The severance payments

[lora1854]

To whom it may concern:

New management fired almost all old staff. Finally,new director decided to restructure my position. I worked there more then 9 years and eligible to the severance pay, but he wrote me that sum of payment will be reduced by my unemployment payments and the severance will be paid off me upon the completion of my unemployment benefits.
Please, if you can answer me if he is right?
Thank you very much.

 

[lora1854]

severance payment

To whom it may concern:

New management fired almost all old staff. Finally,new director decided to restructure my position. I worked there more then 9 years and eligible to the severance pay, but he wrote me that sum of payment will be reduced by my unemployment payments and the severance will be paid off me upon the completion of my unemployment benefits.
Please, if you can answer me if he is right?
I don't understand why my severance depends on unemployment benefits.

Thank you very much.

 

[lora1854]

To whom it may concern:

New management fired almost all old staff. Finally,new director decided to restructure my position. I worked there more then 9 years and eligible to the severance pay, but he wrote me that sum of payment will be reduced by my unemployment payments and the severance will be paid off me upon the completion of my unemployment benefits.
Please, if you can answer me if he is right?
I don't understand why my severance depends on unemployment benefits.

Thank you very much.

 

[cbg]

He is not obligated by law to provide you with severance at all. And your unemployment benefits, in many states, are affected by your severance, so he may well be doing you a favor.

 

[Green_Hornet]

He is obligated to pay you severance pay under the original terms of the severance agreement. He cant just change that,contact an attorney.

 

[cbg]

Where does the poster say there was an agreement for severance?

 

[Green_Hornet]

There is obviously an agreement of severance; otherwise the poster would have been satisfied with the severance terms. Since the poster is not satisfied with the terms of severance clearly a dispute exists. If she worked for a company that did not have a severance agreement, and was laid off. Then found out the employer was giving her severance under the terms described. It's fair to say she would not be posting here.
In fact she would be very happy; the employer was giving her monies not agreed too.

 

[cbg]

Not necessarily so; many, many people mistakenly believe that severance is required by law.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Well this poster is not one of them,she had an existing agreement. If a company has a severance program in place then legally they have to live up to the terms outlined. I know very few people that work who believe severance pay is required by law.

 

[cbg]

When you've posted longer you will. I post on several boards besides this one and believe me, the question comes up on one board or another weekly.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Well this is not one of those times, or one those other Internet boards. You are concluding that there is 1. No agreement in place; and 2.Since there is no law demanding employers pay severance, that 3. Therefore the posters employer has not violated the law. This is calling for a conclusion with facts not in evidence, favoring the defense. To top that you want ask me questions that are leading.

If this is a "mock trial" and the poster is posting a hypothetical case and you're taking on the role of arguing the employers' case, then that's appropriate. If this however is an actual person posting, you should not be so cavalier. Your response could be detrimental if a cause exists to file a complaint.

Its no surprise that the question comes up so often on these "several other boards" if you are reading conclusions in to posts that are not there, as was done here.
In my experience doing intakes, most clients interviewed have a similar story's as posted, and there usually is dispute arising in the terms of the agreement. I can't remember ever doing a call where a client that believed he was entitled to severance pay as a matter of law.

 

[cbg]

There are very few ways to misread, "Isn't my employer required by law to provide me with severance pay?" You accuse me of making assumptions, but you are doing the same thing. Don't assume what my experience has been or assume that because it is not identical to yours, my experience must be wrong.

 

[Green_Hornet]

There are very few ways to misread, "Isn't my employer required by law to provide me with severance pay?"

That is true,please show me where the poster made that statement ? I never wrote you misread the post. What I wrote was you're "calling for a conclusion with facts not in evidence, favoring the defense".

Originally Posted by cbg
Don't assume what my experience has been or assume that because it is not identical to yours, my experience must be wrong.

I don't care what your experience is, in this post you called for a conclusion with facts not in evidence. If you re-read the post, then review your response that is a fact.
The reason I see fit to bring my experience to this post, is for the fact that you seem to want to throw your own resume in my face to buttress your incorrect conclusion.
I did not write you are wrong because we have different experiences. You're wrong because you're wrong in this post. Now maybe in these "several boards besides this one" You never made this error, here you have.

 

[cbg]

I didn't say THIS poster said that. You said that if the question of severance being required by law was coming up on other boards, it must be that I was misreading the questions, and I was correcting you on that statement.

Fine. THIS poster had a severance agreement. That does NOT mean that every poster does, or that THIS poster is entitled to severance under the law. Which, if you read back, is all that I said. At no time did I say that THIS poster definitely did not have an agreement, or even that the employer was not obligated to follow the agreement.

 

[seniorjudge]

He is not obligated by law to provide you with severance at all. And your unemployment benefits, in many states, are affected by your severance, so he may well be doing you a favor.

Correct.

Green Hornet knows not whereof he speaks.:no:

 

[Green_Hornet]

Correct.

Green Hornet knows not whereof he speaks.

Incorrect just to make sure we all understand one another you are not saying since there is no law saying an employer has to pay severance pay; the employer is not libel for severance pay under agreed on terms of severance?

CBG:
And your unemployment benefits, in many states, are affected by your severance, so he may well be doing you a favor.

That is one the most ridiculous things I ever read. You agree with that as well?
That rates up there with the employee being shorted in on his pay check, complains to the employer. The employer then responding "I did you a favor because it would have only put him in higher tax bracket", and you would have paid more in with holding taxes.
CBG is correct I am new to internet boards of this sort; I really don't know what kind of a show you senior posters are running here. Two things that seem very clear you are not a Judge, and CBG's posts bend over backwards, to support the employers position. Before you say now your drawing a conclusion, I read a hand full of both your posts (On only this board) and yes that is my conclusion.

 

[cbg]

No, that is not what I am saying.

At no time have I said that an employer is not obligated to adhere to an agreement that is already in place, is binding, and is written in such a way as to be legal.

What I have said is that no law requires an employer to have such an agreement.

Period.

I have also said that it is not up to you to tell me what my experience has been.

Or do you think otherwise? Did someone appoint you to define my experience? If so, I wish someone had told me.

 

[Green_Hornet]

No, that is not what I am saying.

At no time have I said that an employer is not obligated to adhere to an agreement that is already in place, is binding, and is written in such a way as to be legal.
What I have said is that no law requires an employer to have such an agreement.
Period.
I have also said that it is not up to you to tell me what my experience has been.
Or do you think otherwise? Did someone appoint you to define my experience? If so, I wish someone had told me.

Actually I was asking this poster passing himself off as a judge, who took exception to my post to explain the rational behind his post. Where are you getting this notion I'm defining your experience?
The only thing I know about you is what you write, which in many posts favor the employer.

That no law requires an employer to have such an agreement. Period.

That's very misleading to a poster seeking advice, you also raised the point to me

Where does the poster say there was an agreement for severance?

The question shows you dismissed the notion of a severance agreement totally, and reached a conclusion. If you had not you would have responded "what were the terms of severance", or something along that line. Now that you have clarified your position in only falls inline with my first post. Which dismisses this so called judge's opinion of me being incorrect as well; I don't understand why you are continuing a debate on experience definition, and who defines what.

At no time have I said that an employer is not obligated to adhere to an agreement that is already in place, is binding, and is written in such a way as to be legal.

That's the whole problem; you should have stated that clearly from the beginning or agreed with me.
I did then you asked leading questions like the prosecutor. I was addressing the poster situation to begin with not questioning your reply at that point. Now would it be fair to say your response now in retrospect is:
The employer is obligated to adhere to an agreement that is already in place, is binding, and is written in such a way as to be legal. However no law requires an employer to have such an agreement.

Is that your position? Because if it is we are both on the same page, and there is no disagreement.
This would put this poster passing himself off as a judge incorrect in his irrational niggardly analysis of me. Which was what I was trying to clarify in the post you responded to , which only made my point as well.

 

[denm0003]

haha this post turned into a battle between cbj and green hornet, sry green hornet cbg won....