• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Unemployment Benefits issue

B

brifi8500

Guest
Here's a question some may want answered:

How dramatically can an employer cut one's income before they can qualify for unemployment benefits?
 
I dont think you can get Unemployment benefits if your currently employed. ???
 
Big E said:
I dont think you can get Unemployment benefits if your currently employed. ???
Click to expand...

So that means, theoretically, an employer can cut your pay from $75,000 per year to $2,000 per year---and you are still considered employed?
 
Is this a hypothetical? Did you have a contract or work agreement? Were terminated from one job and offered another at the lower rate (and did you go from employee to free-lance status with loss of benefits)?

If this is a real issue, you probably should be asking a lawyer. Employers can do most anything they are allowed to get away with.
 
California is an At Will state (as many other states are as well) which means you don't have a ball and chain attached to your leg. Your employer can pay you what they want to IF you'll accept it. If you don't like it, you leave. Then the employer has to find someone who will work for what the market will bear.

In the theoretical example of $75K down to $2K, an employer would be taking the chance you'll leave.
But they probably wouln't find anyone willing to work for peanuts. In today's radio world, most would do what KOST and others do... Increase the times of the shifts or eliminate AT ala Jack.
 
SO what happens when you find the replacement got hired for $85,000 and the reduction in your pay was just a ploy to get you to quit so they wouldn't have to fire you and allow you to collect from the unemployment money pool you and they have paid into over the years? It wasn't a budget issue, it was a YOU issue.

At that point I would think any good lawyer would be spouting words like "hostile work enviroment". It's like having an office job and showing up to find your desk is now in the hall, your chair has been sold, your pc no longer turns on and the light bulbs are all blown. If the work situation has been altered by those in power to make it impossible to complete your duties and/or survive just so they can avoid the inconvenience of having to fire you, I say choke the financial life out of them at any opportunity.
 
Mr. Marx and SuperRadioFan have it correct.

A hostile work environment has no relation to what you are paid as an employee or any change in that salary no matter what. It relates solely to comments, discussion, harassment, language, berating, off-color remarks, etc. mad to, buy others in the workplace, not specifically applied to you.

As an "at-will" state and without a specific employment contract pertaining to your specific job services, you can be let go at any time for any reason. Changing salary is not protected, unless by contract ... and even then, if renegotiated by one or the other parties.

You do not get unemployment unless you are actually unemployed. You make no money and were terminated from your job. You quit, you lose. And getting a lawyer is not as easy as it looks and they do not take labor law on contingency ... you pay for it.

If you are terminated for someone making more money than you ... there's nothing wrong with that. They, in the eyes of an employer, may be seen as more worthwhile for the job offered and there might be another job description. Secondly you finding out that someone made more money than you doesn't happen.

If you were fired and someone came in to make less money than you, that's legal, too, based on seniority, job description, financial situation situation. Nothing wrong with that.

Now, if the job is open between you and to someone else and someone is hired at a lower rate for the same job ... you can then file for, possibly, job discrimination if you fall within the protected areas of "race, creed, color, sexual orientation, religion or nation origin." It is your job to prove discrimination and that is not cheap.

If you accept employment, including a job down the road that you may feel that you don't want to do, you either do it or quit. If you have a specific contract or work agreement, you may challenge that added work with the employer, but all they have to do is rewrite the agreement. Whether you accept it or not is up to you.

Again, as for the original question -- an employer can cut your salary to "$0" before you become eligible for unemployment insurance and, in any case, you'd be out the door because they have to terminate you. If they cut your salary to "$0" and you stay, that won't happen, by law. You'll be kicked to the curb. Ploys are legal, incidentally. It's all about how it affects you in the end.
 
The $75K to $2 cut would not pass the muster of the minimum wage laws. Even a salaried employee is covered under the minimum wage requirement. If they cut your hours below 30, you would be considered part-time in most states and I suspect that could be equal to a termintion and you would qualify for Unemployment Benefits.

Talk to your state's employment office for a clarification in your particular case.
 
Yes, ploys are legal, I'm just delving into the possibilities. I don't agree that an extreme cut in wages could not be creatively contrued into a hostile enviroment especially if you are looking at a long time employee with a good history. OJ is golfing, Robert Blake is probably watching a Baretta rerun right now and America has to be warned that coffee is served hot...ANYTHING is possible in our courts and if you can paint a potentially profitable picture for an attorney, they will see the merits of the case.
 
I used to work in the unemployment office in Missouri. When you read this, keep the following three factors in mind:

(1) Missouri is Missouri, not California or any other state. Unemployment is a federally mandated program, but the laws are not necessarily consistent from state-to-state.
(2) I worked with businesses, not workers. My experience on actually determining who could draw unemployment is limited to the scenario questions I had on my merit test for the job. So, don't interpret what I say as gospel or legal advice.
(3) Your mileage will probably vary. Many different factors can affect even the easiest case.

In Missouri, one of the reasons you can be disqualified from receiving unemployment is if you refuse suitable work. That work offer does not have to be from the employer who laid you off. The claims deputy will determine whether an offer is suitable.

I remember a few years before I got that job when I was working for an AC station. We were getting rid of our nighttime jock and replacing her with Delilah. She was offered a slight pay increase and middays at the station. She said she couldn't take that position because she had just had a baby, and the new offer actually amounted to a $10,000 pay cut because she would have an added daycare expense. She used that same argument when filing unemployment and collected it for several months until a new night jock job opened up across town. In other words, the company's offer was not considered suitable.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom