Overtime rules

[Ned Bedinger]

Keith Hansen wrote:
> Lauren wrote:
> 
> <<First off, you seem to have contradicted yourself.  If this is an
> "at-will" state, then a termination based on performance...>
> 
> Good summary, Lauren. Not having been in comparable situations, I don't
> have much personal experience with this (thankfully). So your comments
> are instructive (for me, at least)!


Still, I've seen at-will employers whose HR reps assured departing 
laid-off employees that they would not be eligible for unemployment 
benefits. They can be devoutly mis-guided. Know your rights,

I remember one HR rep who told me it was company policy to steer 
lay-offs away from unemployment benefits because the company's required 
contribution to the Unemployment system, which actually amounts to some 
small fraction of the employee's wage, would increase if their 
ex-employees claimed unemployment benefits. Ha ha. What's the next step 
beyond devoutly misguided--delusional?

Why do they get so jacked up to undermine the unemployment system that 
made it possible for them to employ so many professional temps in the 
first place?  It is baffling to me.  Maybe it's the next step in the 
masterplan to recast free enterprise as feudal enterprise. Watch for 
recruiter emails with subject lines like "Serf's Up!" to know if that
piratic ploy has come to pass.