Texas Re-Opening Announced

[Rougarou 594]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Here's a good rundown of the various problems with Abbott's plan, which captures a lot of my thoughts.  Long story short, this is going to destroy the restaurant and retail industries.

 

I enjoy the occasional Jim Schutze and Dale Hanson performance art as much as the next guy so don’t take this as someone who just dismisses The Observer out of hand, but that was a really, really weak take on this, in my opinion.
 

It’s like he was stretched to take 2 real points and make them 5, so he added emotion and feelings to try and make some flimsy rationale that are valid supporting arguments to a larger point at best and flat out conjecture and stupid at worst, stand on their own.

Peer pressure! 

The cost of disposable receipts!

The What-If’s!!!  e.g. “What if a customer doesn’t want to leave the table after he or she eats!?!?! HUH?”

Maybe I’m not the target audience, but this linked piece just make the anti-open up the city folk look like the pajama boy memes. Or maybe that’s semi-conscious bias from seeing the guys photo at the bottom.

 

[gmr548 16,584]

59 minutes ago, Prepuce of Doom said:

Username checks out

[Rougarou 594]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

When you can only open to 25%, most people aren't going to be called back to work.  So now they're out of work, and they can't get employment.

And of course, it's basic economic theory that the loss of that money has a multiplier effect throughout the economy.  Rents aren't going to get paid.  Any discretionary spending is going to dry up.

Why can’t they get unemployment? Because it’s bankrupt in the hypothetical future?

maybe I’m missing something fundamentally here, but just call in sick a lot and be a dummy and get fired and then get unemployment if you dont have the privilege of a white collar job that you can do from home and you don’t want to go to work in public and leave your house.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Rougarou

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

4 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

I enjoy the occasional Jim Schutze and Dale Hanson performance art as much as the next guy so don’t take this as someone who just dismisses The Observer out of hand, but that was a really, really weak take on this, in my opinion.
 

It’s like he was stretched to take 2 real points and make them 5, so he added emotion and feelings to try and make some flimsy rationale that are valid supporting arguments to a larger point at best and flat out conjecture and stupid at worst, stand on their own.

Peer pressure! 

The cost of disposable receipts!

The What-If’s!!!  e.g. “What if a customer doesn’t want to leave the table after he or she eats!?!?! HUH?”

Maybe I’m not the target audience, but this linked piece just make the anti-open up the city folk look like the pajama boy memes. Or maybe that’s semi-conscious bias from seeing the guys photo at the bottom.

 

I don't disagree with your critique of the writing.

But the underlying points about landlords and insurance are important.  This is a recipe for restaurant/retail failure.  And that's going to lead to even further economic hardship.

2 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Why can’t they get unemployment? Because it’s bankrupt in the hypothetical future?

maybe I’m missing something fundamentally here, but just call in sick a lot and be a dummy and get fired and then get unemployment if you dont have the privilege of a white collar job that you can do form one and you don’t want to go to work in public and leave your house.

You're missing something fundamentally here.

You can't get unemployment for misconduct connected with the work.  And abusing the sick-leave policy is going to be held to be misconduct that disqualifies the employee from collecting unemployment.

[wildcat09 29,355]

The whole point of reopening so quickly is to force people off of unemployment. This isn’t hard to grasp. 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Yep.

[6th Street 6,432]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The whole point of reopening so quickly is to force people off of unemployment. This isn’t hard to grasp. 

Georgia's budget was completely overwhelmed by unemployment benefits so they were first to open back up 

[Rougarou 594]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The whole point of reopening so quickly is to force people off of unemployment. This isn’t hard to grasp. 

Okay. I've now grasped this.

37 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't disagree with your critique of the writing.

But the underlying points about landlords and insurance are important.  This is a recipe for restaurant/retail failure.  And that's going to lead to even further economic hardship.

You're missing something fundamentally here.

You can't get unemployment for misconduct connected with the work.  And abusing the sick-leave policy is going to be held to be misconduct that disqualifies the employee from collecting unemployment.

I guess I've just misunderstood the unemployment racket for a long time, which is weird because I've actually also witnessed it first hand for a long time and have seen how the game is played. As the old adage goes, "don't quit, get fired." Unless you do something egregious, you will get unemployment for being fired. That's been about the reality of it for the last 20 years.

Now if you are telling me, "but it's different now, they are going to audit reasons and dig in to try and limit the overexposure unemployment benefits are having in post-corona times" then I would say I don't believe that until I see it. The optics would be horrible and the majority of people this affects are lower wage/lower value roles that would be viewed as victims of a pandemic whose government failed them, not overfed and overpaid folks like us here.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Rougarou

[kevwun 15,808]

You think optics still matter?  They went out the window a while back.

[softlynow 1,816]

14 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Okay. I've now grasped this.

I guess I've just misunderstood the unemployment racket for a long time, which is weird because I've actually also witnessed it first hand for a long time and have seen how the game is played. As the old adage goes, "don't quit, get fired." Unless you do something egregious, you will get unemployment for being fired. That's been about the reality of it for the last 20 years. Now if you are telling me, "but it's different now, they are going to audit reasons and dig in to try and limit the overexposure unemployment benefits are having in post-corona times" then I would say I don't believe that until I see it. The optics would be horrible and the majority of people this affects are lower wage/lower value roles that would be viewed as victims of a pandemic whose government failed them, not overfed and overpaid folks like us here.

The folks who run governments by the mantra "never raise taxes" don't give a shit about the optics of any form of postnatal human suffering. Their options are find funds for their unemployment program, or fuck the needy. The latter leads to a primary fight next election. They don't fear Dem challengers yet.

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

24 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Okay. I've now grasped this.

I guess I've just misunderstood the unemployment racket for a long time, which is weird because I've actually also witnessed it first hand for a long time and have seen how the game is played. As the old adage goes, "don't quit, get fired." Unless you do something egregious, you will get unemployment for being fired. That's been about the reality of it for the last 20 years.

Now if you are telling me, "but it's different now, they are going to audit reasons and dig in to try and limit the overexposure unemployment benefits are having in post-corona times" then I would say I don't believe that until I see it. The optics would be horrible and the majority of people this affects are lower wage/lower value roles that would be viewed as victims of a pandemic whose government failed them, not overfed and overpaid folks like us here.

The link in my previous post was to the Texas Workforce Commission's Appeals Policy & Precedent Manual that hearing officers use in unemployment claims hearings.  I'm not telling you anything.  I'm providing you with the Workforce Commission's own materials that tell you how this is going to go down.

Don't say "I don't believe that until I see it" while averting your eyes.

[Continental Op 3,934]

Nevermind the billions we are flinging at big corporations!  I am very worried that some waitress might get a couple extra hundred out of the public till!  That is what is important here!  

[Foosters 17,858]

Prefacing this with the caveat that these people do exist, and I'm sure we will see tons of anecdotal evidence in the future, but how many people are quitting gainful employment right at the beginning of the worst economic downturn since the great depression? So they can get some short term relief that might be a little more than they would otherwise receive? 

[Rougarou 594]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The link in my previous post was to the Texas Workforce Commission's Appeals Policy & Precedent Manual that hearing officers use in unemployment claims hearings.  I'm not telling you anything.  I'm providing you with the Workforce Commission's own materials that tell you how this is going to go down.

Don't say "I don't believe that until I see it" while averting your eyes.

The way you are posting, you make it sound as if you have absolutely zero first or second-hand exposure, history or experience with unemployment benefits (giving or receiving). You are citing the policies and procedures as they are written without any consideration to how these things have historically and, until tomorrow, actually and practically play out and get executed. It's actually really strange to me because unless you really are someone who has never had a friend or family member talk your ear off about unemployment benefits and the process and technology that they are going through, citing the letter of the law and throwing out how it works when tires meet the road is averting your eyes.

If you are someone who doesn't know, sorry.

[hobbes2702 13,049]

1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

Why can’t they get unemployment? Because it’s bankrupt in the hypothetical future?

maybe I’m missing something fundamentally here, but just call in sick a lot and be a dummy and get fired and then get unemployment if you dont have the privilege of a white collar job that you can do from home and you don’t want to go to work in public and leave your house.

That’s not how unemployment works. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

45 minutes ago, kevwun said:

You think optics still matter?  They went out the window a while back.

I'm listening to people complaining about the folks in line at the food bank. About how 'those' people don't need the food when they have other things, like nice cars, etc. The 'undeserving' and unemployed poor will be trotted out like the homeless, the sanctuary cities, the 'undeserving' urban centers, the caravans of asylum seekers, and all the other sponges just waiting to soak up GOP voters' money that GOP voters want to spend upon jorts, chocolate fountains, and pedicure treatments. So what if they don't have health care for when they get the COVID from working at the Feed Barn, MAGA is for winners and if someone works at the Feed Barn they should've made a better choice to pull themselves up by their flip flops like the MAGA supporter did.

Those are the conversations going around. "Lazy bums that didn't want to work in the first place and now 'they' just want handout after handout."

Sigh. Sometimes, I just wish I could lose it and slap people.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins
Punctuation

[hobbes2702 13,049]

2 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

The way you are posting, you make it sound as if you have absolutely zero first or second-hand exposure, history or experience with unemployment benefits (giving or receiving). You are citing the policies and procedures as they are written without any consideration to how these things have historically and, until tomorrow, actually and practically play out and get executed. It's actually really strange to me because unless you really are someone who has never had a friend or family member talk your ear off about unemployment benefits and the process and technology that they are going through, citing the letter of the law and throwing out how it works when tires meet the road is averting your eyes.

If you are someone who doesn't know, sorry.

As someone who has had to participate in many unemployment hearing I can assure you that you do not get unemployment if you are terminated for cause in this state.

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

4 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

The way you are posting, you make it sound as if you have absolutely zero first or second-hand exposure, history or experience with unemployment benefits (giving or receiving). You are citing the policies and procedures as they are written without any consideration to how these things have historically and, until tomorrow, actually and practically play out and get executed. It's actually really strange to me because unless you really are someone who has never had a friend or family member talk your ear off about unemployment benefits and the process and technology that they are going through, citing the letter of the law and throwing out how it works when tires meet the road is averting your eyes.

If you are someone who doesn't know, sorry.

You know I'm a lawyer, right?  Who has done more than his fair share of employment-law work, right?

Did you think it was an accident that I just happen to have the TWC Policy & Precedent Manual handy?

I suspect I've handled one or two more TWC unemployment hearings than you have.

[wildcat09 29,355]

7 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I'm listening to people complaining about the folks in line at the food bank. About how 'those' people don't need the food when they have other things, like nice cars, etc. The 'undeserving' and unemployed poor will be trotted out like the homeless, the sanctuary cities, the 'undeserving' urban centers, the caravans of asylum seekers, and all the other sponges just waiting to soak up GOP voters' money that GOP voters want to spend upon jorts, chocolate fountains, and pedicure treatments. So what if they don't have health care for when they get the COVID from working at the Feed Barn, MAGA is for winners and if someone works at the Feed Barn they should've made a better choice to pull themselves up by their flip flops like the MAGA supporter did.

Those are the conversations going around. "Lazy bums that didn't want to work in the first place and now 'they' just want handout after handout."

Sigh. Sometimes, I just wish I could lose it and slap people.

The people who bitch about "those people" being lazy are actually the laziest fuckers in America. 

[formermav43 4,606]

I actually volunteer at a distribution center for the Houston Food Bank right alongside people who are largely Republican voters. For the record, I haven't heard any talk like that. We just want to feed hungry people.

[Pescado_Rojo 19,426]

So this was a FB post from one of the small local restaurants near me.

Quote

 

If we reopen we have a 49 peep capacity. Roughly 25% of said capacity is 12 1/2 people. I assume we're counting kids here ! Between the number of employees we have and the number of peeps we're allowed to have in the space we can effectively have 2-3 customers in our space!

SO since we don't have the man power to navigate 2-3 loyal customers inside our space. We are going to continue to doing strictly curbside services.

 

 

[DDD Dad 14,344]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You know I'm a lawyer, right?  Who has done more than his fair share of employment-law work, right?

Did you think it was an accident that I just happen to have the TWC Policy & Precedent Manual handy?

I suspect I've handled one or two more TWC unemployment hearings than you have.

Never mind that.  It was on my Facebook feed.   

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The people who bitch about "those people" being lazy are actually the laziest fuckers in America. 

It is the intellectually lazy thinking that troubles me. Our click schtick world has brought forth the most abysmal gaps in reasoning. It truly is the down is up and up is down. If one pauses to reflect prior to one of the bloviating assertions, the conversation moves on to the next gripe before one can summon a "I don't believe that is correct..."

[DDD Dad 14,344]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The people who bitch about "those people" being lazy are actually the laziest fuckers in America. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I actually volunteer at a distribution center for the Houston Food Bank right alongside people who are largely Republican voters. For the record, I haven't heard any talk like that. We just want to feed hungry people.

That is great; my account is anecdotal so it is nice to know if it is not the norm.

[formermav43 4,606]

Just now, Mrs Whiggins said:

That is great; my account is anecdotal so it is nice to know if it is not the norm.

Well, it may BE the norm, for all I know. My account is obviously anecdotal, too.

But at least it's not universal, at any rate.

[tantric superman 4,667]

I don't think I want to frequent an establishment where the staff says they have a "peep" capacity.

 

[Rougarou 594]

30 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You know I'm a lawyer, right?  Who has done more than his fair share of employment-law work, right?

Did you think it was an accident that I just happen to have the TWC Policy & Precedent Manual handy?

I suspect I've handled one or two more TWC unemployment hearings than you have.

I guess I'm just learning a lot today and getting an education on the unemployment system and how it works in one of those ways that blows everything you've ever known and seen about it, out of the water. I'll have to ask all the deadbeat people I know who were fired and yet got unemployment what sort of kompromat they all had on all their bosses and companies. 

I actually had no idea you were a lawyer and I'm not even sure what gainful employment-law work would look like or how to define that, but I assume it's not helping deadbeat Billy Bob from the AT&T call center who got fired for being late all the time and now can't get unemployment now but something more heady and chunky, right? Something that amounts to an ROI on your expensive time which would lend itself to more corporate work a level? Maybe not.

[Born to Run 6,569]

Well, it may BE the norm, for all I know. My account is obviously anecdotal, too.
But at least it's not universal, at any rate.

Some of the Fox News Republicans I know are the most generous people I've met.
The Dittoheads are more often skeptical of charity, blacks and immigrant's abusing it and just generally cynical.
Then there are the younger MAGA fucks like my brother who don't believe in any charity at all. They buy into all the welfare queen bullshit. My brother has never donated a dime to anything in his life including a family member with childhood luekemia. It's all about boot straps and self reliance.

[Fletch 5,800]

A guy I went to high school with has been posting shit like this on Facebook and insta. He’s in his mid 20’s. Jesus fucking Christ. His anti Biden shit is...exactly how you’d expect.

[babysdaddy 2,725]

I guess I'm just learning a lot today and getting an education on the unemployment system and how it works in one of those ways that blows everything you've ever known and seen about it, out of the water. I'll have to ask all the deadbeat people I know who were fired and yet got unemployment what sort of kompromat they all had on all their bosses and companies. 
I actually had no idea you were a lawyer and I'm not even sure what gainful employment-law work would look like or how to define that, but I assume it's not helping deadbeat Billy Bob from the AT&T call center who got fired for being late all the time and now can't get unemployment now but something more heady and chunky, right? Something that amounts to an ROI on your expensive time which would lend itself to more corporate work a level? Maybe not.

I think he’s an HP kid so not a lot of experience with your Billy Bobs of the world. He did, however, dress up in a pedobear outfit and go to a Penn State game trolling everyone there so he gets a forever pass on everything

[Pescado_Rojo 19,426]

22 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

Some of the Fox News Republicans I know are the most generous people I've met.
The Dittoheads are more often skeptical of charity, blacks and immigrant's abusing it and just generally cynical.
Then there are the younger MAGA fucks like my brother who don't believe in any charity at all. They buy into all the welfare queen bullshit. My brother has never donated a dime to anything in his life including a family member with childhood luekemia. It's all about boot straps and self reliance.

They should replace "In god we trust" with "Fuck you, I got mine" on all our money. 

[tantric superman 4,667]

I actually have no idea what you guys are truly arguing about on the unemployment front.

People will get unemployment, even if they aren't entitled, if their employer fails to respond to the claim.  There may be various reasons this happens - bad administration on the part of the employer, but also if the employee decides they don't want to contest the claim for various reasons. 

In Texas you can be termed "for cause", but still obtain unemployment if you didn't engage in misconduct under the Texas unemployment regs.   ‘Misconduct’ means mismanagement of a position of employment by action or inaction, neglect that jeopardizes the life or property of another, intentional wrongdoing or malfeasance, intentional violation of a law, or violation of a policy or rule adopted to ensure the orderly work and the safety of employees”.

If you just do a shitty job and are termed for performance, there is a good chance you are still going to be eligible for unemployment.

 

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

17 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

I think he’s an HP kid so not a lot of experience with your Billy Bobs of the world. He did, however, dress up in a pedobear outfit and go to a Penn State game trolling everyone there so he gets a forever pass on everything

35 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

I guess I'm just learning a lot today and getting an education on the unemployment system and how it works in one of those ways that blows everything you've ever known and seen about it, out of the water. I'll have to ask all the deadbeat people I know who were fired and yet got unemployment what sort of kompromat they all had on all their bosses and companies. 

I actually had no idea you were a lawyer and I'm not even sure what gainful employment-law work would look like or how to define that, but I assume it's not helping deadbeat Billy Bob from the AT&T call center who got fired for being late all the time and now can't get unemployment now but something more heady and chunky, right? Something that amounts to an ROI on your expensive time which would lend itself to more corporate work a level? Maybe not.

I primarily do general litigation now.  But earlier in my career, I did a lot of employment litigation--e.g. wage/hour suits, employment discrimination/harassment, and contract/covenant-not-to-compete claims.  I still do some.

Part of that is unemployment.  They're kind of rare, because the stakes are relatively low to the employer.  But sometimes for various reasons, the employer wants to challenge unemployment.

When that happens, the case goes to a TWC hearing officer who conducts a telephone hearing.  They get the reasons why the employee was fired, and if there's any dispute, then they'll generally take the employee's version of events.  And as you can see from the TWC's Manual, there is plenty of wild-ass shit that isn't "misconduct connected with the work."  Essentially, incompetence or inability isn't going to be misconduct.  So I don't think it's that your shitty-employee friends had kompromat on their bosses or anything.  It's likely instead that (1) they were just shitty employees, and not employees that engaged in "misconduct connected with the work," (2) their employers didn't care enough to contest it, or (3) both.

But not showing up to work definitely is misconduct.  And in this environment in which employers are looking to save every dollar, they'd definitely contest it.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

@Ghost of LL--tying into all of this is your earlier comment regarding cash flow and sales. I was reading this fellow's thread and he mentioned Texas and Florida due to no income tax. Now he was specifically talking about bailouts, and I don't normally read this fellow so I haven't checked his creds, but on the surface it would be interesting to do the math by gathering together past sales tax revenue, current SIP revenue, unemployment claims, and so on not with respect to a bailout, but more along the lines of what you were discussing--it actually ending up being worse for most instead of better.

 

 

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

9 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

@Ghost of LL--tying into all of this is your earlier comment regarding cash flow and sales. I was reading this fellow's thread and he mentioned Texas and Florida due to no income tax. Now he was specifically talking about bailouts, and I don't normally read this fellow so I haven't checked his creds, but on the surface it would be interesting to do the math by gathering together past sales tax revenue, current SIP revenue, unemployment claims, and so on not with respect to a bailout, but more along the lines of what you were discussing--it actually ending up being worse for most instead of better.

 

 

With Texas, it has as much to do with the price of oil.  The State generates of lot of revenue from oil & gas, both through taxes and also through royalties.  The state budget is premised on $54/bbl.  So that's a big hit, even aside from the reduction in sales-tax revenue.

 

eta: By the way--if you're at all familiar with Wyoming politics, this boom-and-bust cycle in the state budget will seem very familiar.  A huge proportion of Wyoming's state budget is dependent on revenue from oil and gas.  They're in for some serious pain.  

Edited April 29, 2020 by Ghost of LL

[Wanker Bob 379]

2 hours ago, Rougarou said:

The way you are posting, you make it sound as if you have absolutely zero first or second-hand exposure, history or experience with unemployment benefits (giving or receiving). You are citing the policies and procedures as they are written without any consideration to how these things have historically and, until tomorrow, actually and practically play out and get executed. It's actually really strange to me because unless you really are someone who has never had a friend or family member talk your ear off about unemployment benefits and the process and technology that they are going through, citing the letter of the law and throwing out how it works when tires meet the road is averting your eyes.

If you are someone who doesn't know, sorry.

When I received unemployment a decade ago for having hours cut I had to covertly video tape my boss with my smart phone as he gave me the news then offer to present it to to the workforce commission worker assigned to my unemployment application for it to go through. They were going to screw me over and lie saying I was fired for cause in a challenge to my claim but when I told the guy about my video evidence and offered to send it to him I got a call 2 days later saying I was approved and they rescinded the challenge. 

They go through every possible avenue to deny your claim in favor of the company anything else if at all possible. 

[ChiTownDoc 21,154]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The whole point of reopening so quickly is to force people off of unemployment. This isn’t hard to grasp. 

I don't think it's the 'whole' point but I still repped this because it's a big part of the decision making process...

[ChiTownDoc 21,154]

9 minutes ago, Wanker Bob said:

When I received unemployment a decade ago for having hours cut I had to covertly video tape my boss with my smart phone as he gave me the news then offer to present it to to the workforce commission worker assigned to my unemployment application for it to go through. They were going to screw me over and lie saying I was fired for cause in a challenge to my claim but when I told the guy about my video evidence and offered to send it to him I got a call 2 days later saying I was approved and they rescinded the challenge. 

They go through every possible avenue to deny your claim in favor of the company anything else if at all possible. 

Ha, I have the opposite story... Our first PA ever was assigned to me and hired because she was referred from somebody high up in administration at a lucrative contract we landed.  No red flags.  Her current employer loved her...presented well.  Easy, I'll save on a recruiter's cost and hire this gal who comes recommended from some VIP's.   

Well after about 18 months I was called into that administrator's office and she was like, you have to fire Jane Doe.  I was totally confused, then she showed me video of Jane going in patients rooms while they got therapy and then coming out 30 seconds later.  She often went in the room and closed the door behind herself as she watched the patient leaving down the hall.  There were numerous complaints about money being 'lost'...and it turns out she had been stealing it. 

Her friend told me their group always joked about a hole in their purse because they all always had money missing...yep.  Anyways, we fire her and she files for unemployment - we had already turned in to the state for elder abuse as directed by attorneys.  Well the asshole assigned to her case grilled us for firing her and approved her claim - she soon got a job and it wasn't a big deal financially but to this day I have zero confidence in the morons running that shit.  We had video evidence and all...still didn't matter for these dipshits. 

[Rougarou 594]

28 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

What are you even arguing?  People have responded to you that getting terminated FOR CAUSE will disqualify you from getting unemployment if it was misconduct, and that quitting your job / choosing not to work will disqualify you.  And you keep posting about how people can get unemployment if they’re laid off.

Yes, of course they can.  Otherwise unemployment benefits wouldn’t even be a thing.  But the whole point is that people who don’t come back to work because they don’t think it is safe are going to be deemed to have either (a) quit, or (b) if the employer fires them, it will be deemed for cause (because they won’t come to work).   It’s not going to be treated like somebody was just laid off, and yes, they are going to look to deny people.   They aren’t just going to take every applicant’s word for it and start writing checks.

Congratulations on completely misunderstanding, misreading and/or generally mischaracterizing my day's worth of posts in this back-and-forth?

[SubliminalHorn 6,808]

4 hours ago, Rougarou said:

.

Now if you are telling me, "but it's different now, they are going to audit reasons and dig in to try and limit the overexposure unemployment benefits are having in post-corona times" then I would say I don't believe that until I see it. The optics would be horrible and the majority of people this affects are lower wage/lower value roles that would be viewed as victims of a pandemic whose government failed them, not overfed and overpaid folks like us here.

Bless your heart 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

29 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Congratulations on completely misunderstanding, misreading and/or generally mischaracterizing my day's worth of posts in this back-and-forth?

I really don’t understand what point you are trying to make either. 

Maybe you could just summarize it for all us dumbasses who don’t understand what you are saying.

[Wanker Bob 379]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Ha, I have the opposite story... Our first PA ever was assigned to me and hired because she was referred from somebody high up in administration at a lucrative contract we landed.  No red flags.  Her current employer loved her...presented well.  Easy, I'll save on a recruiter's cost and hire this gal who comes recommended from some VIP's.   

Well after about 18 months I was called into that administrator's office and she was like, you have to fire Jane Doe.  I was totally confused, then she showed me video of Jane going in patients rooms while they got therapy and then coming out 30 seconds later.  She often went in the room and closed the door behind herself as she watched the patient leaving down the hall.  There were numerous complaints about money being 'lost'...and it turns out she had been stealing it. 

Her friend told me their group always joked about a hole in their purse because they all always had money missing...yep.  Anyways, we fire her and she files for unemployment - we had already turned in to the state for elder abuse as directed by attorneys.  Well the asshole assigned to her case grilled us for firing her and approved her claim - she soon got a job and it wasn't a big deal financially but to this day I have zero confidence in the morons running that shit.  We had video evidence and all...still didn't matter for these dipshits. 

If you're in Illinois like I'm assuming that's probably the difference. I can see Illinois being far far more worker friendly than Texas. Each one too far past common sense in their given direction. 

 

[Guest Lobo]

13 minutes ago, Wanker Bob said:

If you're in Illinois like I'm assuming that's probably the difference. I can see Illinois being far far more worker friendly than Texas. Each one too far past common sense in their given direction. 

 

Illinois is only worker friendly for those in unions.  If you're caught up in something against your employer and you're non-union...not only are you fucked but the union will covertly work with the company and the courts to fuck you over extra-hard as an example of why you should have gone union in the first place AND to curry favor with the company on their next round of talks.  

[gmr548 16,584]

[mention=656]Ghost of LL[/mention]--tying into all of this is your earlier comment regarding cash flow and sales. I was reading this fellow's thread and he mentioned Texas and Florida due to no income tax. Now he was specifically talking about bailouts, and I don't normally read this fellow so I haven't checked his creds, but on the surface it would be interesting to do the math by gathering together past sales tax revenue, current SIP revenue, unemployment claims, and so on not with respect to a bailout, but more along the lines of what you were discussing--it actually ending up being worse for most instead of better.
 
[/url]  

Just raise the tax on alcohol. Ballgame.

[workswithseed 2,112]

1 hour ago, Wanker Bob said:

If you're in Illinois like I'm assuming that's probably the difference. I can see Illinois being far far more worker friendly than Texas. Each one too far past common sense in their given direction. 

 

They also the worst type of NAZI.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2,652]

Numbers jumped today in Galveston county also. Right after it came out the governor has overridden the city and the beaches will also open Friday. 
 

so much for local control. What a fucking shit show 

[TexArcher 37,988]

All this time, it's seemed really obvious that Trump is the biggest idiot in a position of power, but now Abbot is giving him a run for his money.  It's become quite a footrace.  Either guy could leg it out in the end.

[Gengs1 2,583]

5 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

All this time, it's seemed really obvious that Trump is the biggest idiot in a position of power, but now Abbot is giving him a run for his money.  It's become quite a footrace.  Either guy could leg it out in the end.

Florida is going hold my beer