simply would be:

working 44 hours for 90% of my old salary.

[Gman]

22. You are exactly correct

I didn't bring up exempt so as to not muddy the water but you are exactly correct. Your example is also why non-exempt will turn down management because with overtime they will make more money than their boss and work less hours.

It also happens that a company will reduce an employees hours down to a handful a week to induce them to quit rather than be laid off or fired. But, there is still work, and there is still pay. However in this case, this employee can rightfully quit in most states (and I know for sure here in Texas) and receive benefits. They have to be able to show that their hours were cut.

[Statistical]

8. Never quit.

Most states will deny unemployment period if you quit.

[tonysam]

14. +1,000

School districts, for example, are notorious for "offering" teachers to resign or even forcing them to. The only reason they do it is so they don't have to pay UI for that person. It's a lot better to be "terminated" and fight them in the hearings and courts and still be able to draw UI than to "resign." Resignation in lieu of termination in public education is basically an admission of "misconduct," for whatever reason, real or trumped up.

[Gman]

26. Most states have wording to determine if you're qualified for benefits

that says something like did you leave the last place of employment with "good cause connected with the work" and then goes on to define "good cause connected with the work".

[ThomWV]

2. Welcome to the world of the underemployed

Underemployment takes two forms, the first is the one you hear most about - the PhD burger flipper. You're seeing the other form, you still have a job, just not as much of it.

[uncle ray]

5. i would absolutely be looking for work while furloughed.

i would also file for unemployment, just in case the boss doesn't call him back after two weeks.

[AllyCat]

11. It's not a matter of not getting called back. He won't be able to be look for work

because he'll be AT WORK WITH NO PAY. She thinks this fair.

[Statistical]

7. That isn't unemployment. As crappy as it is, it simply is a reduction in pay (pay cut).

Your husbands boss is an ass.

Essentially he is cutting your husbands pay by 15%. Rather than reduce each paycheck by 15% he is giving him 44 full paychecks and 8 $0.00 paychecks. The net result in exactly the same.

As an example lets say he makes $1000 per week = $52,000 per year.

A 15.4% paycut is roughly $8000 cut = $44,000 per year.
A 15.4% reduced from each check is reduction from $1000 to $846 = $44,000 per year.
Having him work 52 weeks but get paid for 44 is 44 * $1000 = $44,000 per year.


Either way he is taking a 15.4% paycut not unemployment. The boss is just trying to hide it.

To collect unemployment he would need to be not working AND available for work. Neither condition applies so unfortenately he is not eligible for Unemployment Benefits.

[thotzRthingz]

10. re: "That isn't unemployment. As crappy as it is..."

Yes, it is a crappy deal... and depending on the STATE (and exactly how this crap is being implemented), one might qualify for partial unemployment... but one should ALWAYS check with their local-state employment/unemployment office (ref: list of OFFICES by state: http://www.job-hunt.org/state_unemployment_offices.shtml) before doing anything rash.

I'm in Southeastern VA. A good friend works in construction... during the last quarter of 2009 he had his hours CUT (from 40 to 30 per week). He filed for, and got, partial unemployment compensation.

Because he did that, he then got FIRED (long story behind it)... he then collected FULL unemployment for several weeks. He and another friend then started their own business... and although they're struggling, at least they're both working (and bringing in at least what they were making with their former employers). If things continue as they are... their former BOSS' company may actually be bidding for SUB-CONTRACT WORK from their company (the worm turns slowly, but turn it does)!

[tonysam]

15. Years ago I was able to get partial UI when still working

when my hours were reduced. The UI lasted well over a year.

[AllyCat]

12. She's a good Republican. She thinks this is fair.

Not only that, she stopped their 401K match, and even though he has a letter of employment stating he gets paid time off, she has cancelled that too. I think he has a good case with a lawyer, but he won't fight. Not at all.

[undeterred]

13. In Wisconsin you are eligible the first week after a layoff.

But he isn't being laid off, and he wouldn't be eligible to work elsewhere. It sounds pretty shitty. But a lot of companies are doing this just to survive... two weeks unpaid is a lot better than no job at all. If you quit a job or are fired for bad behavior, no unemployment compensation.

[AllyCat]

20. Isn't this illegal? How can they have no money to pay someone, but

plenty of work for a work week?

[undeterred]

21. It might be illegal.

If he is an hourly employee its probably illegal. But the stuff they can pull with salaried employees is unbelievable. (They can require you to work 13 days in a row, 98 hours a week on just your regular salary.)

Check with the EEOC in Madison to see if its illegal.

[AllyCat]

23. Salaried. Never mind. You answered my question. Thanks for the response

[WillyT]

17. Might Find Some Info Here:

Link: http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/uiben/handbook/english/contentspart6.htm

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

19. that's called a "pay-cut", not unemployment.

sorry.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. You can qualify for partial unemployment benefits.

As many have said, there is a waiting period before you can file any claims.

I see no reason why he wouldn't be able to file an unemployment claim after the waiting period, though.

I would have him tell the boss; she may even file the unemployment claim for him. I know a lot of businesses do that around here when the tourism season dies off. There is another school of thought that would be not to tell the boss, but she will find out anyway when he files a claim.

If it were me, I would tell the boss of my plans, and I would apply for unemployment the first week eligible so that the waiting period can begin.