Tonearm - 7:41 am on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)
But if you make them mad, that gives them two weeks to storm out with an "I quit!" and then you're off the hook because they left before your notice ran out.
I'm not sure what you mean. Where do the two weeks come from?
But in any case you're not personally, out of your own pocket paying their unemployment.
I don't think that's true. I called the CA EDD about this a little while back. From what I remember, the way it works in CA is every employer has an EDD reserve account which they pay into every time they pay payroll taxes. When an unemployment claim is granted against you, the money comes out of your reserve account and you must replenish it. When the guy on the phone finished with his explanation, I said something like "so in a roundabout way, I end up paying the benefits" and he said yes.
(Uh... you have been paying into unemployment insurance haven't you? I though employers were required to. Like disability. Self-insurance is for huge companies with hundreds or thousands of workers.*)
Yes, it's part of payroll taxes in CA. It's on the same form.
Legal matters aside, if you hadn't picked up the poor performance before it got to this stage then you really do need to review your own management style.
Agreed. I need to be harder-nosed about this sort of thing I suppose. I think issuing written warnings will make a big difference.
When we've let people go, whether they've been on corrective action or not, we give two weeks pay and send them on their way (don't want someone in-house who knows the end is near).
Is the two weeks pay a requirement or do you do it to be nice?
3-6 months is a long time to wait for a small business, and they can still file (and you would have to contest their claim - sometimes a lengthy process.
Where does 3-6 months come from?
For us, the first claim was fine - the second one, however, was the painful one.
It sounds like you're dealing with an insurance company for unemployment insurance. In California it's built into payroll taxes so that's new to me.
Does the employee have a contract (written or implied)? If so, is the employer/employee relationship specified as at-will?
There is no contract, and employment is at-will as we're a US company.
I'm thinking I'll give him a written warning and require him to sign it. I won't let anything slide going forward, and if he racks up two more warnings (the third one specified as "final") he will be in last-straw territory. Then if I fire him and he claims unemployment, I will have documentation with which to dispute the claim. What do you guys think?
In the future, I'll be much quicker to use a written warning. How soon after hiring someone would you subject them to the possibility of a written warning?