$600 a week

[Core Shot]

For not working

We r fucked.

I can’t hire, because unemployment is more profitable.
I have employees that won’t come back, because they’re making more. I was paying them $18

It all ends July 31. But congress wants to continue the gravy train.

I know two peeps that didn’t get state funenjoyment but applied for and got the $600

This country is toasted

Edit: this ain’t for polyass. More of a financial, economic, budgetary rant

[The AD]

This country is toasted

If it's toasted it's because people were actually making less than $600 while working, not the other way around.

[liv2ski]

If it's toasted it's because people were actually making less than $600 while working, not the other way around.

That is an excellent observation. My thought went along the lines of a $25 Trillion Deficit. This country is so fucked. A Dollar crash is coming to you when? United States of Zimbabwe

[abraham]

I generally think giving money to the people who will/need to spend it is the better move. Even though they can't hire economists to push for their interests

The first round of this felt like an attempt to buy votes in November, I'm not convinced that's still a solid option now

[Buzzworthy]

I have employees that won’t come back, because they’re making more. I was paying them $18

Pretty fucking easy answer.
Don’t let them come back.

[prsboogie]

If your an employer and you have people out who refuse to return then you need to let your states unemployment office know, there are strict rules about that.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Adolf Allerbush]

If it's toasted it's because people were actually making less than $600 while working, not the other way around.

Exactly. The obvious solution is to pay employees more than unemployment pays. I understand that it means you take a loss on existing contracts, but going forward you adjust costs.

If your an employer and you have people out who refuse to return then you need to let your states unemployment office know, there are strict rules about that.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Was golfing with a guy who owns a bunch of restaurants around here and that's exactly been his threat. That if you don't come back then I have to report that you are unwilling to work. Would suck to rat people out but what other recourse is there?

[wooley12]

Coreshot has employees that won't come back. l'm shocked.

[Bunion 2020]

I guess that extra 120 a week wasn't worth it to them. They will be surprised when they have to pay taxes on their 600 a week next year.

Or maybe they just are not that into you?

[schuss]

Perhaps pay your people more or accept that by paying less, you have to deal with understaffing and hiring more often. Cry me a damn river.
I'm betting you're paid significantly more per hour.

[wooley12]

Sell off some of your guns and watches. Problem solved.

[glademaster]

If it's toasted it's because people were actually making less than $600 while working, not the other way around.

Quoting for emphatic agreement.

[glademaster]

Pretty fucking easy answer.
Don’t let them come back.

Maybe they don't want to return to work because they know Core Shot is a piece of shit who won't take the necessary steps to ensure that he is providing the safest possible work environment for his employees.

I gave that guy the only piece of advice he needs weeks ago.

[Toadman]

Treat your employees like you would want to be treated, unless of course you like being treated like garbage.

I hear Trump is throwing out the number $2,000 for the next stimulus check.

Good luck getting anyone to come back to work.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

The problem with the CARES act money, $600 per week for people on unemployment is that in WA there’s Shared Work unemployment benefits. You can have your hours cut from 10-50% and receive pro rated unemployment, plus the $600 a week. So you could have your week cut by four hours and lose $72 if you’re making $18 an hour but you would get roughly $636 a week unemployment benefits. I’m not sure that’s what the intent was with the CARES act.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Dantheman]

Perhaps pay your people more or accept that by paying less, you have to deal with understaffing and hiring more often. Cry me a damn river.

A childhood friend of mine married into a family in Northern CA that runs a very successful port-a-potty business. A couple summers back I was home visiting and we met up with them on the lake, chilled on their swank houseboat and spun laps in their Super Air Nautique. More than once they complained about how hard it was to find and retain employees because of the weed boom. At no point did they ever acknowledge the painfully obvious reality that they simply needed to offer people competitive wages, which they could obviously afford to do.

[TBS]

If it's toasted it's because people were actually making less than $600 while working, not the other way around.

$600 per week works out to $15.00 per hour. So if Core Shot isn't paying his people that, not surprising they want to stay home.

And, there are some exemptions for refusing to return to work depending on state law

[k2skier112]

Treat your employees like you would want to be treated, unless of course you like being treated like garbage.

I hear Trump is throwing out the number $2,000 for the next stimulus check.

Good luck getting anyone to come back to work.

Woohoo, new golf clubs!

For the OP, you have to assume he's telling us the truth

[JaytaeMoney]

$600 per week works out to $15.00 per hour. So if Core Shot isn't paying his people that, not surprising they want to stay home.

And, there are some exemptions for refusing to return to work depending on state law

Wrong. It does not mean they were making $600 or less per week.

They are receiving $600 on top of whatever they are getting for state unemployment. If the delta between your state unemployment and your full regular wage is less than $600 per week then it makes more sense to sit at home.

[Kevo]

People are earning $600 per week from the federal government PLUS whatever unemployment benefits they were entitled to from their state. So, someone making $15 per hour before becoming unemployed is now making more than that on unemployment.

Also worth noting- the median personal income in the US is $31k, which comes out to roughly $15 per hour. Half of all workers in the US make $15 per hour or less.

[wooley12]

I’m not sure that’s what the intent was with the CARES act.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Feeding children
Paying rent
Buying toilet paper
Buying shoe polish
Buying hair spray
Buying a magazine
Buying a new shirt
Buying.....
Buying ......Buying..........Buying

To save the economy and avert large scale human suffering.

You're welcome.

[doebedoe]

If it's toasted it's because people were actually making less than $600 while working, not the other way around.

Pretty cool when a thread could end after just the second post.

[The AD]

Wrong. It does not mean they were making $600 or less per week.

They are receiving $600 on top of whatever they are getting for state unemployment. If the delta between your state unemployment and your full regular wage is less than $600 per week then it makes more sense to sit at home.

So what's the solution? Clearly the intent is to help out people who are out of work due to coronavirus. I don't understand how you can get unemployment when you have a job. If the employees "won't come back" maybe you shouldn't have let them go in the first place. Wasn't there another pot of money to help small business owners?

[JaytaeMoney]

So what's the solution?

Don't ask me I'm just a guy on a ski forum

[TBS]

Wrong. It does not mean they were making $600 or less per week.

They are receiving $600 on top of whatever they are getting for state unemployment. If the delta between your state unemployment and your full regular wage is less than $600 per week then it makes more sense to sit at home.

Did you read the part where OP said people weren't getting any state benefits?