Wisconsin

[pacearrow02]

Masks need to be worn in busses, planes, trains, airports, bus stations. Anywhere that federal, state, local rules and regulations require a mask, including local businesses and workplaces.

But people don't actually read, they just hear what they want to hear.

Planes, airports, and different mass travel situations I can see this being enforced.  God luck everywhere else, just words on paper at this point.

[The Sultan]

Masks need to be worn in busses, planes, trains, airports, bus stations. Anywhere that federal, state, local rules and regulations require a mask, including local businesses and workplaces.

But people don't actually read, they just hear what they want to hear.

Sorry. Next time I'll quote the actual text. But the point I was addressing is that it does not include large, indoor crowds. Like a sporting event.

[Skatastrophy]

Sorry. Next time I'll quote the actual text. But the point I was addressing is that it does not include large, indoor crowds. Like a sporting event.

It's all good. I was trying to add to your statement, not argue. In the future, I'll argue so that it's more clear.

[jesmu84]

https://twitter.com/MollyBeck/status/1425924483676884992?s=19

Republican lawmakers are circulating a bill that would allow workers to collect unemployment if they quit a job over a vaccine mandate.

[jficke13]

Huh, I thought unemployment payments incentivized laziness. It's real tough to keep up.

[warriorchick]

Waste of time. Evers will never sign it.

[JWags85]

Huh, I thought unemployment payments incentivized laziness. It's real tough to keep up.

Backdoor way of trying to punish employers who mandate masks.  Absurd, but points for creativity.  Dirty pool at its finest

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Backdoor way of trying to punish employers who mandate masks.  Absurd, but points for creativity.  Dirty pool at its finest

How would that punish employers? I am not deeply familiar with unemployment laws so apologies if that is a dumb question.

[rocky_warrior]

How would that punish employers? I am not deeply familiar with unemployment laws so apologies if that is a dumb question.

All employers pay unemployment insurance.  Firing for cause (violated company policy, no vaccine, no unemployment paid) is far cheaper than  layoff (no vaccine, unemployment paid).

Also why I suggested earlier that many employers will choose to put unvaccinated employees on unpaid leave.  If they choose to quit after that, no unemployment disputes.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

All employers pay unemployment insurance.  Firing for cause (violated company policy, no vaccine, no unemployment paid) is far cheaper than  layoff (no vaccine, unemployment paid).

Also why I suggested earlier that many employers will choose to put unvaccinated employees on unpaid leave.  If they choose to quit after that, no unemployment disputes.

Again, sorry if dumb question, but don't employers pay into the system based on employee headcount, and actual unemployment payments are made at the state level to the actual unemployed person?

If I understand correctly you are saying employers have to pay for the unemployment based on how many people they layoff?

[rocky_warrior]

If I understand correctly you are saying employers have to pay for the unemployment based on how many people they layoff?

Yes, they do.  Let me google that for you:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/the-cost-of-layoffs-in-ui-taxes.htm

States use two primary methods for determining an employer's UI tax rate.3 In both methods, when an employer lays off a worker, all of the UI benefits received by that worker are assigned back,4 on the basis of specific rules for assigning benefits, to the employer's experience-rating formulation. The first method, called the reserve-ratio method, is used by 30 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia; the second method, called the benefit-ratio method, is used by 16 states.

In reserve-ratio systems, an employer's "experience rate" is a decreasing function, whereby the difference between all taxes paid and all benefits assigned (from laid-off employees) is divided by the employer's average covered payroll. Taxes paid and benefits assigned are usually summed over all past years of the employer's existence, and average payroll is typically the average for the last 3 years. Each year, the previous year's amounts of benefits assigned and taxes paid are incorporated into the employer's "reserve balance," and a new reserve ratio is derived. When the amount of benefits assigned exceeds the amount of taxes paid, the employer's reserve balance decreases and its UI tax rate goes up. Conversely, when the benefits assigned are lower than the taxes paid, the employer's reserve balance increases and its tax rate goes down.

In benefit-ratio systems, an employer's experience rate depends only on the ratio of the benefits collected by laid-off employees to the level of the employer's taxable wages (both benefits and taxable wages are calculated for the last 3 years). When the benefits assigned to the employer increase, the employer's benefit ratio goes up, and so does the corresponding tax rate.

[JWags85]

Again, sorry if dumb question, but don't employers pay into the system based on employee headcount, and actual unemployment payments are made at the state level to the actual unemployed person?

If I understand correctly you are saying employers have to pay for the unemployment based on how many people they layoff?

As an employer, your unemployment tax rate increases when you have claims.   So its not like you're directly paying cash to the employee, but your tax liabilities increase so it does directly affect your cash flow/bottom line

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Yes, they do.  Let me google that for you:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/the-cost-of-layoffs-in-ui-taxes.htm

Using the interwebs! No fair.

Ah, they old "if you actually use this insurance we'll increase your rates" game.

Thanks to you and JWags for the answers.

Hmmm, totally talking out of my ass here, but I would think that the calculus is that any additional unemployment insurance an employer has to pay is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of even a single COVID-caused hospitalization, at least for self-insured employers...and even fully-insured employers that would face a huge spike in rates after a catastrophic claim or two.

[rocky_warrior]

Using the interwebs! No fair.

Ah, they old "if you actually use this insurance we'll increase your rates" game.

Thanks to you and JWags for the answers.

I just re-read your question, and JWags was more correct in answering that layoffs (and not firings) affect your insurance rate - it's not an actual payment to employees.   But over time it affects the bottom line - sometimes significantly.

[JWags85]

I just re-read your question, and JWags was more correct in answering that layoffs (and not firings) affect your insurance rate - it's not an actual payment to employees.   But over time it affects the bottom line - sometimes significantly.

Yep.  My company's old CFO explained it to me, paraphrasing..

"Companies fight you on unemployment claims, not because of you specifically, but because of how your claim can affect them in the future.  Its like if you have an acrimonious break up with a GF, if you can convince them and everyone else that THEY were the instigator of the breakup, you come off better in appearance in your future dating opportunities"

Not a perfect analogy, but I got it and it made me smirk.

[🏀]

Yep.  My company's old CFO explained it to me, paraphrasing..

"Companies fight you on unemployment claims, not because of you specifically, but because of how your claim can affect them in the future.  Its like if you have an acrimonious break up with a GF, if you can convince them and everyone else that THEY were the instigator of the breakup, you come off better in appearance in your future dating opportunities"

Not a perfect analogy, but I got it and it made me smirk.

Curious question how does the rating effect an employer that is seasonal? Landscaping, construction, etc where the entire labor force goes on unemployment seasonally?

[warriorchick]

Curious question how does the rating effect an employer that is seasonal? Landscaping, construction, etc where the entire labor force goes on unemployment seasonally?

Most seasonal employers have very high unemployment insurance rates. The seasonal employee is, however, required to look for work. They aren't supposed to sit around and collect unemployment until next season.

[Galway Eagle]

So currently WI Republicans want more people living off government welfare and not working, and also want to interfere with private business decisions?

Hmm maybe it's not about policy...

[🏀]

Most seasonal employers have very high unemployment insurance rates. The seasonal employee is, however, required to look for work. They aren't supposed to sit around and collect unemployment until next season.

Right, supposed to. Basically call their Union hall and get put on the work list. They'll never get called back out until spring though.

[warriorchick]

Right, supposed to. Basically call their Union hall and get put on the work list. They'll never get called back out until spring though.

Most seasonal jobs are not union. 

[🏀]

Most seasonal jobs are not union. 

Probably, I'm coming from a construction slant where they are mostly union.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Dane Co resumes indoor mask mandates.

70% of the county is vaccined, 20% is under 12.

[MUfan12]

Dane Co resumes indoor mask mandates.

70% of the county is vaccined, 20% is under 12.

Cases have been flat for the last two weeks. Wonder if it's a preemptive move with kids coming back to UW.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Cases have been flat for the last two weeks. Wonder if it's a preemptive move with kids coming back to UW.

It's because they can.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Stupid as stupid does...

Dude with co-morbidities like him should really be more careful.

Sen. Andre Jacque of De Pere hospitalized after testing positive for COVID-19
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/08/17/sen-andre-jacque-hospitalized-after-testing-positive-covid-19/8156902002/

'Sen. Andre Jacque, a Republican from De Pere, said Monday evening he and some family members tested positive late last week and that he was at the hospital with pneumonia. He did not say whether he had been admitted.

In recent months, Jacque has been one of most outspoken lawmakers against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and has authored legislation that would bar government officials or business owners from requiring Wisconsinites be vaccinated against COVID-19 or show proof of vaccination to access services.

Jacque said he has had pneumonia previously but did not immediately say whether his new bout was diagnosed as COVID-19 pneumonia.

He did not immediately say whether he had been vaccinated against COVID-19."