When someone is laid off, if they qualify for unemployment, the employer actually pays part of that money (to the government, which then includes it in the check). If you're fired though some governments will deny the unemployment claim. In a similar vein, companies sometimes try to make someone so miserable they quit, also to avoid paying unemployment benefits. I think they are rolling the dice on intimidating young kids into not filing for unemployment at all, and hoping to "squash" others by forestalling any unemployment claims hoping their firees get new jobs before they get through the application / appeal process.
5 replies (most recent on top)
Sounds just like Walmart. It saddens me to speak badly of my employer, a place of work that I gave my best effort to for 19 years, only to be kicked to the curb because......
-
My time in company
-
My age, I’m 59
These changes started 10 years ago and have gradually, over the years picked up pace and now I feel helpless. If I want to work I have to accept whatever they through my way and have a happy to help attitude. Truth is Walmart is creating a silent workforce that is seething with anger and resentment. Not good for a company that wants to grow and prosper. I have very little to say about Walmart that is encouraging.
@ict Combination of PIP and firing ensures the company can fight your unemployment claim and win. I have seen firing happen out of necessity when someone in management is f---ing up, to cover for their mistakes
A company’s unemployment tax is determined by number of claims, one single claim can bump a company into a higher tax bracket. That’s why Walmart has started firing instead of laying off with severance and job hunting assistance. Relationship has turned adversarial
Every company fights the unemployment claim. Few probably win it. I know from experience
I have heard WM already fights every unemployment claim automatically.