Florida: Behavior Outside Office May Stop Unemployment Checks

[MountainLaurel]

Buh?

In what some see as an assault on the unemployed, Congress is considering changes that would "dismantle" jobless benefits for millions of workers. In Florida, a law awaiting the governor's signature would deny benefits to anyone found to have engaged in misconduct; not just on-the-job, but outside the office, outside business hours and on the employee's own time.

While defenders of the Florida legislation insist only misbehavior relevant to a person's job could result a denial of benefits, others aren't so sure.

snip

Under HB 7005, the definition of "misconduct" would be broadened to include misbehavior whether or not it occurs at the workplace or during working hours. Such misconduct for the first time includes, under certain circumstances, "violation of an employer's rule."

So, if your boss has a rule that you can't speak disrespectfully of him, and if on Saturday night, on your own time, you tell your friends that he's a good-for-nothing so-and-so, can he fire you and deny you unemployment benefits? What if your boss is prim and proper and gets wind that you, after hours, like to swear a blue streak?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/florida-law-change-boss-deny-unemployment-benefits-employee/story?id=13614185

[Occulus]

1. If you are required to abide by company policies on personal time,

you have no personal time and should be paid for it whether you are on company property or not. You should be paid overtime, 24/7/365.

Extreme? Why yes- as extreme as requiring an employee to abide by company policies on personal time!

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. This is a terrible change, because people have their own way

of establishing hierachies of behavior.

Let's say someone gets a DUI during his leisure time. Now it's up to his employer to decide if he loses unemployment benefits. Here's the thought-process you'll see in Florida:

Does he go to my church? Yes No
Does he have military experience? Yes No
Was he disrespectful to me or the people I care about? Yes No.

It's too subjective because they have all kinds of conditions to allow people from their own inner circles off the hook.

[gratuitous]

3. Please to obey our Galtian overlords

Do not question, only obey. Our Galtian overlords, in their wisdom which fills the boundary of human experience and expectation, will never, ever use such a law in a punitive, petty, or just-because-they-can manner to fuck with the proles' lives. Submit or you will be suspected of "misconduct" unbecoming an unemployed person, and therefore not eligible for benefits.

[JoeyT]

4. My prediction:

The first time this is used it'll be against a woman for getting pregnant without being married.

[MountainLaurel]

5. Already happens

A friend of mine worked in a state where all state workers were subject to a "morality clause." She lost a promotion because she was not married to the man she was living with. (And was informed as much by a friend in administration.)

I think the use will be against a teacher who is gay -- that way they can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

[JoeyT]

7. Well they already fire women for that.

IIRC the last time I heard of it was a religious school in Florida.
Until now I'm not sure they had the ability to fire them and refuse them unemployment.

It was a coin toss between a gay person or straight woman for me. The only reason I went with the woman was because most of the places that would be that interested in personal lives would avoid hiring a gay person entirely if there was any way to manage it.

I bet the men that worked with your friend signed the same morality clause, but weren't subjected to it as grounds for refusing a promotion. That's usually how it works.

[stevedeshazer]

6. The War On Working People continues and now extends to Non Working People.

This stinks.

[Hugabear]

8. It's all part of Rick Scott's plan to put more people to work

:sarcasm:

[lpbk2713]

9. Webcams will be installed in all Dems' homes next.

Don't think they haven't thought of it.