Unemployment Insurance Benefits
REO Speedwagon
2 Posts
Scenerio: Applicant agrees that, if hired, they will work either 1st or 2nd shift as needed, work either in the warehouse or assembly as needed, and will work for $12/hr warehouse or $11/hr assembly. They sign off on a "contract of hire".
After 6 mos. of warehouse work, inventories are low and the employer tells the employee that for the next several months he is being moved to assembly on 2nd shift. the employees quits, applies for unemployment benefits and, in 49 states, collects off the employers reserve account. Per USDOL, the contract of hire is ignored and the "new" assignment is "new work", not "continued employment" and must meet prevailing conditions. In many areas the $11/hr may be in the bottom quartile and, certainly, the 2nd shift would not meet prevailing conditions.
In Wisconsin, a circuit court and an appellant court disagreed and, for the past 8+ years, those individual refusing work within their "contract of hire" were refused benefits.
DOL has issued UIPL 41-98, specifically stating that Wisconsin is "non-conforming" and, unless we change state law to comply with a DOL administrative interpretation of the statute, they will withhold close to $1 billion in FUTA funds. Wisconsin is trying to fight DOL. State estimates are that reverting back would cost this state between $500,000 - $600,000 in additional benefits per year.
While the above scenerio especially impacts the staffing/temporary industry, it applies to all employers and would even ignore union negotiated contracts in allowing benefits.
Wisconsin would like to conform to the other 49 states but we would like to conform by having the Wisconsin courts decisions apply to the other 49 states as well.
I am using this forum as a quick method of possibly reaching other HR professionals who might be interested in learning more and, hopefully, for even very selfish reasons, lend support. Unmployment benefits should be there for those unemployed through no fault of their own, not for those able to work and choose not to.
After 6 mos. of warehouse work, inventories are low and the employer tells the employee that for the next several months he is being moved to assembly on 2nd shift. the employees quits, applies for unemployment benefits and, in 49 states, collects off the employers reserve account. Per USDOL, the contract of hire is ignored and the "new" assignment is "new work", not "continued employment" and must meet prevailing conditions. In many areas the $11/hr may be in the bottom quartile and, certainly, the 2nd shift would not meet prevailing conditions.
In Wisconsin, a circuit court and an appellant court disagreed and, for the past 8+ years, those individual refusing work within their "contract of hire" were refused benefits.
DOL has issued UIPL 41-98, specifically stating that Wisconsin is "non-conforming" and, unless we change state law to comply with a DOL administrative interpretation of the statute, they will withhold close to $1 billion in FUTA funds. Wisconsin is trying to fight DOL. State estimates are that reverting back would cost this state between $500,000 - $600,000 in additional benefits per year.
While the above scenerio especially impacts the staffing/temporary industry, it applies to all employers and would even ignore union negotiated contracts in allowing benefits.
Wisconsin would like to conform to the other 49 states but we would like to conform by having the Wisconsin courts decisions apply to the other 49 states as well.
I am using this forum as a quick method of possibly reaching other HR professionals who might be interested in learning more and, hopefully, for even very selfish reasons, lend support. Unmployment benefits should be there for those unemployed through no fault of their own, not for those able to work and choose not to.
