Layoffs By The Hour

[dgriffin]

Here's an interesting program being touted by the NY State Dept. of Labor.

The Shared Work Program "is an active approach to managing business cycles and seasonal business adjustments. It is good business (and) helps employers survive temporary
business downturns by giving them an alternative to firing full-time
workers. It makes sense to help businesses retain productive workers. Under this program, instead of cutting staff, an employer can reduce the number of hours of all workers, or just a select group. Under an approved plan, employees may collect partial Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits for up to 20 weeks. Under the current Federal Extended Benefits plan, the 20 weeks of Shared Work benefits may be extended to 40 weeks.

A Shared Work plan must include:
· a reduction in work hours between 20 and 60%
· benefits may not be used to pay employees who were
already part-time
· no reduction in fringe benefits
· no extension beyond 53 weeks

Click:
www.labor.state.ny.us/agencyinfo/PDFs/P181%20Shared%20Work%20Fact%20Sheet_12-08.pdf


Guess it depends upon which angle you view it from, but the program could be a life saver for employees about to get laid off.Or you could view it as more corporate welfare.

[frankcor]

Geee, could the legislature extend this program to state, county and school employees -- the so-called depression-proof jobs?

[clarencebunsen]

Not sure why it would be considered corporate welfare, any money from the state is paid directly to the employee, the employer must still pay full benefits for what are in effect part time employees so the cost of labor goes up.

The no reduction in benefits can become a problem. I was with a company that was on work share for 3 consecutive years in the 90's. Although the statement from the DOL says no extension beyond 53 weeks at that time re-certification amounted to filing the proper paper work.

At first 80% salary and 20% unemployment (netting 90% of full salary) was not fun but livable. When it got to 50% salary & 50% unemployment, it got a lot tougher. At the same time the no reduction in benefits clause meant paying full time benefits for half time employees and the numbers just didn't work for anyone.

[dgriffin]

CB, I would call it a form of corporate welfare, because the employee does the work for the employer and I get to pay a portion of his wages through UI benefits.

Regarding the increased cost of benefits, if I understood your example, the conclusion is that a savvy employer would not be attracted to this program.

So I pay more, the employer pays more .... lose, lose?
Oh, then there's the employee.

[Clipper]

However unfair to the general taxpayer, it has saved jobs and kept companies in our area here in Tennessee. A company that makes compressors for air conditioning units has used that method for several years. They are a MAJOR employer here, and have managed to weather the economic storm and stay in the US by laying people off for two or three weeks at a time, and shutting down production lines when orders are slow.

I would not even begin to profess that I know how the economic impact of that practice effects the individual taxpayer, but it has kept a major employer here in town for the last 4 or 5 years and is being practiced by other companies here in the south also. The company is able to stay open, and viable, and the impact on the employees is lessened. ANYTHING that keeps an employer from moving offshore, while not simply giving them a cash bailout for them to distribute among the CEO's and executive workforce, seems to be an intelligent way to stabilize the local economy, and lessen the impact of a downturn in sales.

If anyone has a REAL in depth understanding that precludes my theory that it is a smart way to do business, please put it out there for my personal education as well as that of others.

I simply have been under the impression that THIS practice would be a very viable way to work the Autoworkers situation without pandering to unions or filling the pockets of executives. I would rather my tax dollars went into the pockets of production workers than the pockets of the rich and overpaid executives and shareholders.

I am taking a licking on my 401K right now, but "bailing out" car companies is a far cry from anything that is going to turn MY stocks around. The whole idea of paying temporary UI benefits is much more sensible in my eyes than just giving bundles of money to certain privileged industrial giants and giving them free hand to spend it.

I would appreciate input from someone more educated than myself in economic issues. I found economics to be a deep and baffling subject when I took it in my first year of college, LOL.

So far I am unable to understand how the "bailouts" are going to "stimulate" ANYTHING except more debt at the federal level, and more cost to the little individual taxpayer for generations to come. The rich will get richer, and those of us that pay the bills will get poorer.

I find it disgusting that even those with the best credit ratings are having trouble getting credit at a fair rate, because of the incompetence of the bank and credit card industry's executives and their lousy judgment. Even with the present situation, I still get telemarketers trying to get me to "consolidate" and "take advantage of a one time opportunity" to subscribe to their card. At least two or three times a week, I get "pre-approved" offers to take a credit card. Don't these morons know that by giving away too many of these so called pre-approved cards to those with less than wonderful credit, is how we got into this mess to begin with.

[Deleted]

Feb 19, 2009 13:34:54 GMT -5 Clipper said:

However unfair to the general taxpayer, it has saved jobs and kept companies in our area here in Tennessee. A company that makes compressors for air conditioning units has used that method for several years. They are a MAJOR employer here, and have managed to weather the economic storm and stay in the US by laying people off for two or three weeks at a time, and shutting down production lines when orders are slow.

I would not even begin to profess that I know how the economic impact of that practice effects the individual taxpayer, but it has kept a major employer here in town for the last 4 or 5 years and is being practiced by other companies here in the south also. The company is able to stay open, and viable, and the impact on the employees is lessened. ANYTHING that keeps an employer from moving offshore, while not simply giving them a cash bailout for them to distribute among the CEO's and executive workforce, seems to be an intelligent way to stabilize the local economy, and lessen the impact of a downturn in sales.

If anyone has a REAL in depth understanding that precludes my theory that it is a smart way to do business, please put it out there for my personal education as well as that of others.

I simply have been under the impression that THIS practice would be a very viable way to work the Autoworkers situation without pandering to unions or filling the pockets of executives. I would rather my tax dollars went into the pockets of production workers than the pockets of the rich and overpaid executives and shareholders.

I am taking a licking on my 401K right now, but "bailing out" car companies is a far cry from anything that is going to turn MY stocks around. The whole idea of paying temporary UI benefits is much more sensible in my eyes than just giving bundles of money to certain privileged industrial giants and giving them free hand to spend it.

I would appreciate input from someone more educated than myself in economic issues. I found economics to be a deep and baffling subject when I took it in my first year of college, LOL.

So far I am unable to understand how the "bailouts" are going to "stimulate" ANYTHING except more debt at the federal level, and more cost to the little individual taxpayer for generations to come. The rich will get richer, and those of us that pay the bills will get poorer.

I find it disgusting that even those with the best credit ratings are having trouble getting credit at a fair rate, because of the incompetence of the bank and credit card industry's executives and their lousy judgment. Even with the present situation, I still get telemarketers trying to get me to "consolidate" and "take advantage of a one time opportunity" to subscribe to their card. At least two or three times a week, I get "pre-approved" offers to take a credit card. Don't these morons know that by giving away too many of these so called pre-approved cards to those with less than wonderful credit, is how we got into this mess to begin with.

Today, I checked out my c.c. account statement that I have with Citibank. To my surprise & chagrin, they raised my credit line from $9,000.00 to $16,200.00! I have no explanation as to why, other than the fact that I have good credit. Or, they're trying to hook me, which is more likely. But, I'm not biting. I don't even carry the card with me. It stays at home. I owe them about 3 grand which I am paying off as much as I can each month. No way am I gonna be on the hook for 16 grand on a credit card.

[dgriffin]

As soon as they realized you were paying off the debt, they called a meeting of bank executives and decided to entice you into charging more, because the interest you pay is the way they make their profits. So don't be a spoil sport, charge more so that they can get their bonuses.

[frankcor]

Are you sure that wasn't your interest rate they increased to 16000?

[dgriffin]

Feb 18, 2009 10:53:33 GMT -5 frankcor said:

Geee, could the legislature extend this program to state, county and school employees -- the so-called depression-proof jobs?

I just read something over the weekend where a state employee (was it the DMV?) was cut 9 hours per week. She said she and her co workers would probably wind up working the time for free, but were getting a pay cut.
Has anyone heard of this?
I'll keep looking.

[lrtill]

I am once again among the unemployed! Since there is no work in my field, I tried something different where I could use my management/administrative skills, however the organization gave me no training, left me on my own when both my boss and co-worker were out sick and then when the boss came back she assigned me to a task I had no idea how to do and seemed to me to be earmarked for someone with a LOT more experience with the agency. When I questioned my ability to take on this task and the appropriateness of it for someone in my position, they decided I was not a good fit and they were going to "cut their Losses" and let me go. Sheeeeesh.....the nerve!

[frankcor]

Bummer, Irtill. Time to dust off that resume and hit the job-hunting trail. Good luck!

[dgriffin]

Mar 11, 2009 19:01:03 GMT -5 frankcor said:

Bummer, Irtill. Time to dust off that resume and hit the job-hunting trail. Good luck!

As well as shake the dust from your shoes.

Matthew 10:14

bible.cc/matthew/10-14.htm

Just think of how Saint Jerome could have used Google!