[duckfang]

> You can’t choose to not care.

It's all a matter of priorities.

If caring means you lose your job, yeah, you're not gonna care.

And losing your job in the USA means: hunger, homelessness, no internet, less chance of being hired with unemployment record, assumption that you did something terrible, low/no medical, etc.

For many, especially those whom can't save a nest egg of appreciable value (6 months out of work kind), then it's better to STFU, apply elsewhere, and THEN make complaints.

[mrweasel]

Sorry, I meant the company can’t choose to not care. I can certainly understand it from the employees point of view.

But even in the US I would assume that companies aren’t just allowed to break the laws regarding work environment. Isn’t there some control visits, some way of reporting a company?

[ajford]

Likely only if/when someone complains to something like OSHA or the local Dept. of Labor. And that follows on whether you can handle looking for a new job.

If your name comes out, you might just loose your job, and most people in that situation aren't going to be able to pursue legal action regarding retaliation or the like unless they get lucky finding the right lawyer. Or, you could potentially cause the company to go under/get shut down (rightly so) which equally leaves you seeking a new job.

[duckfang]

Unfortunately, the US is extremely caveat emptor in many ways.

We have a legal system that greatly benefits rich people (companies are legally people).

Unions have the lowest numbers in our history.

Laws in different states like "Right to work" and similar kneecap workers rights.

And worst is the "gig work" which pays sub-minimum wage of 7.25$/hr or $2.35 for restaurant server work (and the min wage hasnt increased since 2009).

But if you're in software, it's a good life. Usually.

[fastball]

So don't work in these industries if the pay isn't good enough. Employers shouldn't be subjecting their employees to illegal working conditions, but neither does anyone owe anyone else a job.

[godelski]

Unless the company goes under this likely isn't going to happen. Half the things mentioned only cost a few hundred dollars to resolve. They'd have to be running on some crazy margins. And given that environment, anyone could have reported. It's anonymous.

[enriquec]

Total, complete nonsense and lies. We have unemployment here - paid by the employer - and its substantial. I know several people who are even able to increase their savings while unemployed.

[duckfang]

Yes you are correct that unemployment insurance is taken out of a check, and paid in part by the company.

HOWEVER in many states, and the further republican/red it is, the more onerous it is to be granted it. It'd be a whole different story if it were really employment insurance". Much of the time, it's "unemployment insurance after 6-12 weeks if the systems to register you actually work, and you arent excluded for inane reasons, and you aren't later excluded for $reasons". And hope you can survive on what you have currently in the bank for the SLOW state procedures to give you a ruling.

Turns out, the state doesn't want to pay out just as much as insurance companies don't want to pay out.

And to counter your narrative, I've seen the state point at unemployed people the local state park as a temp job. When they took it (else they lost benefits), the temp job ended and were excluded from filing for unemployment since they knowingly took a temp job.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-states-unemployment-insu...

[lotsofpulp]

In the US, employers pay unemployment insurance premiums to the state. The state then pays unemployment benefits to qualifying individuals. Individuals who resign (quit) or are terminated for cause are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

For example, an employer can slowly ratchet up requirements at work to the point where they can document an employee is not performing, terminate them, and the employee is not eligible for unemployment benefits. (This benefits the employer by keeping their unemployment insurance premiums low).

Also, unemployment benefit amounts vary greatly by state. They are a pittance in the vast majority of the states, especially if you consider most people don't have the cheapest possible lease/mortgage, and they can't just move out of where they live the week after they are terminated.

https://savingtoinvest.com/maximum-weekly-unemployment-benef...

There was a temporary supplement of unemployment benefits by the federal government due to COVID, but that is exceptional, and those are gone now.

Also, the process is the punishment. You should talk to people who had issues or who aren't proficient with the online applications how much of a pain it is to resolve issues with unemployment benefits over the past year. You have to call the minute the office opens up in the morning, and if you don't get in the hold queue immediately, you are told to call again the next day by the automated message. I know for a fact that this is still happening today, a year+ since COVID started.

Edit: I just tried Washington state's unemployment phone call line (open 8AM to 4PM). It's 9:07AM, and after 2m20s of various prompts on the phone, you are informed that "All agents are currently busy, call back at a later time". So imagine you have kids to take care of, jobs to look for, and you have to spend your time repeatedly calling the phone number, wait 2m20s each time to be told to call later. Your only chance is really to call at 7:59AM and hope you get through to the hold queue. If not, then your benefits are delayed one more day and you try the next day. As an American, it's embarrassing to me.

[selimthegrim]

They are still active until early September

[lotsofpulp]

Oh, this was the most recent government website I could find quickly. Looks like its dated before the new stimulus.

https://blog.dol.gov/2021/01/11/unemployment-benefits-answer...

[alisonkisk]

An employer who fires a whistleblower for cause is begging for an NRLB lawsuit (constructive dismissal) for no benefit. The employeer doesn't benefit from blocking unemployment except if they try to fire a LOT of people.

Obviously Covid is an extreme special case at the division of unemployment

[lotsofpulp]

Yes, that's why large employers will offer severance benefits or something else in exchange for laid off employees agreeing to forego unemployment benefit from the state.

And a large employer will be deterred by lawsuits, but smaller employers might have nothing to lose and/or the employees will be low wage and not in a position to deal with lawsuits and whatnot and have bigger things to worry about.

[ajford]

Not sure where you're located at, but I've never heard unemployment referred to as "substantial". I've known a number of people who ended up on it, and it's generally a percentage of your normal wage, so I don't know how someone can increase their savings while unemployed unless they were blowing money left & right while employed.

Additionally, in most states you petition for unemployment and then generally have to prove you are eligible. All it takes is one spiteful manager to create a paper trail that you were let go with cause, and in most jurisdictions renders you ineligible. Then it becomes your word against theirs unless you have your own proof to fight back with.

[greedo]

Good luck with that. I was fired for having cancer while working remotely. The state EEOC said I might have a case for suing the business for wrongful termination but that it would be difficult to win. Unemployment was something like $250 a week when I had been making 4x that.

[aidenn0]

In many states if you leave your job willingly you don't qualify for unemployment.