Performance Issues - Fired for having to high of a percentage - California

by brian
(stocton,ca)

At my job we are supposed to be below a certain percentage. Three weeks a go I was written up for being above that percentage and they said that i need to get it down. Well since that meeting over the next three weeks I was not given enough work to fix my percentage and the percentage also relies on things which are completely out of my control like bad boxes, if a customer has any issue at all even if it is unrelated to you it falls on you as well. Also at the time I was discharged about 85-90 percent of the workforce was above the percentage that we are supposed to be at. They also let go of at least three other employees the same day. We also have been really slow at work and I don't know if this is just there way of getting rid of employees to try and get away with not having to pay unemployment. At my meeting I took the suggestions from my supervisors and followed through, but my percentage still remained the same. I tried my hardest to fix the situation because I did not want to lose my job.




Hi Brian,

Have you filed for California Unemployment benefits?

If not, just stress the reasons that your inability to get below the "percentage" were beyond your control.

It's important for employees to understand the difference between performance issues cause by neglect and performance issues caused by inability and factors beyond their control.

Sure, employers can fire anyone for any reason they want and then try to prove it was misconduct and they do, but ultimately it isn't their fault an individual doesn't get unemployment.

It's our fault because we haven't trained ourselves to protect ourselves from this "tactic".

I've said it before .. and I'll say it again .. employers who regularly discharge for performance issues that lack "culpability" on the part of an employee are playing an odds game.

Many people just don't file for unemployment .. because they assume they can't get it. They also don't appeal to a hearing. Instead they throw their hands up in the air and think "what's the use".

If it had been me who had received the formal disciplines, there would not be one write-up in my personnel file that didn't have my added comment written on it as to my reasons I thought the write-up was unfair due to the circumstances "out of my control".

My opinion about maintaining a proper attitude as an employee includes thinking of the employer/employee relationship as a chess game and always includes keeping my eye on the END. This is exactly what employer do.

At the beginning of a job every single one of us should familiarize our self with the employer's rules. It's not just employees who break them .. so do employers and employer agents (managers, HR etc.)

I of course think I am a valuable employee and feel personally compelled to do the best job possible .. just like most people, but my job experience has taught me that most people are just grateful for the job and don't understand that the processes employers put in place are basically there to protect employers.

They also don't realize that they can and should "participate" in this process. The fact is, if you don't .. you're just a lamb .. who could be sent to slaughter at any moment.

Your own best advocate is you.

If you have been discharged for a Performance in California first see MC300 "Manner of Performing Work"

Comments for Performance Issues - Fired for having to high of a percentage - California

Average Rating starstarstarstarstar

Click here to add your own comments

Rating
starstarstarstarstar
LAck of work
by: Anonymous

one other bit of info. Leading up to my discharge since January there was a considerable lack of work and they had mentioned in some meetings that they might have to lay off some people. My percentage was about the same for weeks and they did nothing until there was lack of work they got rid of at least three employees the same day.

I also read and I will quote "It sometimes happens in discharges for alleged inefficiency that the inefficiency was not the actual cause of discharge. For example, a claimant may have been relatively inefficient all the time he or she worked for the employer with no warnings or reprimands.The employer might have been dissatisfied but not to the point of discharging the claimant. However, if the employer's business decreased to the point where the employer quite probably would discharge the claimant. Such a discharge would not be misconduct because the primary reason for the discharge was lack of work.



Exactly, and you now have your focus for your appeal. Another way to put this is that it sometimes happen that employer's attempt to discharge people for cause rather than fess up and just lay them off because that would mean it's an automatic loss.

But the point you keep missing is that when we apply for unemployment .. we need to be factual about why we were let go .. per the employer.

The drop down box is not the place to assert your argument about what you think is their ulterior motive ..

Rating
starstarstarstarstar
Ridiculous
by: Anonymous

What does that mean just because I thought that there use of words had implied that I was laid off I have to now prove that I am not lying. This is so ridiculous. I cant understand why the whole company was not fired/ laid off because there percentages were all over the allowed amount as well. I have another friend who was laid off or fired for the same reason and on his app he put paid off and for explanation he put lack of work and he is not getting a telephone call, and because I was honest about what happened I am going to be the one that gets screwed?


**********

Very possibly. Your friend may have "lucked out" or the axe just hasn't fallen yet.

You stated you were confused as to what category you fell into because the employer was vague when they let you go, but you intially said that you were let go for performance issues. That's not vague, that's a discharge.

You may not be screwed. Have you received the DETERMINATION from the state yet?

If it doesn't go in your favor, you do have the option to appeal.

Rating
starstarstarstarstar
The difference between being Laid off for lack of work and fired
by: Chris - webmaster:)

Like I said, employers do not protest when they lay someone off. They do protest when they fire someone.

There is not a statute that requires the words "you're fired" to be spoken. If they said they were letting you go due to "percentages" that should have been clear enough that it wasn't a layoff.

If you had applied and chosen discharged as the reason for separation instead of laid off and explained the reasons you were unable to achieve the percentage your employer wanted you would not be faced with now having to prove your choice was just a mistake .. you basically damaged your credibility with regard to the fact that what you say is factual .. and not an attempt at fraud.

You raised the issue and you now need to sufficiently explain ... ah well, let's use the word your entire account has implied .. "ignorance".


Rating
starstarstarstarstar
LACK OF WORK
by: Anonymous

AS FOR MY EXPLANATION I SAID BECAUSE OF PERCENTAGE, BUT THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLE LACK OF WORK. IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE DROPDOWN WITH A CHOICE OF FIRED OR LAID OFF, I WAS CONFUSED AS TO WHICH CATEGORY I FELL INTO TO BECAUSE THEY WERE WAGUE AS TO WHY I WAS LAID OFF

Rating
starstarstarstarstar
lack of work
by: Anonymous

yes i used lack of work because they did not say they were firing me and in the last two months leading to when thye let me go i worked a total of about 2 weeks

Rating
starstarstarstarstar
just got award letter
by: Anonymous

Yea I applied for unemployment and I thought everything was fine I got my award letter and information on my first check, but just the other day I got a letter in the mail about a phone interview. My explanation for being laid off was two fold there was too little work and they said my percentage was to high, but 85 -90% of the workforce was above this percentage so why waqs i being singled out. I am kindof worried about the phone interview, but i have done everything in my power to keep my job.

********


Did you actually use or choose the term "laid off" when you applied?

Laid Off means the employer had a lack of work. Employer's do not contest Lack of Work claims. If you used that term .. it raises questions about the possibility that the claimant is misrepresenting facts .. it puts your credibility in question.

Click here to add your own comments

Return to Can I get unemployment if I have been fired?.

} }