What Constitutes Misconduct for Unemployment Insurance

My question involves unemployment benefits for the state of: Florida


[
Was hired by the bank in Oct 2011 to be an outgoing call agent to customers who want modifications. Its a form of debt collections really but instead we would try to modify their mortgages. We had to call them and gather docs and do other functions. We were supposed to take inbound calls 5 hrs a day but could make outgoing calls during that time if nobody was calling in.

We were givin an email stating if we were caught 'phone manipulation' is grounds for immediate termination. We were NOT given details on what that meant and to this day I still have not seen any definition of it.

By Feb we were slowly changing our time to have to be on the phone our whole shift . Then it became more repressive. Not only were we to be avail to take incoming calls, we had to make outbound calls and could not be 'idle' longer than 5 min. Our employer even put timers on our desks to remind us how long we had been off the phone typing our notes in the computer.

If it went over 5 min , we would get a pm from our supervisor and we would have to send an email to our boss to explain why the lapse occured.

This behavior was very hard to adhere to . We only had so many clients and since we could only contact them once a day due to FDCPA rules we would have to try tricks to stay on the phone. This would include stretching out calls repeading instructions 5 times to customers. Calling customers we just talked to the day before even though we didnt need anything. Calling all the numbers on their screen even if they were not in service.

Just as long as we stayed on the phone all was well. So I started collecting all these not in service numbers ,fax numbers and otherwize numbers that nobody ever answered.

I started using them to fill in time while typing or otherwise doing my processsing of the loan work on computer. Reading email or other tasks.
Sound good right? staying on the phone keeping everyone happy.

No.

I was called into the office and FIRED for 'phone manipulation' , which has zero tolerence. The bank has a long standing policy of talkng to, then verbal warning, then written warning then perhaps further action.

But for this apparent action is zero to fired . Not even a question as to 'why I did it' . Out the door.

They said the rule was in my handbook but I dont see it. I just want to know if any of you have had any experience with something like this.

- - - Updated - - -

Does anyone have any feedback for me at all? I would really appreciate it :wallbang:

If you were deliberately calling numbers you knew did not work in order to avoid your employer's productivity requirements, including deliberately calling disconnected lines and fax numbers, nobody would have needed to explain to you that you were violating a rule against "phone manipulation", nor would such a rule be necessary in order to terminate you for cause.

I'm afraid it wouldn't have to be in a handbook (whether or not the employer expected folks to include emails on certain topics in their "handbook" or not).

While the employer's productivity goals may be nonsense (it may be unreasonable to expect folks to be doing X related to related off-phone work if you're supposed to be on a phone call with folks Y hours a day), challenging them vs. doing something underhanded to circumvent them isn't a great idea. You haven't indicated something unlawful has occurred with the employer.

You're free to argue with the state unemployment folks that the employer's supposedly iron-clad progressive discipline system wasn't followed in your case, but we can't know that someone won't produce X "evidence" that it was.

I don't recall any FDCPA rule that says you can only contact a debtor once a day, but maybe you'll provide the link and quote here.

(I expect that the employer imposed restrictions above and beyond the letter of the FDCPA in order to minimize the number of claimed violations.)

So the bank kept tightening it rules, to increase efficiency and stop employees from wasting time. The employees in return started developing devious methods of time theft, to pretend they were working. You were caught and fired, now you are mad they caught you? Correct? Now that they have eliminated one employee committing time theft, they can shift his work load to others and improve efficiency in spite of other employees stealing time.

I appreciate your replies

Please allow me to condense my story further for you that may help you give me more advice.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting thomasdavie

---

I appreciate your replies

Please allow me to condense my story further for you that may help you give me more advice.

---

To the posters above, the law in Florida allows the employer to terminate for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Its a right to work state so stating the employer had the right to fire me is irrelevant.

What is at stake is if the employer can prove I conciously commited misconduct that would constitute dismissal without any warning and that rule is evenly applied.

These are sections 30 of the Florida act.

In order to be denied benefits , the employer has the burden to PROVE that it was misconduct under their rules and I conscious of the fact it was an offense that was punishable by immediate termination to deny benefits.

My employer uses a standard practice of coaching, verbal warning, written warning and then further action for all kinds of actions. A strict log on each employee is kept of such warnings for all kinds of things

So to say its 'iron clad' is sour grapes to try to invalidate it. Its not 'iron clad' but its beyond standard practice and is normal for employees to assume.

Ergo in order for my termination to deny benefits to be upheld, not only does the employer bear the brunt of proving my actions but then to proving that everyone is fired equally when goofing off.

Of course not everyone is fired for 'goofing off' or otherwise making unproductive calls . So my offense needs to be explained as profane on iits one accord aside from other offenses and I do not see it anywhere.

i have valid reasons for doing what i did and no malice was involved. I certainly can argue that and even have my team members attest to the fact we were all trying to find ways to stay on the phone.

Suggesting my method of 'unproductive phone calls' is the same as hacking into the phone system or making it think I was there when I was at the beach are totally different scenarios.

I understand you both are employer hawks , and i encourage you to keep hammering away at me from the employer view, but please provide something more than just 'you otta know'

I can assure you my employers wont just chuck that out or it will be a very short hearing

Employer : Yes your honor we fired him becuase he was making ridiculous phone calls all so he could claim he was on the phone

Me : Yeah because they were forcing me to stay on the phone regardless of the quality of the call . We were told to keep calling and recalling numbers if we had to.

Employer : Yes but he callled numbers he KNEW were never going to be productive

Me : yes just like we ALL call numbers and redial and call borrower relatives or whatever numbers on the file to stay on the phone if we have run out of customers to call Regardless if there is any hope of answer or a productive reason to call.

Judge : Why dont you just sit there and wait for an imbound call ?

Me Because we had TIMERS on our desk forcing us to make calls if we were idle 5 min.

Employer : calling these numbers were useless so he was purposefully GOOFING OFF or otherwise wasting his time

Me : Wrong. I was doing all the other things I need to do such as perfect files and read emails and do job coaching and many many other computer tasks.

Judge : You needed to do all this at the SAME TIME ?

Me : Unbelievably, yes. I dont WANT to call these stupid numbers but we cannot recall people or harass people for no reason just to call. This way nobody gets harassed.

Employer : He called for no reason !!!

Judge: He just told you the reason. To satisfy your demand and also make sure nobody was harassed or called for no other reason than just to make calls.

You are entitled to your fantasy scenarios in which an ALJ will regard your deliberately calling fax numbers and non-working numbers to be something other than deliberate misconduct. Just as you are entitled to your fantasy that everybody who disagrees with you is an "employer hawk", whatever you think that is.

Its a right to work state so stating the employer had the right to fire me is irrelevant.


Right to work means that you don't have to join a union to get work. It has nothing to do with your situation. You're talking about employment at will.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You are entitled to your fantasy scenarios in which an ALJ will regard your deliberately calling fax numbers and non-working numbers to be something other than deliberate misconduct. Just as you are entitled to your fantasy that everybody who disagrees with you is an "employer hawk", whatever you think that is.

---

This post helps nobody and does nothing . You are being childish .

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Its a right to work state so stating the employer had the right to fire me is irrelevant.


Right to work means that you don't have to join a union to get work. It has nothing to do with your situation. You're talking about employment at will.

---

Yes, it is an 'at will' employment but I do believe my state is also a right to work state but you bring up a good point. Thank you.

The employer doesnt need any reason to fire anyone. It was an issue of whether they need to pay my benefits.

UPDATE:

I just received a letter and my employer has dropped their objection. I am going to receive the benefits. :victorious:

Yes, you are correct. Your state is a right to work state. It is also an employment at will state. The issue at hand relates to employment at will, and not at all to right to work.

Congratulations on receiving your benefits. They will not be paid by the employer, but by the state. The employer doesn't "need" to pay anything at all.