then I don't know what you'd want. http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/22/news/economy/jobs_bill_senate/index.htm?hpt=T1
You don't know what I want. Certainly not this: *Exempt employers from Social Security payroll taxes on new hires who were unemployed; Pretty solid guarantee that longterm employees would all be fired and replaced with new employees, eliminating all unemployment benefits and ensuring a longterm depression of unimaginable proportions. Whoever came up with that is an idiot.
So basically it gives corporations tax breaks to buy equitpment, fund road construction and encourages companies to just hire new employees (at the expense of others in the company)? yeah, makes sense!
If your employer is going to replace you with an unemployed person in order to gain a temporary savings of 7% of your salary, then you weren't of much value to them anyway. barfo
I think it is safe to assume that a new employee would come in at entry level and the employees leaving made more than that. I have been told that it is illegal to lay someone off and then hire someone else immediately for their position... but at the same time I have seen it happen.
Is there actually a procedural difference between a "lay-off" and a "firing?" I mean, I understand the conceptual difference...one is due to lack of being able to pay the worker and the other is due to being dissatisfied with the worker. But is there an actual way to officially track who was laid off and who was fired?
I believe that's only the case if the lay-off is large enough to require WARN act reporting. And even then, it's become increasingly common to lay-off a permanent employee and then bring in a temp to perform the same function, and there is (unfortunately) no prohibition against such an action.
As someone who has been thru this exact same thing before, no company dismissed employees to hire unemployed for the tax break.
Right. Because those hard-to-fill, highly-skilled, highly-valued positions are the ones at risk of being lost.
