Unemployment thread

[Paa Langfart]

Just now, Harbingers said:

Calling in would help

yeah.  good luck with that

[Harbingers]

11 minutes ago, Paa Langfart said:

yeah.  good luck with that

I mean calling into the appeals line since the claim was already denied and hopefully actually get through to a person. Not the automated system line. 

[toldozer]

49 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

My brother finally got everything done. When he filed his first claim, it said "Did you look for work? NOTE- If you were laid off due to COVID19, click NO". When he clicked NO, it said "Claim denied". Tried to go back and change it, but it had already been denied. Next week, he's just clicking YES.

Tell him to read up on the law passed man.  If you're laid off because of covid you're suppose to by law answer yes regardless of if you did.  

[332nd]

1 hour ago, toldozer said:

Tell him to read up on the law passed man.  If you're laid off because of covid you're suppose to by law answer yes regardless of if you did.  

Messed up they had it like that on the site then.

[onmyown]

4 hours ago, jfra78 said:

I'm not a lawyer , but that sounds like discrimination to me.  I would at least talk to one.

If it was discrimination, women wouldn’t of ever had seniority.

It just happened at my work. They had a choice to cut 3 people or ones boss. The three were males the boss was a female. She was let go.

There’s no reason to look at things and assume the worst and see things that aren’t there. Even if it was only 10k a year more, that could have been the difference of even just one person.

[Harbingers]

35 minutes ago, onmyown said:

If it was discrimination, women wouldn’t of ever had seniority.

It just happened at my work. They had a choice to cut 3 people or ones boss. The three were males the boss was a female. She was let go.

There’s no reason to look at things and assume the worst and see things that aren’t there. Even if it was only 10k a year more, that could have been the difference of even just one person.

If they both made X(we’ll just say 15) dollars an hour however and the person without seniority was retained. There is something behind it. Even if not, there still could be something behind it. A new manager, etc, etc. Just because a woman had seniority doesn’t mean there couldn’t possibly be discrimination. 

[jfra78]

1 hour ago, onmyown said:

If it was discrimination, women wouldn’t of ever had seniority.

It just happened at my work. They had a choice to cut 3 people or ones boss. The three were males the boss was a female. She was let go.

There’s no reason to look at things and assume the worst and see things that aren’t there. Even if it was only 10k a year more, that could have been the difference of even just one person.

Seniority is years worked. It doesn't mean they make more or have a position of power

[LinvilleGorge]

My wife's employer was basically trying to use this situation to purge the organization of people with children and women they think might have children. Their legal counsel quickly adviced them that was against a poo ton of really good laws. The greatest irony is that the two people pushing the hardest to do this we're both women with children, their children just happened to be grown so in their minds were no longer a "liability" to the organization in terms of pulling the parent away from work and being on the organization's benefits.

It's amazing how incredibly selfish and short sighted some are. The good thing about situations like this is that it exposed the fug out of them for who they truly are as people.

[Harbingers]

19 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

My wife's employer was basically trying to use this situation to purge the organization of people with children and women they think might have children. Their legal counsel quickly adviced them that was against a poo ton of really good laws. The greatest irony is that the two people pushing the hardest to do this we're both women with children, their children just happened to be grown so in their minds were no longer a "liability" to the organization in terms of pulling the parent away from work and being on the organization's benefits.

It's amazing how incredibly selfish and short sighted some are. The good thing about situations like this is that it exposed the fug out of them for who they truly are as people.

I have a feeling this is going to be a very common theme when things start to get back to normal and people try to go back to their jobs. Management using this to purge people they don’t want back. 

[onmyown]

1 hour ago, Harbingers said:

If they both made X(we’ll just say 15) dollars an hour however and the person without seniority was retained. There is something behind it. Even if not, there still could be something behind it. A new manager, etc, etc. Just because a woman had seniority doesn’t mean there couldn’t possibly be discrimination. 

Just because of woman of seniority was cut and men weren’t doesn’t mean it’s automatically discrimination is what I was saying. Probably more to it than that.

38 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

Seniority is years worked. It doesn't mean they make more or have a position of power

Seniority can mean a lot of things, but regardless a lot of times it means more money.

[jfra78]

19 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Just because of woman of seniority was cut and men weren’t doesn’t mean it’s automatically discrimination is what I was saying. Probably more to it than that.

Seniority can mean a lot of things, but regardless a lot of times it means more money.

Theres nothing saying that it's not discrimination.  Simple fact is, if she feels like it is she should pursue it

[Happy Panther]

30 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

Theres nothing saying that it's not discrimination.  Simple fact is, if she feels like it is she should pursue it

If she has evidence, maybe. Otherwise a waste of money.

[Harbingers]

1 hour ago, Happy Panther said:

If she has evidence, maybe. Otherwise a waste of money.

It’s not a waste of money to ask a lawyer if possible in a consultation, or if you have a lawyer friend and then go to the EEOC. If there’s a credible complaint the key is to get it to the EEOC as quick as possible, if they say ya we’re going to do something then lawyer up and make sure you can get the max. 

[LinvilleGorge]

2 hours ago, Harbingers said:

I have a feeling this is going to be a very common theme when things start to get back to normal and people try to go back to their jobs. Management using this to purge people they don’t want back. 

I have a feeling labor attorney business is gonna be a boomin' when we come out of this. The lawsuits will be flying.