| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| Washington State Supremes: 6 Months Work Equal 1 Year's Pay |
| 2008-06-26 |
| The Washington state Supreme Court says workers who leave their jobs on a voluntary basis can still seek unemployment benefits. Whether they get those benefits depends on the reason they left their jobs in the first place. The ruling was handed down last week in the case of Spain v. Employment Security Department and Batey v. Employment Security Department. The case involved two women who quit their jobs, one reportedly citing verbal abuse and the other saying she quit due to disagreements with management. Both were denied unemployment benefits. The court said when the state legislature enacted unemployment benefit rules, it did not disqualify all workers who voluntarily left their jobs but rather those who left "voluntarily without good cause." The ruling goes on to say the legislature has never defined good cause. "We must decide whether the statutory list of reasons that do not disqualify an individual from benefits is also an exhaustive list of good cause reasons to voluntarily leave a job without losing benefit eligibility. We conclude it is not," reads the court written opinion. The court remanded the case back to the state Employment Security Department to determine whether the women had good cause to leave their jobs based on their claims. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #4 Here in California at least, I contribute to unemployment with every paycheck - it's called unemployment insurance. When I leave an employer voluntarily, as I did last year when it became perfectly clear that I was not going to receive the promotion I was seeking and that management was going to maximize its profits at the cost of decreased safety for its employees and those we worked for and with, why should the employer have the final say on whether or not I receive unemployment benefits when I worked for them a mere 2 weeks and was grandfathered into their employment when my previous company lost the contract where I worked? Why should any employer have the right to deny me unemployment benefits when I have been paying on that unemployment insurance policy for many years? That's my money, not theirs and not the state's. Granted that the employer contributes to the policy, but that's an issue between them and the state and the unions, not between the employer and the employee. PS. My claim was deined by an employer I had worked for for 2 weeks, as explained above, and later denied on appeal when the adjudicator sided with the employer. So, 4 years worth of paying into that unemployment insurance policy went for nothing and it amounted to hundreds or thousands of dollars paid it - for what? Nada, zip, zero, nothing - and you bet your ass I'm bitter about that! |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2008-06-26 14:23 |
| #3 The trouble is many fold. First of all, unemployment comes out of the pocket of both the employer and the taxpayer. If there is an economic downturn, this makes employers think twice, because if they fire employees, they will still have to pay them. So they do not gleefully fire employees on a whim. However, when you quit a job, you quit as an individual. Why should your ex-employer, or the taxpayer, pay unemployment for nothing? Anyone can think up an excuse about how they were oppressed at the job they quit. This is why the rule has always been that if you quit, it is your problem, but if you are fired, you deserve employment. Quitting is your choice. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-06-26 13:56 |
| #2 So you only have to work 1 out of every 3 years in Washington? Sweet. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-06-26 11:29 |
| #1 That's a pretty unfair headline. I've worked some pretty crap jobs before, and quit for darn good reasons. As in, being ordered to serve rotten food, deny discounts to customers, etc. Why should someone who gets laid off hit the jackpot? Hint: in crappy retail and food service jobs, there are almost never layoffs. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-06-26 11:08 |