Article

2008-06-26 Home Front Economy

Washington State Supremes: 6 Months Work Equal 1 Year's Pay

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-06-26 10:09|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#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|| 2008-06-26 11:08|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-26 11:29|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-26 13:56|| Front Page Top

#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">FOTSGreg 2008-06-26 14:23|| fots.cdgroup.org]">[fots.cdgroup.org] 2008-06-26 14:23|| Front Page Top

23:38 Old Patriot
23:23 DarthVader
23:14 DarthVader
23:00 crosspatch
22:58 OldSpook
22:56 OldSpook
22:51 OldSpook
22:49 DMFD
22:46 Redneck Jim
22:39 Spike Uniter
22:29 bigjim-ky
22:23 trailing wife
22:19 eltoroverde
22:19 Eric Jablow
22:17 Eric Jablow
22:15 Eric Jablow
22:12 eltoroverde
22:00 Procopius2k
21:58 Procopius2k
21:33 Ptah
21:33 trailing wife
21:31 JosephMendiola
21:26 JosephMendiola
21:18 JosephMendiola