As squarespace was temporarily down the other night, I wrote in my mocked up thoughts to approach elsewhere later. Authorship is never a question unless you get into a dangerous game of content-providers and what happens to them. I've been reflective on this post recently. (Referring to my decision to add an end of employment reason to my professional account). https://www.philipbonneau.com/new-blog/2022/3/23/the-glassdoor-to-the-question-reasons-for-end-of-employment They were saved and when back up and running I'll return to discrimination and breaking that down line-by-line for educational purposes. (“Did that one.” - 4/2/2022)
I've thought about my recent blog post and how to continue on that for what is best for companies and for individuals. It can be read above on why I decided to add an "End of Employment" line to the CV and profile for each experience. It is something every recruiter and employer looks for and looks at. To sum up my rationale it is so it never has to get asked again repeatedly to answer or for it either to become a discussion point or an answer that is either awkward or exciting to answer in story-telling. Everything is always at first glance and dates are always important in those 5-6 seconds of viability.
We have a chance for employment and a right to work knowing food has to be put on the table one way or another. I’ve been long-term, fixed-term and then very short-termed in my career. The short term was never a fault of my own and never a reflection of my ability to do what has to be done to have a job and keep a roof over my head. I am a loyal customer when it comes to investing in my life and stability. An asset that most companies look for.
The further question rises from what happens after end of employment in some regards?
Inquiring minds always want to know if they even get a chance to look at someone’s CV. (I’m questioning the advent of the word CV knowing I thank you for my misunderstood appreciation of accent marks. Secret warriors stream-lining the job application status one step at a time. we can talk metrics later on where that came from.)
When it comes to end of employment, there is resigning to move on, there is termination and there is an end of employment/contract agreement. What happens when filing for unemployment and it is contested by the company?
It becomes a different arena when filing for unemployment. It is a completely different line item and it is separate from the reason of separation from employment. It is one that tells a story on either side of the coin that is fairly heard out in most cases to determine that it is a battle between putting food on a table or whatever you are afforded to enjoy a meal vs. a credit score that gets dinged for life. Money favors most in that regard but compassion overrules this and states where my argument begins.
If ever faced with having to file unemployment, there is a story there and there are official responses. By definition you have a 3rd party mediator that looks at the facts presented and makes an official response. Those statements are definitive based on knowledge of sworn aspects from either side to come to a conclusion. Always room to expand if necessary. Those stories are protected to most extents knowing what happens on those phone calls are the same as appearing before a judge because that is accurate to understand the sensitivity of fighting to put food on the table. Unwelcomed guests or surprise witnesses always resort back to parenting advice of learning how to teach sensitivity. When it comes to reason to reject or approve, that is determined by a 3rd party and it is based on fact on either side.
If it is an official response held in the state of application and response, Word-for-word should hold no legal recourse in Section III - Reasoning of unemployment determination. I am not sure how that applies state to state so I rest my case with the state of Georgia on my filing unemployment knowing I was at least afforded the grace in Florida that I didn’t have to ask for unemployment when Alfred Angelo abruptly shut down. That compassion was met by a 3rd party who understands the difficulty of that association. Unemployment decisions will always be a statement of fact and not biased when written verbatim. Facts always added after the fact to re-evaluate decisions, but there is a clear decision based on time of what one or the other did in that regard. It is important to read the back of the letters to know when pertaining to this that it specifically says "shall not be made the subject matter or basis for any action for slander or libel in any court of the State of _______" . The privileged status of letters is not open for interpretation on the matter, but implies it is the privilege discretion of the recipient on how to use it as long as they leave emotion out of it and speak the truth. I speak the truth when what is utmost “could be” protected knowing where my story lays. How many of our stories need to be protected?
When denied unemployment at first glance, it is an insult to injury in some cases and done so because unemployment dings affect the company on an insurance level that they try to protect. Companies know the value of paying out unemployment benefits and it leaves a mark on their CV that costs them in the long run. The other side of it is companies understand liability and understand that it is easier to hurt an individual knowing they are collectively more protected than the one filing. What you submit to the state of filing is final in official response and cannot be removed. Leaving emotion out of it is important when it comes to those matters while it is up to trained, skilled professional to ascertain an answer. There is the other side of those trying to eat and trying to pay the bills where the professionals know the difference in what they made their life passion doing and protecting. While not all cases are approved or rejected, (some are never heard) they often denote either a wrong was done or there was room for discussion prior to termination or from the actions leading to termination. 3rd parties needed to be brought in at one point or another.
In a "Glassdoor" setting of note of companies that refuse unemployment benefits there is always the question "Why?". That is individually based with a wide ruling on the matter. Slander/Liabel is not just associated with a company but also the individual. If recorded in your state of residence by a company in any regard to get out of paying unemployment benefits, it is clearly stated on the state and federal charges behind that. Companies are no match for a single person trying to eat and put food on the table before getting into the aspect of those with families. The strength to file for unemployment is already insult to injury knowing there is a story that takes strength. To hide personal grudges in official responses is never a solution and according to the State of Georgia I am legally 100% ok to state with no further context Section III- Reasoning on any case of what happens when you permanently affect someone’s life. This is a practice that could be adopted that companies either fight against unemployment or accept it and move on. It is a case-by-case basis that is never to be retaliatory and always a statement of fact. 3rd parties involved made sound judgements based on the facts provided. It is never an attack on a companies CV, but a documentation of history that has been frowned upon based on taught behavior of who pays the bills without understanding who kept the lights on.
As it is recorded both state and always attached to the one who applied for better or worse, it can be a completely non-biased way of saying what companies do + and - in that regard based on their own words and leaving them to their statements.
An open door to any company knowing I am a friend, I work internally to resolve situations and I have proven myself loyal to companies knowing that history doesn’t repeat itself from here on knowing that the internal structure is very important knowing what I had to do and what I sacrificed empowering everyone else to at least start with an “End of Employment” section knowing the “REASON FOR DETERMINATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS” speaks more about us than it does one way or the other. It was a 3rd party determination.
