LogFAQs > #941479027

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Is this fraud?
adjl 06/30/20 12:59:23 PM #30:	wwinterj25 posted... If they turn down suitable job offers for no reason at all other than "I don't want to" then that is making themselves unemployed but still not fraud. That's generally not enough to stay on unemployment benefits, though. Those generally come with the condition of actively seeking work, and if you're turning down suitable jobs, you can't claim to be actively seeking work (since, you know, you found it, but then didn't take it). If you've got a good reason for turning it down, sure, but the phrase "suitable job" preemptively indicates that that's not the case. Krazy_Kirby posted... and then they can be fired Most OHS legislation protects employees from being fired for refusing work that they reasonably feel is unsafe. Given how incapable much of America seems to be of following basic infection control protocols, I'd say it's pretty reasonable to feel that a public-facing job is unsafe. Krazy_Kirby posted... sounds like they should get emails/voicemails/texts saying they will be fired if they don't start coming in Making some kind of written record of the offer of work is indeed probably the best option, especially if they use multiple channels. The person can still claim to have not seen it, but if you're e-mailing, texting, and calling them multiple times, you can pretty safely fire back that they have failed to make themselves available to be contacted for work and are therefore unsuitable for the job. BlackScythe0 posted... Blame the government for giving people 2-3 times what they would make working by staying home drawing unemployment. I mean, I feel the root issue is not how much the government is giving, but rather that the amount the government has needed to give to ensure everyone's survival is so much more than they were getting paid beforehand. Unemployment being so much higher than actual wages is more a reflection of how low the wages are than how high unemployment is. Zeus posted... The issue is s* should be open. Ah yes. Infection rates are higher than ever across the country, states are breaking records for new cases every day, the president wants to halt testing (and, by extension, contact tracing) to make the numbers look better without actually solving the problem... Clearly, the pandemic has been brought well under control and it's time to start reopening everything instead of continuing to try to slow it down. Tired of stuff being closed? That's what happens when half the country insist on throwing a tantrum instead of listening to public health recommendations that have worked just fine in dozens of other countries. Now they get to safely reopen and the US doesn't. Cause, meet effect. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:941479027] in Is this fr... [t:78813354]...</cite> <quote>wwinterj25 posted... </cite> <quote>If they turn down suitable job offers for no reason at all other than "I don't want to" then that is making themselves unemployed but still not fraud.</quote> That's generally not enough to stay on unemployment benefits, though. Those generally come with the condition of actively seeking work, and if you're turning down suitable jobs, you can't claim to be actively seeking work (since, you know, you found it, but then didn't take it). If you've got a good reason for turning it down, sure, but the phrase "suitable job" preemptively indicates that that's not the case. Krazy_Kirby posted... </cite> <quote>and then they can be fired</quote> Most OHS legislation protects employees from being fired for refusing work that they reasonably feel is unsafe. Given how incapable much of America seems to be of following basic infection control protocols, I'd say it's pretty reasonable to feel that a public-facing job is unsafe. Krazy_Kirby posted... </cite> <quote>sounds like they should get emails/voicemails/texts saying they will be fired if they don't start coming in</quote> Making some kind of written record of the offer of work is indeed probably the best option, especially if they use multiple channels. The person can still claim to have not seen it, but if you're e-mailing, texting, and calling them multiple times, you can pretty safely fire back that they have failed to make themselves available to be contacted for work and are therefore unsuitable for the job. BlackScythe0 posted... </cite> <quote>Blame the government for giving people 2-3 times what they would make working by staying home drawing unemployment.</quote> I mean, I feel the root issue is not how much the government is giving, but rather that the amount the government has needed to give to ensure everyone's survival is so much more than they were getting paid beforehand. Unemployment being so much higher than actual wages is more a reflection of how low the wages are than how high unemployment is. Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>The issue is s* should be open.</quote> Ah yes. Infection rates are higher than ever across the country, states are breaking records for new cases every day, the president wants to halt testing (and, by extension, contact tracing) to make the numbers look better without actually solving the problem... Clearly, the pandemic has been brought well under control and it's time to start reopening everything instead of continuing to try to slow it down. Tired of stuff being closed? That's what happens when half the country insist on throwing a tantrum instead of listening to public health recommendations that have worked just fine in dozens of other countries. Now they get to safely reopen and the US doesn't. Cause, meet effect. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1