Do employers have to pay when employees file unemployment claims?
May 2, 2018 1:34 PM Subscribe
It's "common knowledge" that when you file an unemployment claim, your employer has incentive to deny this claim so they don't have to pay you unemployment. Is this really how this works?
I've learned a few things lately about how certain aspects of working culture, such as "don't talk about your salary" or "give 2 weeks notice when leaving a job" are ideas invented by bosses to give them more control of their workers. My theory is that "don't file for unemployment unless you have a damn good reason" is another invented-by-bosses shame tactic. Is it true that your former employer directly pays unemployment checks, or do they just pay for insurance, with no increase in rate when an unemployment claim is filed? I'm located in Washington state, in case this differs by state.
I've learned a few things lately about how certain aspects of working culture, such as "don't talk about your salary" or "give 2 weeks notice when leaving a job" are ideas invented by bosses to give them more control of their workers. My theory is that "don't file for unemployment unless you have a damn good reason" is another invented-by-bosses shame tactic. Is it true that your former employer directly pays unemployment checks, or do they just pay for insurance, with no increase in rate when an unemployment claim is filed? I'm located in Washington state, in case this differs by state.
Best answer: Yes, in Washington State, employers have to pay more unemployment tax if they've had more claims. See the unemployment insurance taxes fact sheet.
posted by grouse at 1:41 PM on May 2, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by grouse at 1:41 PM on May 2, 2018 [2 favorites]
don't file for unemployment unless you have a damn good reason
What is your ex-employer going to do if they don't like it? Fire you?
posted by grouse at 1:42 PM on May 2, 2018 [27 favorites]
What is your ex-employer going to do if they don't like it? Fire you?
posted by grouse at 1:42 PM on May 2, 2018 [27 favorites]
Response by poster: grouse, thank you kindly! I wasn't able to find this when searching the WA ESD website.
posted by seiryuu at 1:45 PM on May 2, 2018
posted by seiryuu at 1:45 PM on May 2, 2018
Yes, the employer does have an incentive to fight your claim, but it's a big leap from there to "don't file for unemployment unless you have a damn good reason." It's not like it costs you anything other than a little time—you should always do so if you think you have a valid claim (or even that you might). If the employer fights it, it's not a big deal; you both just end up talking on the phone (separately) to a claim adjudicator and then they make a decision. (At least, that's how it went when I had a disputed unemployment claim in Illinois. My claim was upheld.)
posted by enn at 1:49 PM on May 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by enn at 1:49 PM on May 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
My theory is that "don't file for unemployment unless you have a damn good reason" is another invented-by-bosses shame tactic.
I mean, it would be, but I've never even heard anybody say this? Some employers do fight these claims to keep them low, but the claims getting disputed is not a reason to not file. If anything, it's a reason to file even if you're unsure, because they tend to keep the resolution process relatively painless, it's not like you have to routinely hire a lawyer just to file for unemployment. It's just largely a checks-and-balances kind of system: employer UI rates being based on claims incentivizes them to actually protest rather than just telling literally everybody to file because it's no skin off their back. It being insurance rather than direct compensation keeps the burden on employers from being unsustainable unless they're really creating high turnover.
posted by Sequence at 1:55 PM on May 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
I mean, it would be, but I've never even heard anybody say this? Some employers do fight these claims to keep them low, but the claims getting disputed is not a reason to not file. If anything, it's a reason to file even if you're unsure, because they tend to keep the resolution process relatively painless, it's not like you have to routinely hire a lawyer just to file for unemployment. It's just largely a checks-and-balances kind of system: employer UI rates being based on claims incentivizes them to actually protest rather than just telling literally everybody to file because it's no skin off their back. It being insurance rather than direct compensation keeps the burden on employers from being unsustainable unless they're really creating high turnover.
posted by Sequence at 1:55 PM on May 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
My theory is that "don't file for unemployment unless you have a damn good reason" is another invented-by-bosses shame tactic.
I think I'd go so far as to say that I've never seen anyone say this, although it must be somewhere out there on the Internet. The only time I've seen ordinary people talking about UI rates is in the context of warning others that their employers may contest their claims unjustly. There are people who are reluctant to use any (perceived explicit) government benefit program, but that's not usually specific to their employer's UI rate.
posted by praemunire at 2:00 PM on May 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
I think I'd go so far as to say that I've never seen anyone say this, although it must be somewhere out there on the Internet. The only time I've seen ordinary people talking about UI rates is in the context of warning others that their employers may contest their claims unjustly. There are people who are reluctant to use any (perceived explicit) government benefit program, but that's not usually specific to their employer's UI rate.
posted by praemunire at 2:00 PM on May 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
The main "common knowledge" about this that isn't really true is that there's no point in filing if you've been fired for cause. This is absolutely not the case and it's always worth filing anyway. Even if your old employer contests it, you might still get approved anyway. I had a coworker get fired at an old job for accidentally Slack messaging something insulting about the boss to the boss (cue horror movie music), the company contested her claim and she still got approved. Another person was fired for repeated tardiness, they collected as well. Unless you murdered the bookkeeper or something, file file file!
posted by cakelite at 2:21 PM on May 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by cakelite at 2:21 PM on May 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
I think a lot of people don't know that you *can* file for unemployment if you have been fired, or they assume that you can only file if you have been laid off.
I will also say that some employers demonstrably will try to manipulate employees into disqualifying themselves for unemployment, such as signalling to an employee that if they don't quit, they will be fired, and it would be better to quit.
posted by muddgirl at 2:23 PM on May 2, 2018 [13 favorites]
I will also say that some employers demonstrably will try to manipulate employees into disqualifying themselves for unemployment, such as signalling to an employee that if they don't quit, they will be fired, and it would be better to quit.
posted by muddgirl at 2:23 PM on May 2, 2018 [13 favorites]
I was on the employer side of a contested UI claim in NY State, and the burden of proof is on the employer to prove definitively that the employee is ineligible. The processing agent I spoke to ripped me a new one (for lack of a better term) and our fired-for-cause (embezzlement!) employee got her check.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:55 PM on May 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:55 PM on May 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
Employers pay into the fund, and their unemployment premiums tend to be really low unless they have a lot of claims. Claims mean points assessed against them, and too many claims mean enough points that their UI premiums go up.
Eligibility differs by state. In Arizona, what will often happen is that you may get approved quickly, and then get a notice that the employer is contesting it after you've already been getting benefits. This is pretty insidious because if you lose, the state will require you to pay everything back, and well, someone on unemployment typically needs that money badly and will have spent it. (Arizona has a pretty draconian UI system. Benefits are low, eligibility requirements can be tough. It's very heavily titled towards employers and treats people collecting benefits like they're moochers.)
posted by azpenguin at 5:00 PM on May 2, 2018
Eligibility differs by state. In Arizona, what will often happen is that you may get approved quickly, and then get a notice that the employer is contesting it after you've already been getting benefits. This is pretty insidious because if you lose, the state will require you to pay everything back, and well, someone on unemployment typically needs that money badly and will have spent it. (Arizona has a pretty draconian UI system. Benefits are low, eligibility requirements can be tough. It's very heavily titled towards employers and treats people collecting benefits like they're moochers.)
posted by azpenguin at 5:00 PM on May 2, 2018
Employer here with a smallish, but multi-state, payroll:
- an unemployment claim against the company I do payroll for is not a Big Event. I'd liken it to getting a speeding ticket, only perhaps less so. The rates are pretty low for most states, and claims might raise the rate from X.2% to X.4%, unless you get outside the norms. So it's not like I as an employer see a "bill" when an ex-employee files.
- the bar is pretty high for an employer to try to get the state to deny a claim. Most normal incompetence on the part of an employee doesn't do it. The employer has to be pretty much able to prove the employee voluntarily abandoned the job for no good reason, was grossly insubordinate, etc. So there are a lot of situations where an employee might be fired "for cause" but their behavior doesn't rise to the level of successfully contesting a claim. Not good at their job; being tardy 2-3 times (in a role where punctuality is a big deal), etc.
We may be pretty far apart on philosophies about how employers think. I for one don't dream of ways to control the people who work with me. But here goes:
- some employers are ignorant of how it works themselves, so are fearful of "paying" something even when they don't. I had to educate my own boss about how this process works, so this is an example of "common knowledge that isn't true."
The other two things you mentioned aren't so much "control" issues but basic courtesies. Not discussing salary is observed in some companies, not others. In the military and a lot of government agencies, your salary amounts to public record. In a smaller organization, it's more of a "negotiated" process, and there are a lot of variables that you may not want to explain publicly. You may pay one person more because they have unique knowledge about a project and you can't afford to lose them. Unfortunately, yes, sometimes the reasons for salary variability are unsavory, such as sexism, agism (both ways). But that doesn't mean the practice of keeping pay confidential is itself a bad idea.
As for giving 2 week notice, it's just a matter of "do unto others." Employers should pay severance if they let someone go; employees should offer notice if they quit. If you have any responsibilities at all, there are always a number of issues that need to be dealt with to make a smooth transition.
posted by randomkeystrike at 8:39 PM on May 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
- an unemployment claim against the company I do payroll for is not a Big Event. I'd liken it to getting a speeding ticket, only perhaps less so. The rates are pretty low for most states, and claims might raise the rate from X.2% to X.4%, unless you get outside the norms. So it's not like I as an employer see a "bill" when an ex-employee files.
- the bar is pretty high for an employer to try to get the state to deny a claim. Most normal incompetence on the part of an employee doesn't do it. The employer has to be pretty much able to prove the employee voluntarily abandoned the job for no good reason, was grossly insubordinate, etc. So there are a lot of situations where an employee might be fired "for cause" but their behavior doesn't rise to the level of successfully contesting a claim. Not good at their job; being tardy 2-3 times (in a role where punctuality is a big deal), etc.
We may be pretty far apart on philosophies about how employers think. I for one don't dream of ways to control the people who work with me. But here goes:
- some employers are ignorant of how it works themselves, so are fearful of "paying" something even when they don't. I had to educate my own boss about how this process works, so this is an example of "common knowledge that isn't true."
The other two things you mentioned aren't so much "control" issues but basic courtesies. Not discussing salary is observed in some companies, not others. In the military and a lot of government agencies, your salary amounts to public record. In a smaller organization, it's more of a "negotiated" process, and there are a lot of variables that you may not want to explain publicly. You may pay one person more because they have unique knowledge about a project and you can't afford to lose them. Unfortunately, yes, sometimes the reasons for salary variability are unsavory, such as sexism, agism (both ways). But that doesn't mean the practice of keeping pay confidential is itself a bad idea.
As for giving 2 week notice, it's just a matter of "do unto others." Employers should pay severance if they let someone go; employees should offer notice if they quit. If you have any responsibilities at all, there are always a number of issues that need to be dealt with to make a smooth transition.
posted by randomkeystrike at 8:39 PM on May 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
~My theory is that "don't file for unemployment unless you have a damn good reason" is another invented-by-bosses shame tactic.
~I mean, it would be, but I've never even heard anybody say this?
Oh, it's definitely a thing that seems to be "received wisdom" of a sort.
If you are getting a severance from your ex-employer, read your employment contract very carefully. That severance may be contingent on you not filing for unemployment. If you file for unemployment, you might be on the hook to pay back the severance.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:03 AM on May 3, 2018
~I mean, it would be, but I've never even heard anybody say this?
Oh, it's definitely a thing that seems to be "received wisdom" of a sort.
If you are getting a severance from your ex-employer, read your employment contract very carefully. That severance may be contingent on you not filing for unemployment. If you file for unemployment, you might be on the hook to pay back the severance.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:03 AM on May 3, 2018
I am a small business owner (several employees).
1) Unemployment insurance is... insurance, so the rates do go up when you use it, just like auto or rental insurance. But the rate increase is minuscule (especially compared to the costs of carrying a bad or underperforming employee) so it's not a thing employers generally worry about. I've lived through 3 layoffs myself and nobody's ever mentioned or even hinted that I should not be filing for unemployment. For what it's worth 2 layoffs offered a severance that was not contingent on not filing for unemployment.
2) "Don't discuss your salary" always gets talked about as a control thing but it's... not that simple. Take my company - we implemented a transparent compensation structure where everyone knows what everyone else is making; there is a base salary that's about 30% of the total and the other 70% is made up of commissions tied directly to sales. Our employees make TWICE the industry average and/or what they were making in the job immediately preceding their current job and/or just the average salary in my city, and boy they complain about it. As it turns out, people want to be paid more than other people moreso than they want to be paid highly but the same as others. (I am not speculating, this is what everyone actually says come review time.)
3) 2 weeks notice is a weird thing to bring up as an instrument of control. I mean, that's just a basic courtesy and it works both ways, doesn't it? In my 5 or so corporate jobs and my dozens upon dozens consulting gigs I have always been give the courtesy of at least two weeks notice and it's helped me transition to a new job, line up a new gig, etc.
posted by rada at 8:49 AM on May 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
1) Unemployment insurance is... insurance, so the rates do go up when you use it, just like auto or rental insurance. But the rate increase is minuscule (especially compared to the costs of carrying a bad or underperforming employee) so it's not a thing employers generally worry about. I've lived through 3 layoffs myself and nobody's ever mentioned or even hinted that I should not be filing for unemployment. For what it's worth 2 layoffs offered a severance that was not contingent on not filing for unemployment.
2) "Don't discuss your salary" always gets talked about as a control thing but it's... not that simple. Take my company - we implemented a transparent compensation structure where everyone knows what everyone else is making; there is a base salary that's about 30% of the total and the other 70% is made up of commissions tied directly to sales. Our employees make TWICE the industry average and/or what they were making in the job immediately preceding their current job and/or just the average salary in my city, and boy they complain about it. As it turns out, people want to be paid more than other people moreso than they want to be paid highly but the same as others. (I am not speculating, this is what everyone actually says come review time.)
3) 2 weeks notice is a weird thing to bring up as an instrument of control. I mean, that's just a basic courtesy and it works both ways, doesn't it? In my 5 or so corporate jobs and my dozens upon dozens consulting gigs I have always been give the courtesy of at least two weeks notice and it's helped me transition to a new job, line up a new gig, etc.
posted by rada at 8:49 AM on May 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
I quit a long-held job and went to a new employer. Terrible decision! Was laid off pretty quickly, like under 6 months, and filed for unemployment. To my surprise, my previous employer was responsible for the cost of my benefits because of my short tenure with the new employer, and contacting them for verification held up my claim for a couple of weeks. Not sure why it is set up like this (Pennsylvania) but that was the case for me. So I guess there are logistical and responsibility differences among states.
posted by citygirl at 9:07 AM on May 3, 2018
posted by citygirl at 9:07 AM on May 3, 2018
« Older What is best in turn-based strategy games? | I want to work in affordable and sustainable... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
That said, though, I've never heard the common knowledge of "don't file for unemployment unless you have a damn good reason" - I've heard "companies will try to screw you over and contest it" but not that you should stop from doing it it you have a legitimate claim. It's part of the cost of doing business to employers.
posted by brainmouse at 1:40 PM on May 2, 2018 [16 favorites]