How long should a former employer get to ruin your life?

A comment on a recent post about letters from the State Unemployment office got me thinking...

My post said (basically): “If you respond to this letter, you’re a jerk.”

The comment said (paraphrased): “But what if you know they’ve gotten an offer that pays the prevailing wage?”

The commenter wasn’t a jerk, they just knew their stuff. If you get a fair offer while you’re on the dole, you’re supposed to take the job. 

But the question set off my Robin Hood instinct. Why was I so upset by the idea of someone reporting that a former employee turned down a job? 

Did I think it was okay for people to take advantage of the system? 

No. I’m offended by laziness, too. 

But why would someone take a 40+% pay cut by choice? 

That time must be more valuable than money. There are plenty of reasons besides laziness why this might be true. 

I responded with something about it taking longer to find a good job than a bad one, and the long-term effects of a a bad job. 

But it still bothered me. Because we weren’t talking from the point of view of a claims reviewer at the State. We were looking at it from the point of view of a former employer. 

Let’s say the boss at a “bad job” (let’s call him Ebenezer) lays off an employee (let’s call him Bob Cratchit) during the off-season to reduce costs. 

Bob has a son named Tim with a chronic medical condition, so health insurance is important.

Ebenezer’s insurance plan sucks. Most of Bob’s paycheck was going to premiums and Tim’s medical bills. When he gets laid off, Bob decides to do better by his family. He goes for that “good” job at the fancy firm with the strong benefits and long interview process. 

Let’s say that Bob passed the final interview and the “good” job is just checking references, doing the background check, and running his offer by the board for approval. He’s got just enough savings to make it another month.

Then Ebenezer decides that business is up and it’s time to hire Bob back. He sends Bob another offer for the same crappy job, with the same crappy pay, benefits, and no vacation. 

When Bob turns him down, Ebenezer calls the state unemployment office and reports Bob for turning down a qualifying job. 

The state freezes Bob’s payments while they review his case. He can appeal, but in the meantime, he doesn’t have enough savings to pay for Tim’s health insurance without Unemployment to supplement. 

So he’s forced to abandon the interview process and go back to Scrooge & Marley to make ends meet. 

Surely, the law can’t intend for Ebenezer to have the power to prevent Bob from getting a better job, even after he fired him. Ebenezer's interference isn't just petty, it's also a deeply concerning.

No one ever got rich off of Unemployment. But they have been forced to make bad long-term decisions based on short-term needs. Lower earning potential means lower taxable income, and likely another stint on unemployment.

No one wins but Scrooge.

Trying to do the right thing but feel like compliance is tying you up in knots? We can help.

Let's Talk