Protecting companies from hourly employees
-
@scottalanmiller I'm not the one making wild claims about employment / unemployment without any proof to back it up. You've stated your opinion without backing it up with any real facts. You muddy the discussion by throwing in layoffs when it doesn't apply to the discussion.
-
Likewise, if you don't arrange with someone for when they need to return to work (end of furlough) whether it is the next day, next week, next month... they are under zero obligation to return and have zero obligation to give notice. Failure to return under that condition is not quitting, it is failure to agree to re-hire.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller I'm not the one making wild claims about employment / unemployment without any proof to back it up. You've stated your opinion without backing it up with any real facts. You muddy the discussion by throwing in layoffs when it doesn't apply to the discussion.
I provided citation and obvious logic as to how it works. Nothing even slightly wild in what I am saying. Not even kinda. Layoffs absolutely apply because we are talking about employees who have been sent home. The muddying comes from trying to make a new special case that does not exist in the US. I can't provide a citation to the obvious because you are asking for something that does not exist. If your claim is true, you'd be able to find a citation of it.
-
What do you call "Sending someone home and not allowing them to work until you agree to take them back?"
I call it a lay off, you call it "different things depending on criteria that you've not provided." What makes one thing a shift and another a lay off? How do you define one from the other? If you believe this to be true, you must have a definition that explains how this works. To me, this is all one thing. I can't tell how the same action is one thing in one case and another in another.
As an employee that has been sent home at the end of the day and has been through layoffs, I can assure you that to an employee it is all exactly the same - sent home and unable to work until they let you back.
-
No special case given for "only a few hours or days."
-
When, at the end of the day, I am temporarily discharged from work that meets every criteria of the word layoff, as well as any employment law description I have ever seen of it.
-
@scottalanmiller You may want to look into the difference between a layoff and a furlough.
-
What do you call someone that works an 8-5 shift M-F? In my world, that would be gainfully employed.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
What do you call someone that works an 8-5 shift M-F? In my world, that would be gainfully employed.
Yes, that's a handy way of speaking about it and people do that all the time. But I believe that it is inaccurate. It's a fuzzy term that we use to describe someone with regular work, but I believe that it is inaccurate. What do you call someone who is on furlough, not being paid, for months at a time? Are they gainfully employed?
-
@scottalanmiller Clearly not.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller You may want to look into the difference between a layoff and a furlough.
Right, furlough is a type of lay off that has an agreed upon return time, didn't I describe that earlier? I've shown without doubt, I believe, both in employment and in language, that furloughs are a form of lay off and that being sent home at the end of a shift when the next shift is known is a form of furlough and without a known next shift is not, but both are lay offs. What am I missing?
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller Clearly not.
Then what makes one one thing and one another, when both are the same in every conceivable way except an arbitrary delineation of time. I asked you this one earlier - if you use time to differentiate employed from unemployed, what is that time? How many hours before things switch by your rules? In my world, it's a general case and the same rules apply everywhere. You keep stating that there are special cases, but you've not provided what the rules are that define your cases. Provide those and we can discuss. Until you do, I can't even tell when you think people are employed and when you think that they are not. Literally, I'm not trying to push the point, I truly can't tell when you would describe people as one or the other.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Yes, that's a handy way of speaking about it and people do that all the time. But I believe that it is inaccurate. It's a fuzzy term that we use to describe someone with regular work, but I believe that it is inaccurate. What do you call someone who is on furlough, not being paid, for months at a time? Are they gainfully employed?
IMO, your logic would only apply to a day laborer.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Yes, that's a handy way of speaking about it and people do that all the time. But I believe that it is inaccurate. It's a fuzzy term that we use to describe someone with regular work, but I believe that it is inaccurate. What do you call someone who is on furlough, not being paid, for months at a time? Are they gainfully employed?
IMO, your logic would only apply to a day laborer.
Why only day laborers? And what makes someone a day laborer compared to a normal hourly employee?
-
@scottalanmiller A furlough isn't a layoff. The employee continues to work, just at a reduced rate (number of hours, pay rate, etc).
-
From my understanding of day laborer, you work for the day and there is no promise of work tomorrow. That applies to a huge number of hourly people. You leave your shift at the hotel (this applies to where I used to work) or restaurant (also applies) and there is no promise of another shift, at least not much of the time. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller A furlough isn't a layoff. The employee continues to work, just at a reduced rate (number of hours, pay rate, etc).
No, they don't. I've been furloughed before and it can be months without work. They "continue to work" when they return to work. Some furloughs are reductions in hours, but the term furlough does not imply that. Furlough means "break" basically. I know thousands of hourly workers that have done furloughs and not one had reduced hours unless you call weeks or months without work "reduced hours", which many people do.
-
@scottalanmiller you are being obtuse here. Normal hourly employees are scheduled for a week or more in advance. There is no not knowing.
If a place treats you like that, legal or not, they would quickly lose employees.
-
What made it a furlough was that there was a definite end date to the furlough. The "reduction of hours" to zero stopped on a known date, agreed upon before the furlough began. Exactly the same as leaving a shift on Friday night and coming back on Monday morning. Just it was ten Mondays later instead of one, nothing else different.
-
@JaredBusch said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller you are being obtuse here. Normal hourly employees are scheduled for a week or more in advance. There is no not knowing.
Almost no fast food, hotels or similar jobs reliably do that. It's extremely common for jobs to have no promise of your next shift. We are not all so affluent to forget what blue collar work is like. I have a friend who literally went through this this week. She works inside a Walmart, her schedule goes up "same day". How many people do you know have said that they have to "call in" for their hours. That term exists specifically for people who went home without having been told yet when they will work again.
Nearly everyone making under $35K that I know of faces this.
