Results 1 to 25 of 332
Thread: $600 a week
-
07-01-2020, 02:29 PM #1
$600 a week
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. . .
-
07-01-2020, 02:32 PM #2
-
07-01-2020, 02:36 PM #3
-
07-01-2020, 02:42 PM #4
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
-
07-01-2020, 02:43 PM #5
-
07-01-2020, 02:43 PM #6
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 TapatalkWhy don't you go practice fallin' down? I'll be there in a minute.
-
07-01-2020, 02:45 PM #7
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.
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?Damn shame, throwing away a perfectly good white boy like that
-
07-01-2020, 02:45 PM #8
Coreshot has employees that won't come back. l'm shocked.
A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.
-
07-01-2020, 02:45 PM #9
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?I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
07-01-2020, 02:49 PM #10
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.
-
07-01-2020, 02:52 PM #11
Sell off some of your guns and watches. Problem solved.
A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.
-
07-01-2020, 02:55 PM #12Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- In Your Wife
- Posts
- 8,291
-
07-01-2020, 02:57 PM #13Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- In Your Wife
- Posts
- 8,291
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.
-
07-01-2020, 03:02 PM #14
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."We don't beat the reaper by living longer, we beat the reaper by living well and living fully." - Randy Pausch
-
07-01-2020, 03:06 PM #15
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
-
07-01-2020, 03:12 PM #16
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.
-
07-01-2020, 03:28 PM #17
-
07-01-2020, 03:49 PM #18
-
07-01-2020, 04:00 PM #19
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.
-
07-01-2020, 04:01 PM #20
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.
-
07-01-2020, 04:03 PM #21A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.
-
07-01-2020, 04:10 PM #22Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Gaperville, CO
- Posts
- 5,851
-
07-01-2020, 04:10 PM #23
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?
-
07-01-2020, 04:23 PM #24
-
07-01-2020, 04:25 PM #25
Bookmarks