If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
NetJets Layoff
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message ps.com... I've seen the system in action (in Iowa and Wisconsin), and it is a farce. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable. Then you just aren't answering the forms correctly. One of my duties is fighting unemployment claims on behalf of our clients. If you answer correctly and keep your ducks in a row the claims are usually refused when they should be. I do this for clients in several states. Most states deny UI claims if the employee quit or was terminated for misconduct. I would have thought so, too -- but it wasn't the case for us. Now, admittedly, as an employer I have a sample of one (1) person who has ever claimed unemployment against me (that's in three different businesses, from the 1980s till the present) -- but the experience left a bitter, bitter taste in my mouth. 1. Our employee gave a one YEAR advance notice to quit. (His "notice" slipped out at his wedding reception, which we were attending, when it was announced by his new father-in-law that the bride and groom were going to be moving out of state. Needless to say, our employee was deeply embarrassed by the way this came to light.) 2. Fast forward one year later. At the same time as his one year running out, we switched businesses, from newspapers to the hotel. I did everything I could to make sure that he had work right up till the end of his time -- even creating work for him -- so that he could have employment right up until he moved to Florida. 3. Upon arriving in Florida, he filed for Iowa unemployment, claiming that his job had been "eliminated". 4. I fought it, and explained what happened to anyone who would listen, including the administrative judge. Simple facts didn't matter to this bureacratic nightmare of a "judge", my former friend and employee won -- and I'm STILL paying for it in the form of higher unemployment taxes, four years later. The system sucks. (I can tell you many more examples of acquaintances who have scammed the unemployment system over the years...) -- [Playing Unemployment Appeals Judge] Mr. Honeck, was there work available for the claimant at your firm . After the termination? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
NetJets Layoff
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Everyone. All this talk about "right to work" and "helpless employees" is ridiculous. As a former union rep (yes I'm aware unions are not perfect), it is vital to understand that workers have many rights they are not aware of. Both Federal and State law protects workers in a variety of ways. Employers know that and go to great lengths through HR departments to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. They are fully aware that they must comply with protocols when terminating or laying off employees. I know about the recent NetJets situation. A close friend was let go in a similar manner that has been described. Let me tell you that NetJets is completely out of line with the way they are handling this. And most important, they are not following Bombardier's own procedures; which is the parent company. Forget Berkshire right now. Bombardier has oversight when it comes to NetJets. Yes, they are a Canadian company. I can assure you, however, that they would be shocked at how these layoffs/reduction in workforce are being handled. NetJets operates like a Mom and Pop operation with an HR department filled with amateurs. They rule by threat and intimidation. To say that workers operate in a hostile work environment is an understatement. Is it all bad? Of course not. But it is clear that NetJets has profound internal problems having been latched on to the big boys without itself evolving into a sophisticated corporate structure. I believe strongly that a "class action" law suit should be entertained by all those currently suffering under this reduction in workforce. It is being handled in a manner not conducive to conventional HR policy or protocols. Moreover, Federal and State laws might have been violated with regard to age discrimination in certain cases. All of this must be looked into. The press needs to shine a spot light on this to get things going. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
resume flying after 25 year layoff | David Banahan | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | September 21st 04 06:18 PM |