Employment questions

[Richard]

A friend has a unique problem which will have significant financial impact in in the near future.

First, this is in California at a union shop. There is a current contract which is not to expire during the time of closure. The place of business is a major hotel and restaurant.

The employer will close the place of employment for six weeks beginning early August. Purpose of closure is to allow for extensive interior remodeling. The employer has denied any attempt by employees and/or union reps in negotiations for economic relief. The employer has told all union employees that any claim for unemployment insurance will be denied by said employer. Employer offers that employees may take accrued vacation time or sick leave for those weeks. My friend was not able to answer my question if PTO exists and if so can it be used. I am unfamiliar with the union contract.

My friend has said he has heard from mgmt. that the employer will refuse further negotiations. He thinks the union is likely to NOT offer any financial help.

My most immediate question is what of those employees who do not have sufficient accrued vacation time or sick time?

Additional question;
Can an employer dictate when an employee use vacation time?
Can an employer dictate when an employee use sick time?
Can a employer be the cause of loss of employment (closure) yet also deny UI?

 

[RJM62]

I think someone who is familiar with California law will have to answer this one.

In New York, there would be no requirement for the employer to pay during the shutdown, so if they're offering to allow employees to use accrued sick / personal / vacation days during that period, that would be allowable. But they wouldn't be able to prevent the employees from filing for UI if they had no such time accrued.

-Rich

 

[jhausch]

Is finding new work an option?

 

[dans2992]

Our company often mandates PTO be taken (by the hourly folks) for certain plant shutdowns around the holidays.

 

[weilke]

He needs to talk to his union rep. The rep will fix evrything. That is at least what he said when it was time to join the union.

 

[ARFlyer]

Here in AR employers can mandate PTO/Vacation usage. I know my mother normally takes off every Wednesday in the summer to burn off vacation time.

But then again vacation/PTO isn't required to be given by the employer. E.g. I do not have PTO or benefits.

So I'd say take the PTO and get paid for as much of the shutdown as possible. Is it possible to find a temp job for six weeks?

 

[Everskyward]

Just because the employer denies UI doesn't mean the employee can't fight it. The outcome would be based on California law. On the other hand, if the employee wants his or her job back at the end of the six weeks maybe that would not be the smart course to take. Where does the union fit in all this?

 

[Sac Arrow]

A friend has a unique problem which will have significant financial impact in in the near future.

First, this is in California at a union shop. There is a current contract which is not to expire during the time of closure. The place of business is a major hotel and restaurant.

The employer will close the place of employment for six weeks beginning early August. Purpose of closure is to allow for extensive interior remodeling. The employer has denied any attempt by employees and/or union reps in negotiations for economic relief. The employer has told all union employees that any claim for unemployment insurance will be denied by said employer. Employer offers that employees may take accrued vacation time or sick leave for those weeks. My friend was not able to answer my question if PTO exists and if so can it be used. I am unfamiliar with the union contract.

My friend has said he has heard from mgmt. that the employer will refuse further negotiations. He thinks the union is likely to NOT offer any financial help.

My most immediate question is what of those employees who do not have sufficient accrued vacation time or sick time?

It's a temporary layoff then, no wages or benefits.

Additional question;
Can an employer dictate when an employee use vacation time?

Employers can restrict the vacation time in certain cases for workload scheduling, but cannot deny it, except if accrual exceeds some established policy standard.

Can an employer dictate when an employee use sick time?

No, but an employer may allow an employee to use accrued sick time in lieu of unpaid time off if it wishes.

Can a employer be the cause of loss of employment (closure) yet also deny UI?

Interesting question since in California the insurance is provided through the State, not the employer. It's a qualified "no" except that the employer is responsible for verifying the status of non-employment with the State. I don't know right offhand if a six week temporary layoff constitutes "full or partial unemployment" per the EDD's standards but if the employer does not believe it does, they may not want to get in trouble for supporting false claims.

The bottom line is the employer can, subject to the terms of the union agreement, terminate employment permanently or temporarily as long as it is an "at will" employer (and a hotel/restaurant will be.)

They may, but are not required, to allow the employee to use accrued vacation and/or sick leave to provide pay and accrual during the gap.

No different than a contractor. They go to the union hall, hire laborers for a job on a temporary basis, and send the employees back to the union hall when the job is finished.

 

[kkoran]

It appears California law allows employers to require employees use vacation time in lieu of unemployment if they are told when they will return to work.

How does vacation pay and holiday pay affect my eligibility to receive unemployment insurance benefits?

Vacation pay or holiday may be deducted from your benefits. It will depend on whether or not you have been given a definite date to return to work at the time you were placed on layoff status:

• If you are not given a definite date to return to work, any vacation pay or holiday pay paid to you when your job ends is not deducted from your weekly benefit amount.
• If you are given a definite date to return to work, any vacation or holiday pay for the period of the temporary layoff is deductible from your benefits. The Department will allocate vacation and holiday pay as follows:
  

• Vacation pay will be allocated to the number of days you requested vacation or to the number of days your employer required you to use as vacation during the temporary layoff.

• Holiday pay that is paid before you return to work will be allocated to the week(s) in which the holiday(s) fall. Holiday pay that is paid after you return to work will be allocated to the week that you return to work.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/...ibilitytoreceiveunemploymentinsurancebenefits

 

[ateamer]

The union will be all over it. All he needs to do is call his labor rep.

 

[Sac Arrow]

It appears California law allows employers to require employees use vacation time in lieu of unemployment if they are told when they will return to work.


http://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/...ibilitytoreceiveunemploymentinsurancebenefits

More accurately, it becomes a deductible benefit if it isn't used.

 

[Henning]

A friend has a unique problem which will have significant financial impact in in the near future.

First, this is in California at a union shop. There is a current contract which is not to expire during the time of closure. The place of business is a major hotel and restaurant.

The employer will close the place of employment for six weeks beginning early August. Purpose of closure is to allow for extensive interior remodeling. The employer has denied any attempt by employees and/or union reps in negotiations for economic relief. The employer has told all union employees that any claim for unemployment insurance will be denied by said employer. Employer offers that employees may take accrued vacation time or sick leave for those weeks. My friend was not able to answer my question if PTO exists and if so can it be used. I am unfamiliar with the union contract.

My friend has said he has heard from mgmt. that the employer will refuse further negotiations. He thinks the union is likely to NOT offer any financial help.

My most immediate question is what of those employees who do not have sufficient accrued vacation time or sick time?

Additional question;
Can an employer dictate when an employee use vacation time?
Can an employer dictate when an employee use sick time?
Can a employer be the cause of loss of employment (closure) yet also deny UI?

And the Market Says...."**** You, starve you peon ****."

What do state laws say? Call Jackobey and Meyers or whomever. Get a legal opinion as to whether they can legally deny the claim against unemployment. If they are violating the law, sue the **** out of them.

 

[Henning]

It appears California law allows employers to require employees use vacation time in lieu of unemployment if they are told when they will return to work.


http://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/...ibilitytoreceiveunemploymentinsurancebenefits

It says that if you have that time available, it will be deducted from you UI benefit. The company is stepping over the line saying they will deny the UI claim.

 

[us AAirways]

Didn't save any of his money?? I would be jumping for joy having a six week vacation, but I have a savings account.

 

[Henning]

Didn't save any of his money?? I would be jumping for joy having a six week vacation, but I have a savings account.

Not everybody gets paid enough to have a savings account. Many people are lucky to get by with their pay supplemented by food stamps.

 

[weilke]

He should probably file for UI and state 'lack of work' as the reason for the layoff. Heck, I had hourly staff file when their variable hours dropped to 24 from the usual 35.
The union taking his dues but giving him the middle finger when he needs them is another problem alltogether.

 

[Sac Arrow]

It says that if you have that time available, it will be deducted from you UI benefit. The company is stepping over the line saying they will deny the UI claim.

The company can't "deny" UI claims. It can only verify employment status, salary, length of employment, accrued vacation and sick leave, and promised return dates.

If the company has some sort of third party UI insurance that might be different but that certainly wouldn't be standard.

 

[Richard]

Didn't save any of his money?? I would be jumping for joy having a six week vacation, but I have a savings account.

Your speculation is noted. Said friend is indeed pretty well off. What he doesn't like is someone telling him to take it and like it, and btw, you might want to bring Vaseline but you have to provide that.

 

[Richard]

Thank you to everyone who had something more than smartass.

 

[Richard]

The union taking his dues but giving him the middle finger when he needs them is another problem alltogether.

That is not uncommon at all. In my experiences with three different labor unions I would say this behavior is typical.

 

[weilke]

That is not uncommon at all. In my experiences with three different labor unions I would say this behavior is typical.

At the very least, the union should do a good job in informing the workers about the situation, bring out a labor lawyer to go over the UI formalities etc. I dont know how Cali UI works, but everywhere else, I have worked with the system the employer can't 'deny' UI (I wish). They can dispute the reason for the layoff stated by the worker and it goes to a hearing. If the employers rep doesn't show up for the hearing, the UI is granted.

 

[RJM62]

At the very least, the union should do a good job in informing the workers about the situation, bring out a labor lawyer to go over the UI formalities etc. I dont know how Cali UI works, but everywhere else, I have worked with the system the employer can't 'deny' UI (I wish). They can dispute the reason for the layoff stated by the worker and it goes to a hearing. If the employers rep doesn't show up for the hearing, the UI is granted.

And how do you know they haven't done that, or the substantial equivalent? Legally, there's really nothing the union can do other than inform the members of their right to file for UI, because the company is within their legal rights in other respects.

Neither is a union expected to pay members' wages when they're laid off in return for the members having paid dues. In fact, because of federal laws regulating what unions can and cannot due with members' dues, most discretionary "benevolence" or "emergency relief" funds administered by unions are funded by voluntary contributions -- not member dues. Unless they have such a dedicated fund that has received adequate contributions to fund such a large expense, such a large discretionary expenditure from a dues-funded account would almost certainly be illegal -- especially since the employees have the vacation pay available to them and are eligible to apply for UI (despite the employer's assertion to the contrary).

So again, other than advising the members of their right to apply for UI (which really doesn't require an attorney), what exactly is the union supposed to be doing? Picketing? Staging a wildcat? Burning the place to the ground? What do you suggest?

OP's friend claims the union "won't do anything" for him. I don't know OP's friend, but my hunch is that what he means by that is something along the lines of, "The union won't give me a handout for six weeks to compensate for my being too stupid to save money for a rainy day." Or possibly, "I hate the fact that the company is forcing me to use my vacation time! I think the union should make the mean old company pay me for sitting on my ass for six weeks -- even though the union has no legal way to do that!"

Unions have to contend with their share of crybabies, too.

Of course, I know that none of this matters to you nor to the other union-haters for whom any opportunity to defame unions is a good one -- even if it happens to be bull****. The fact of the matter is that based on what is known about this case, there is nothing the union can do other than inform the members of their right to file for UI.

-Rich

 

[weilke]

The fact of the matter is that based on what is known about this case, there is nothing the union can do other than inform the members of their right to file for UI.

That's what I said, right ?

Did I ask for the union to pay them a wage during the layoff ? I dont think I did.

In my experience as a former unionized employee they are blood sucking parasites who dont do a damn thing when you need them. But that's just my experience, yours may be different.

 

[RJM62]

That's what I said, right ?

Did I ask for the union to pay them a wage during the layoff ? I dont think I did.

In my experience as a former unionized employee they are blood sucking parasites who dont do a damn thing when you need them. But that's just my experience, yours may be different.

Here's what you said. Here are all three of your prior posts:

He needs to talk to his union rep. The rep will fix evrything. That is at least what he said when it was time to join the union.

He should probably file for UI and state 'lack of work' as the reason for the layoff. Heck, I had hourly staff file when their variable hours dropped to 24 from the usual 35.
The union taking his dues but giving him the middle finger when he needs them is another problem alltogether.

At the very least, the union should do a good job in informing the workers about the situation, bring out a labor lawyer to go over the UI formalities etc. I dont know how Cali UI works, but everywhere else, I have worked with the system the employer can't 'deny' UI (I wish). They can dispute the reason for the layoff stated by the worker and it goes to a hearing. If the employers rep doesn't show up for the hearing, the UI is granted.

In each post, you made it a point to take a stab at the union.

Did the union decide to close the plant for six weeks?

Did the union decide to compel the workers to use their sick / personal / vacation days during the renovation?

Did the union lie to the workers about their right to file for UI?

Did the union write the state's UI laws that require that accrued benefits be deducted from UI payments?

Nope. The union had nothing to do with any of those decisions. Not a damn thing. Nor would the employees' situation be any different were it a non-union shop. The company is within their legal rights. The union doesn't have a case. There is nothing they can legally do.

You, on the other hand, couldn't can't pass up an opportunity to take your stabs at the "blood sucking parasite" unions -- no matter that the fact that it's a union shop is clearly irrelevant to the question of what OP's friend's options are.

But hey, everyone's entitled to their opinions. I just like to toss some facts in the mix once in a while.

-Rich

 

[weilke]

In each post, you made it a point to take a stab at the union.

Can't pass up an opportunity like that.

Nor would the employees' situation be any different were it a non-union shop.

The employee would be in a better position as he would have more savings not having a percentage of his income diverted into union coffers for decades.

Lets say you make the median US income and are a member of SEIU, $867 per year go to the union. Had he saved up that amount for the past 10 years, he would have an extra $12,000 to cover his living expenses during the 6 week layoff. Over a 30 year career, it would have added about 100k to his retirement.

You, on the other hand, couldn't can't pass up an opportunity to take your stabs at the "blood sucking parasite" unions -- no matter that the fact that it's a union shop is clearly irrelevant to the question of what OP's friend's options are.

The union is in place to negotiate the relationship between the employees and the employer and to represent the interests of the employees. A represented employee should not be in a situation where he has to piece together his rights in a labor dispute from independent sources.

 

[RJM62]

Can't pass up an opportunity like that.

The employee would be in a better position as he would have more savings not having a percentage of his income diverted into union coffers for decades.

Lets say you make the median US income and are a member of SEIU, $867 per year go to the union. Had he saved up that amount for the past 10 years, he would have an extra $12,000 to cover his living expenses during the 6 week layoff. Over a 30 year career, it would have added about 100k to his retirement.

The union is in place to negotiate the relationship between the employees and the employer and to represent the interests of the employees. A represented employee should not be in a situation where he has to piece together his rights in a labor dispute from independent sources.

Gee, you're just brimming over with bull**** today, aren't you?

I hate to mess up your canned rhetoric (well... actually, I don't), but you conveniently overlooked the difference in wages received by union members versus non-union members. Feel free to do the math yourself, but it averages out to roughly $10,400 a year -- more than enough to offset the $867.00 / year in union dues that you quoted.

Assuming a 7 percent rate of return, investing that additional union income would add about a million to his retirement fund.

Such inconvenient things, those facts...

-Rich

 

[weilke]

I hate to mess up your canned rhetoric (well... actually, I don't), but you conveniently overlooked the difference in wages received by union members versus non-union members. Feel free to do the math yourself, but it averages out to roughly $10,400 a year -- more than enough to offset the $867.00 / year in union dues that you quoted.

Mh, the fallacy of applying global data to a individual situation. Most of the 'union premium' melts away once the data is corrected for tenure and size of employer.

I guess that is what happens if you grow up on a diet of canned union rhetoric.

Locally, the union put workers out of work for 22 months. 900 out of 1300 lost their job over a petty dispute which in the end the union had to concede. So full of win, looks like the 900 got their dues worth.

 

[RJM62]

Mh, the fallacy of applying global data to a individual situation. Most of the 'union premium' melts away once the data is corrected for tenure and size of employer.

I guess that is what happens if you grow up on a diet of canned union rhetoric.

Locally, the union put workers out of work for 22 months. 900 out of 1300 lost their job over a petty dispute which in the end the union had to concede. So full of win, looks like the 900 got their dues worth.

So in other words, you want your undocumented, unverifiable anecdotes to trump objective, verifiable data? Talk about logical fallacies!

Have it your way. I'm done. Had you just said, "I don't like unions," and left it at that, I would have shrugged and moved on to the next post, anyway. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one need feel compelled to justify it. It's an opinion, nothing more.

But like most people who don't like unions, you didn't leave it at that. You didn't merely express an opinion. You made broad, sweeping, slanderous allegations that you couldn't back up with concrete data; and when concrete data was presented by way of refutation, you attempted to dismiss it using vague, non-specific, and therefore unverifiable anecdotal accounts.

I won't respond in kind. Yes, I joined my first union when I was 14 -- voluntarily and of my own accord (it wasn't mandatory for part-time employees) -- and I have no regrets. Over the years, I've accumulated a knowledge of unions, union history, union procedures, and labor law that probably exceeds the sum total of most of the pilots on this forum, including some of the lawyers who don't specialize in labor law. So if I'm going to respond, it's going to be with facts, not anecdotes.

But if those facts are going to be waved off in favor of anecdotes of dubious veracity, then there's not much point in presenting them. There's no fun in a debate when your opponent arrives unprepared.

-Rich

 

[weilke]

So in other words, you want your undocumented, unverifiable anecdotes to trump objective, verifiable data? Talk about logical fallacies!

'Objective data' that lumps a lot of things that dont belong together into one pot.

Unions are strongest in larger corporations and in parts of the US with the highest cost of living. Break down the data to the local level, comparably sized corporations and employees with similar tenure and the union premium pretty much melts away.

Just look at the car industry. Non-unionized workers at the japanese managed plants in the US now make more than UAW workers on the 'new' contract.