Pay cut or redundancy?

Remove all ads!

Having a job, even a low salary one, should ALWAYS provide for better private economy than going on welfare.

That is true, but in today's whiny welfare culture, wherein there are a lot of dirtbags who rip off the system with their sob stories, it can sometimes be that a better income is made by NOT working.

I've heard of people laid off from jobs that make, let's say $4,000 / month -- damn good job, right?

They get EI that gives them $3,200 / month -- fair enough, yes? They paid into the government program that gives them a boost, so why not?

They get a chance at a $2,800 / month job. IMHO they should take the job. Many of them don't, though, because it would entail a $400 / month cut in income. Why should they show any initiative? In an ideal world, the employment insurance would top up the job with $400 / month -- it'd be a lot cheaper for the employment insurance to do that. However, they end up paying out $3,200 because the guy isn't gonna bother getting a new job until his EI runs out. It's a disgrace.

 

There was a time in my younger days when I worked two lousy jobs. Now I work one for about the same amount in total. If I were to lose my job, I would go back to my two lousy jobs. There are a ton of lower-paying jobs out there, if your willing to take them. For me, taking the Unemployment would only happen if I had no other choices. I understand taking it, when you are in a bind, that's what it's there for. Not to be abused to float your lazy @$$. But to not work for more than 6 weeks, well, I would be ashamed of myself. The guilt would eat me up. I would suck it up and put on my "Ding, fries are done" pointy hat and take my minimum wage if I had too before sitting on my lazy butt, doing nothing all day. Plus, you save more when your working. Not enough idle time to blow all your dough that way.

 

I assume you're not referring to a Canadian situation. The maximum EI benefit is currently $447/week, which is about 2/3 of the $3,200/month you refer to, and is about $900 less than the new job's monthly salary of $2,800.

 

I was using hypothetical numbers to illustrate a principle. I have heard many people say that they were staying on EI or some other form of government support because it would entail a loss of income to get a job. In principle, I find that repugnant.

 

When you say "I've heard of people...", that purports to give a real example, not a hypothetical one. And while yes, going off EI may in fact involve a loss of income, the amounts involved are nowhere near as high as your example; nobody being offered a new job at $2,800/month would be taking a cut in earnings (at least not in Canada).

Nonetheless, I agree that, generally speaking, turning down a job because it pays less than EI is objectionable. However, let's say that someone earns $42,300/year, and has a standard of living (not likely extravagant) based on those earnings. Then they get laid off, and thus qualify for the max EI benefit of $447/week. Their eanings have gone down by 45%, which would be tough enough. Then they're offered a full-time job that pays minimum wage, which is probably around $350/week. Now they're looking at an overall cut of 55%, which they may not be able to afford. If they think their prospects for finding another higher-paying job before their benefits run out are reasonably good, I can't say I would blame them for turning down the minimum wage job.

 

I believe that around $400.00 a week is the max benefit here in the US. If someone would have to take a job, at say 24K a year, it probably would not help much. He/she would still more than likely lose their home, have to send their kids to live with relatives, and more than likely file bankruptcy.

You have to have some business sense to survive in a capitalistic society and make your decisions based on what it would take to achieve long term financial success. Without a long term strategy, which utilizes all available resources, you probably are going to fail anyway. All the talk about being a productive member of society and having a great work ethic is good as long as you are using those "virtues" to advance yourself:

1. Build character
2. Develop excellence
3. Achieve financial success for yourself and your family.

We have foreclosures, bankruptcies, broken homes and families by the thousands every week and neither society, nor the government gives a flip about what happens to those folks. I never see any of these big fat cats on Wall Street turning down any free money to keep themselves afloat in our "capitalist" society. While it's good to have character and a sound work ethic, don't become anyone's fool. The folks at the top of the food chain will laugh at you all the way to the bank, after they kick you out onto the street and take everything you own.

While that may be generally true, government spending on those programs can help the economy a bit:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33621222/ns/business-personal_finance/

 

Is it Aldeth the Foppish Idiot or Aldeth the Magical Diagnostician?

 

In my situation I would take the lousy job on the basis that I could get time off for interviews whenever I needed so that I could get a good job again and run off at the first opportunity. Nobody's going to hire me on that basis, especially with unemployment over 12% and massive applications for these lousy jobs. I enjoyed my time in lousy jobs during college, no responsibility (think American Beauty). But it's be a massive step back in my career if I was to take one now and that would follow through for years.

 

Martaug reminded me that benefits vary from state to state and that I misspoke on that point. Although it is a max of 406.00 here in Texas some states are quite a bit more generous. My bad.

Texas - Gotta love it!

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/bnfts/claimant1.html#benefits

 

I thought he was banned. Are you communing with dead people?

 

It is definitely the Foppish Idiot, and I certainly think that you can use a less patronizing tone, when you are in an even worse position to draw any conclusion than I am. (Although to be fair, it's not like you do this only to me - you respond that way to everyone, so maybe I shouldn't expect any special treatment.)

Look, all I can go by is what I see, and what she tells my wife. She has told me that she spends hours per day on the internet. In the afternoon, I see her outside playing soccer with her kids. She has mentioned that she would much prefer to continue collecting disability than returning to work (which implies she can - she doesn't say she feels she CANNOT return to work).

While I cannot be 100% sure, the preponderence of evidence suggests that she is capable of performing the work she used to do. Given that her previous job was a desk job, and she spends hours per day sitting at her computer the way it is, I cannot see how performing her old job would be any more physically taxing than her daily activities.

And it may all be moot at this point anyway. With the amount of time she has been out of work and the economy in the shape it is in, her old position has almost certainly been filled by someone else, and she may have a hard time finding a job elsewhere.

Now that is one heck of a severence package. Is it legally required in NZ to do that? I do not think there are many laws on the books governing that short of thing in the US. I know a guy who was a manager where he worked for 14 years. When he got laid off this summer, his severence backage was just 12 weeks. Not even a week for each year he spent with the company.

Well, the example I provided is a case in point where it is not. Granted, the guy I was talking about could not hope to get a job that would pay him around $3,000 per month. His most recent job was driving a local delivery truck. I don't know what his salary was, but it probably wasn't more than about $15 per hour. Given that he would lose out on $1400 per month in SS checks for his two kids, it is highly doubtful that a new job would make up for that plus his current unemployment benefit.

That may well be true, although I still cannot see how having unemployment as high as it is can be good for the economy. People who lose their jobs don't just spend less - a lot of them end up losing their homes. The cost to the economy of a home foreclosure (I would imagine) is a lot bigger than the loss of a salaried worker.

Well, I certainly woudln't no "nothing" either, but I hardly think I would run out to apply for a job at the local McDonalds any time soon. I would definitely put boots to pavement trying to find something that was more appropriate to my skill set.

I do think unemployment is there to help you out in a bind, and while being unemployed is not a time to be picky about where you work, I do not think you should be expected to take a job that you are clearly over-qualified for. As an example, say you worked in a bank as a mortgage consultant, and got laid off. I think it would be reasonable for that person to spend quite some time looking for another job in the banking industry (heck, even a bank teller) before you should expect that person to go flip burgers.

It's even better for the economy as a whole if that person gets back into their field. You want people performing jobs at a level appropriate to their level of experience, education, and competency, and having a mortgage consultant flipping burgers is certainly not an example of such.

 

Aldeth - It's not. I think the only point is that benefits can help the economy by preventing the things you listed.

 

With the economy falling apart as it did, after losing your job you are unlikely to find another in your field. If you do, that's wonderful, but the odds are against you. You need to look elsewhere, like the service indutries for example, where jobs are always available. Me? I would rather work 2 lower-paying jobs, to make up for my money losses, keep dignity and most imortantly, my work history would have no holes in it. This helps out in many ways, like when you're trying to get financing for that vehicle you want, refinancing your house, etc.... collecting when you are perfectly capable to work is a drain on the rest of us. In the end, it comes out of our own pockets. The more people that are collecting, the bigger hole we dig for ourselves.

 

I agree with you in principle, just not in the timeframe you listed. When you're talking about professional work, 6 weeks is a fairly short amount of time for finding a new job. A lot of places require two or more interviews, and quite honestly, 6 weeks into a job search, you're just getting started.

By working elsewhere at a low paying job, you are also hindering you ability to find another job. Now if I had not found anything after a few months, THEN I'd suck it up.

 

There's no evidence there. You can be perfectly capable of doing the above things and still be too sick to work - most obvious examples would be various mental disorders and sleep disorders.

Plus, you need the capability for sustained mental exertion when working, and browsin' the internet with no goal isn't exactly straining - nor is playing soccer with kids for a short while.

And as far as I know, there's no law in the United States demanding you give your neighbors your full medical history.

 

Most job hunting, other than McD's, is online, which you can do anytime. I did the search-for-a-job thing after moving out to the Chicago area 3 years ago. It took me almost 2 years to find the job I have now. Most companies wanted an online application filled out, at least, initially. So, the job hunting can be done at anytime for the most part, though I'm sure some fields require different things, like drug-testing, etc... I had time to cover those aspects. You're right about the interview aspect, your work can interfere, but do you care if you miss a day to go on that interview? I didn't. Crappy jobs are a dime a dozen for anyone with a decent work history. I was working as a scab with the Postal Service while searching for that job in my field(Import/Export) and went on several interviews while working there. Some bosses were pissy about it, but most understood. If your boss is that much of a jerk, well, do you really care then? I didn't as I realized I was moving on to bigger and better things.

 

But she's not on disability for mental or sleep disorders (and she has never mentioned having any), and while there is no law in the US demanding you give your neighbors your full medical history, this woman has volunteered it.

She got on disability because of a hernia, and while recovering from her hernia, her appendix ruptured. That's why I said her initial placement on disability was completely justifiable. You don't rupture your appendix and go back to work the next day, especially considering she went septic and had to be hospitalized for a while.

EDIT: She ignored the initial pain from her ruptured appendix assuming he was pain from having hernia surgery. /EDIT

I can easily see that it would take weeks - potentially even months - to recover from that. But she's been on disability for over a year, and she has told my wife that while she probably could go back to work, she doesn't see the need to so long as she keeps receiving the benefit.

It's not like I'm just making this stuff up, or this woman is trying to conceal anything. She openly admits that she would rather not have to work so long as keeps getting the disability checks.

 

If she is no longer disabled and can find work, then she is committing insurance fraud, which is illegal, if she continues to use it. They will probably catch her eventually.

That's not true any longer in some parts of the country.

 

I had someone report me for benefit fraud over Summer but luckily it went nowhere. Normally they'd withold payments until they can prove you're not claiming anything fraudulently and as they try to get information without approaching you, can take a long time to get what you are owed.

I hate it when people claim benefits without having a real reason, I've had to fight to get what I get (Disability Living Allowance plus Income Support while I am at university) and people who make jokes about me and them successfully play the system just makes me feel sick.

Hell I know for a fact my ex was bitter about the fact I got money every other week (then £43 a week) given to me and he had to go out and work

If you don't want to work - that's fine, but don't cry to others about it and expect them to pay for you. There is a world of difference between taking the easy option and being forced into a situation.

Not sure how it is in the rest of the world but six weeks out of work trying to find a job isn't long at all. Some places the recruitment period of interviews and applications of one batch of people can take months. Then again we also have Job Seekers allowance which rewards more money to those who are in the process of seeking employment and have sufficient evidence to prove they're not just turning up and leaving.

 

Slightly off-topic, but I can understand an employer getting ticked off if they find out you’re taking time off to look for another job. Depending on the position you’ve been hired for, there may be a fair amount of training involved, and unless the position is known to have high turnover, an employer has a reasonable expectation that you will be sticking around for awhile, and aren’t just using the job as a stop-gap until you find something else (unless, of course, you disclosed that fact when you were being hired).