I officially refused offer today of double hours at half my pay rate for the contract job. Would have been working 30+ hours a week essentially for free since it would have canceled my unemployment benefits.
Not sure if that’s ethical on my part but as I mentioned earlier it sure seems unethical on my boss’ part to halve my pay rate.
All of this was worked out over the phone. Now I receive an e-mail so that I can “confirm I turned down an offered job.” I know they’re gonna try to screw me for unemployment here so I’m going to ask for written details of the job offer so that I can be “certain” I don’t want to take it. Because if this ever goes before the labor board to determine if I should lose benefits I know they will lie about my offer.
Sigh. And rejecting this makes me less likely to get work in the future. And there are no real competitors I can go work for. Oh well. Still feel on solid ground here.
Right. They also make more money on the bigger loans. And there are no rules against what they did. it’s just that the schmucks said stuff like “first come first served” which was a lie so now they’re getting sued.
I just read through the text of the CARES Act. Although there might be ambiguity because they use the term “pay rate” at one point, I believe my sources that were saying hourly rate reductions would count against the employer are wrong. What matters is total salary/wages so doubling the hours and halving the rates is probably allowed.
They will lose some % of loan forgiveness by not paying me 75% of what I earned weekly between 1/1 and 2/29. I think it’s possible that I could lose the federal emergency addition of $600/wk in unemployment. If I validly reject a job for being unsuitable according to the opinion of the California Labor Commission (almost positive they rule in my favor if it comes to that), I’m not sure that I can’t still be docked the 600.
I guess I’m abusing the system but so is he when he could just give everyone their true rates. If you guys knew the work I was being asked to do for $40 an hour, lol, let’s just say not too many people would refuse it. It’s about principle here and I’m gonna die believing I’m right.
Will be my last post sorry for blowing it up and talking to myself.
IMO it’s definitely higher quality than Outback. It is fine dining for most of America who normally go to Applebees and 99. It’s comparable to Smith & Wollenski or Capital Grille, if you’ve ever been to one of those.
It honestly isn’t terrible. It is pretty standard zero imagination steak house fare. If i got the same exact food at an authentic local place with character I wouldn’t think twice about it. The vibe is totally sterile, corporate and soulless.
Definitely true. And the only time I ever end up in these kinds of places is when I’m a dinner guest at conferences, or I’m travelling for work and it’s conveniently in or next to the hotel. It must be a big part of their business.
It’s weird because, while I’ve had some meh meals at Ruth’s Chris, Morton’s is a similiarly upscale-available in any city-expense account-type steakhouse and all my experiences there have been excellent.
I went to Ruth’s Chris once, when a big consulting firm took a bunch of us college students to a recruiting dinner. I thought it was great, but then again, that was about 25 years ago. I’m sure it’s overpriced, but a) I never saw the check, and b) most steak restaurants are overpriced.
Still getting the “Status Not Available” on the IRS site.
The FAQ does now say a reason for this could be, “The application doesn’t yet have your data; we’re working on adding more data to allow more people to use it.”
I’ve never understood the “expense account” places. Like, why the hell do people feel compelled to go with overpriced, bland restaurants just because they’re not paying?
It’s going to be interesting to see corporate results as they come in this quarter and for the rest of the year. Obviously there are going to be a ton of companies reporting huge losses. What just occurred to me is how screwed those companies will be as a result of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which more or less eliminated net operating loss carrybacks. It used to be the case that a company could report a loss to the IRS and say, “Hey man, I paid taxes last year and the year before, can I just offset this year’s loss against prior taxable income and recover some of those taxes I paid?”. But now they can only apply those losses against future taxable income.
Those carrybacks would have provided immediate cash to those companies, which is obviously helpful in a financial crisis. So my expectation is that NOL carrybacks are re-introduced to the tax code in some large 2020 stimulus bill.