"Irresistible" worker fired in Iowa

[Malthus]

Tax payers don't cover unemployment. Employers do.

Employers aren't taxpayers? They are not paying taxes to fund the program?   Also note that it's a federal-state program that, in reality, spreads the obligation for payment onto the "taxpayers" more generally, as in many cases payroll taxes don't cover obligations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#United_States

You are missing the point of the criticism here: that the individual employers who choose to "flexibly" lay workers off don't have to pay severance - thus are able to externalize the costs of that decision onto the commonality of employers (and the state generally).

[Admiral Yi]

Not exactly Malthus.  Unemployment insurance premiums are set at least in part by the history of the workers of a given company claiming benefits.  If you don't fire many workers without cause your premiums will be lower.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Thanks for the replies. Otto's point 1 : "1. In truth it isn't a factor in most employment relationships. Most large corporations and government employers do not fire without cause, and make it policy to only terminate employment by following a rigid, codified process that involves multiple warnings given to the employee." is essentially the position over in the UK, despite the law sounding so different. People being people, there is the occasional injustice and rather too many albatrosses are tolerated, but it's not a bad compromise IMO.

[derspiess]

Anyway, we really need some better pictures of this chick to deduce if she was really "irresistible".

Quick Google search says: no. I'll be nice and say she's not ugly, but definitely not irresistible.

[dps]

Tax payers don't cover unemployment. Employers do.

Yes, and as I pointed out earlier, that's another reason employers don't generally like to terminate without good cause--it causes them to have to pay more into the fund.

[Neil]

Anyway, we really need some better pictures of this chick to deduce if she was really "irresistible".

Quick Google search says: no. I'll be nice and say she's not ugly, but definitely not irresistible.

Indeed.  Very average.  Maybe she was very flirty or something?

[merithyn]

Not exactly Malthus.  Unemployment insurance premiums are set at least in part by the history of the workers of a given company claiming benefits.  If you don't fire many workers without cause your premiums will be lower.

[Archy]

Even though we have tough labour laws in belgium.
You can fire people without giving a cause, it's not obliged by Belgian labour law to give a cause.
You can even fire someone on the spot if they made a grave error, but then a good cause is needed and the firing needs to happen in 24h after the incident. In that case Employer doesn't have to pay any compensation or give notice. The employee won't be eligible immediatly for unemployement benefits than.
So this also could happen here.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I don't think he will have done his business any favours with this behaviour. Most patients rightly expect their dentists to be concentrating on their teeth, rather than wandering about with a bulging crotch ogling the assistant.

[Zanza]

You know, in the civilized world (Europe), "employment discrimination" is any unequal treatment based on traits that are outside of the scope of the work performance. We don't have the whole "protected groups" bullshit here.

This would be clearly found to constitute discrimination, because the employee is fired irrespective of her work performance, because of out-of-work characteristics.

Not to mention, the standard is more demanding when it comes to existing employees, for obvious reasons. The guy would be paying through his nose.

In this part of Europe, the dentist could probably just have fired her without any particular reason given because all the termination protection laws only apply for employers with more than 10 employees and I reckon the typical dentist has less than that.

[Malthus]

Not exactly Malthus.  Unemployment insurance premiums are set at least in part by the history of the workers of a given company claiming benefits.  If you don't fire many workers without cause your premiums will be lower.

You are overlooking the fact that the programs are underfunded and rely on the general state budget.

Effect on state budgets
Another issue with unemployment insurance relates to its effects on state budgets. During recessionary time periods, the number of unemployed rises and they begin to start drawing benefits from the program. The longer the recession lasts, depending on the state's starting UI program balance, the quicker the state begins to run out of funds. The recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009 has significantly impacted state budgets. According to The Council of State Governments, by March 18, 2011, 32 states plus the Virgin Islands had borrowed nearly $45.7 billion. The Labor Department estimates by the fourth quarter of 2013, as many as 40 states may need to borrow more than $90 billion to fund their unemployment programs and it will take a decade or more to pay off the debt.

Thus, a major part of the budget is funded from the public, tax-payer purse. Hence, moral hazard.

[DGuller]

That's true only during recessions, and not necessarily an accident.  Unemployment insurance is designed to be a welfare program during recessions, and self-sustaining insurance program during normal economic times.  The kinds of dismissals we're talking about here are not that dependent on the state of the economy.

[Admiral Yi]

Borrowing is not the same as funding from general revenue Malthus.