by Chris
The idea that you will receive a fair tribunal unemployment hearing, resulting in a decision written by the hearing officer presiding, completely impartial to either party and only focused on the intent of the relevant section of law, is a pleasant thought, but one many have learned, is a tough ideal to meet.
The burden of delivering fair and impartial, also requires overriding the human tendency to show bias.
As you can see in the YouTube video below, the Tennessee unemployment appeal section seems to want to put you at ease that you can expect all H.Os to live up to this divine ideal.
However, I found it curious that the H.O. informed both party’s in this public, and I presume, educational video, they could be represented by an attorney, but neglected to let them know that per Tennessee unemployment appeal instructions, they also have the right to be represented by any other representative of their choice.
Might that little detail might of been left out on purpose? My guess, when a state underinforms is usually, yes. All because there is at minimum, a thirty percent advantage for a pro business state if you think you can do your own representing.
(Note: Thomas and Thorngren is an unemployment cost control company and either this was staged, or someone fell down on the job preparing and guiding this HR director .. or maybe she just ignored some good advice about creating merits.)
See if you can tell where the claimant might of made an objection, or two, himself, if this video hadn’t been made for general instructional purposes and the hearing officer wasn’t performing for YouTube. Might he of sounded .. and even acted differently if he might be personally influenced by pro business bias?
You need to prepare .. for this too, just in case.
So, what do you think? Whether real, or an enactment of an actual record .. should this appeal hearing be a winner, or a loser for the claimant’s appeal?
(Remember, he was initially denied benefits, by the TN claims section of the dept.)