My company, as I have written before, gets hosed on unemployment insurance in states like California where the government does nothing to police cheating. Many of my seasonal employees take vacations during the winter, but draw unemployment from California because the state has absolutely no interest in really checking to see if they are looking for work (which is a legal requirement of drawing unemployment).
This week I received the most amazing ruling from California on unemployment. If you don't understand how it works, the state taxes me a percentage of my payroll in the state as unemployment insurance premiums. The rate is set so that the premiums I pay are about equal to the payments my ex-employees receive. This means that the rate can adjust up and down, and also means that any incremental payouts are eventually paid by my company. The rules are that the employee must have been terminated, not voluntary quit, and can't have been terminated for cause (i.e. theft) though in the latter case states like California give employees a huge benefit of the doubt (so huge, that I have never been able to prove "cause" to their satisfaction, and end up paying the unemployment for people who stole from me).
So I got this notice this week:
The claimant quit your employment on his/her doctor's advice. A leave of absence was not available or would not have resolved the problem. Available information shows that the claimant had good cause for leaving work [the claimant admits in a second document to having had a motorcycle accident on his own time]
Great. The state has agreed to exactly the facts as we submitted them. Victory at last! Or not:
Your reserve account will be subject to charges.
An employee of mine has a motorcycle accident on his own time, and my company has to pay his wages while he is hurt? Why? Because we were the nearest people at hand to grab the money from? Who elected me this guy's parent?