Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Worthless employees & unemployment

This is topic Worthless employees & unemployment in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002129

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 11-11-2008, 10:18 AM:

Let me preface by quoting SC's first line of FAQs about unemployment:
"You must be laid off through no fault of your own."

Our GM wants to give everyone a 2nd chance... about a thousand times. The only time in 2 years at this theatre have I seen him fire someone is when they were on camera stealing money, making racist comments to a manager, or setting an indoor trash can on fire. If you don't do that, then you're fine.

With Regal its not even really firing, there's a 3 step write up process, then step 4 you notify HR, they put them on "suspension pending an investigation", the person never comes back as he's never on the schedule, then weeks later we receive word to remove them from payroll, reason terminated.

We have this one ex-box office girl so is refusing to come to work so she can get fired so she can get unemployment.

It's really got me frustrated, this girl has three step 3 write ups to her name since the beginning of summer, never shows, and still gets scheduled. She even did Regal's unforgivable blaspheme of 2 no call/no shows in a row.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when she goes into the office to try to claim unemployment when they tell her no explain if she was eligible, it'd be for half of her pay (minimum wage).

Posted by Michael McGovern (Member # 4807) on 11-11-2008, 11:00 AM:

From my time speant managing at Regal, I can tell you that the golden rule is "Handle all problems at the theatre level, do not let the Human Resources department get involved unless absolutely nescessary". Anyone who has or currently does (and if you're smart you won't admit to it) worked for Regal can attest that their HR department is BRUTAL, and is second only to maybe the Gestapo for the amount of interrogation they will put you through. It's really the most asinine way to handle disciplinary issues I've ever seen, and it's all entirely political too. If you have someone looking out for you, you're untouchable, but if if you've got people who are just going to throw you under the bus, then you might as well just quit while you're ahead. I could go on and on forever about this, but I digress. Needless to say, I'm happy not to be working for them anymore.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-11-2008, 12:50 PM:

quote: Tyler Potts
With Regal its not even really firing, there's a 3 step write up process, then step 4 you notify HR, they put them on "suspension pending an investigation", the person never comes back as he's never on the schedule, then weeks later we receive word to remove them from payroll, reason terminated.

..which keeps them from having to pay for unemployment taxes (and possible lawsuit of sorts) since being on suspension, that employee can't wait for money to come in and by a month that employee be out having another job.

Some large companies do this - not fire, but do indefinite suspensions...they're technically still employed, but just take them off of schedule for they'll soon report that they quit after finding another job.

But, do agree that I know of one company that actually 'babysits' their employees since they feel that the kids are "our future and must be guided accordingly" [Eek!]

WTF!!

-Monte

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-17-2008, 01:05 AM:

People who want a "free ride" on Unemployment tend to forget that the amount of money they get is dependent on their wage/salary history over the prior 18 months of employment, IRRC.
(Or do they look at the last 18 months and take the highest twelve? I forget, exactly.)

If they haven't worked steadily for the last 12 to 18 months they won't get very much money, if any at all. Plus, if they have only been working minimum wage, their wage history will be very low. And, as others have said, you only get a fraction of what you made when you were on the job.

I bet somebody who worked 20 hours per week for the last 12 months at minimum wage would be lucky to get $50 per week on Unemployment. And, given the usual work history of the average college or high school student (spotty at best) I bet even $50 would be a long shot.

Then, assuming your Unemployment claim is approved, how long does it take for your first check to come? Three to four weeks at the soonest. Right?

So, yeah... Threatening your boss that you will claim Unemployment is a real smart thing to do. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 11-17-2008, 01:07 PM:

If it gets out of hand file a counter claim with the unemployment board. In my retail past life I only had two people in eight years ever show up to the hearing and thus we won by default on all others.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-18-2008, 02:56 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
Or do they look at the last 18 months and take the highest twelve?

In Pennsylvania they ignore the current quarter and look back over your past five complete quarters. They base your compensation check on the highest of those five quarters. At least that's how it was the last time I was laid off...in 1982.