so i think it’s reasonable to say that ui maintains balance. bcuz of ui, an employer now thinks twice before discharging employees for frivolous reasons. this just wouldn’t work if the employees were to fund ui. after all, how much sense does it make for an employee to say, “i better think twice before getting fired for no legitimate reason whatsoever!”

it’s all good then. i never use proper caps in informal internet communications, but i do try my best to adhere to proper grammar protocol.

“I agree that owning a business is voluntary, risky, and a huge responsibility, and that one should not take it on if unprepared. But most employees have no idea how much easier it usually is to be on the employee side of the business. I think good employers deserve more recognition than they’re usually given.”

i totally agree that it’s a much simpler life on the employee’s side of the fence. all we have to do is go to work and process a W2 at the end of the year. however, it’s a person’s choice to start a business. that, in and of itself, in my opinion, isn’t enough to warrant any additional respect and/or recognition. we all make choices and deserve no special pat on the back for them.

“As for the contradictory statement, here’s what I meant: “avoid making irresponsible business decisions that will result in you needlessly having to jettison an employee into the murky waters of unemployment…develop a foundation of iron-clad company regulations…etc” sounds like there is never an excuse or reason to have to terminate an employee, unless you’ve been irresponsible. By further stating that “just because you are the business owner does not mean you are in complete control”, you admit that some things may not be completely within your control, so a situation could arise where you may have to let an employee go even though you have been responsible.”

when i said “just because you are the business owner does not mean you are in complete control”, i was addressing how business owners don’t have total reign over the determination process. this means they can’t fire an employee for wearing pink socks and not be accountable for their actions, hence they are not in “complete control”.

however, when i said “avoid making irresponsible business decisions that will result in you needlessly having to jettison an employee into the murky waters of unemployment” and blah blah, i never even addressed the issue of control. all i did was offer my own brand of advice on how to tighten up your company policy to reduce the risk of being on the hook for ui compensation. i never presented it with any guarantees. it was just advice that many small-time business owners need to heed.

As for the contradictory statement, here’s what I meant: “avoid making irresponsible business decisions that will result in you needlessly having to jettison an employee into the murky waters of unemployment…develop a foundation of iron-clad company regulations…etc” sounds like there is never an excuse or reason to have to terminate an employee, unless you’ve been irresponsible. By further stating that “just because you are the business owner does not mean you are in complete control”, you admit that some things may not be completely within your control, so a situation could arise where you may have to let an employee go even though you have been responsible.

I apologize for the who/whom comment. I was being sarcastic, but I meant no malice.

then you have the gall to say this:

“I don’t think it is fair for her to put us in this position”

it seems to me that you have a double standard when it comes to what’s fair. you are willing to low-ball the salaries of desperate working-class citizens in order to save a buck, yet an employee who works for you is being unfair by not quitting?

so it’s obvious that the current economic condition has created an advantage for you, but you don’t have any constitutional rights to capitalize on it. that said, you need to stop pointing the blame elsewhere and focus moving forward with the situation at hand. first and foremost, you need to realize that it was your company’s decision to hire her. the fact that you don’t need her now does not entitle you to a bailout that grants an accountability-free license to terminate her employment without just cause. second, you need to drop any grievances you have with hiring her at higher salary pre-recession than what the average joe will work for post-recession. there’s always someone willing to work for less. that’s just business life. no insurance policy exists to cover you for financial hardship every time you fail to pull the lowest bidder from the crowd of job-hungry people. lastly, so what if she wants you to fire her? is she doing her job properly while she’s there? is she coming in to work on time? if so, pay her and stop complaining that things aren’t going your way bcuz, lady, in life, hardly anything goes your way.

“You sound like one of those people WHOM hates businesses and WHOM hates working for the man yourself. Try running your own business and you might have some sympathy for those WHOM have actually done so. Or maybe you have? I can’t tell what your stance is or where you’re going with this.”

i don’t know where you got this idea. i have zero problems with businesses/business owners or being an employee myself. in fact, if you read my other posts, you will see that i actually give business owners advice on how to properly terminate employees in such a way that presents the least amount of risk for a ui payout. in spite of that, however, i will add that i don’t have sympathy for the struggles business owners go through, especially with respect to ui. no body of authority appoints a person to become the owner of a business against their will. owning a business is 100% voluntary, comes with responsibility, and risks are always present. one who does not set the proper expectation as to what being a business owner entails deserves no sympathy when poor or inexperienced business planning comes back around to take a bite out of their backside.

“First you say, “avoid making irresponsible business decisions that will result in you needlessly having to jettison an employee into the murky waters of unemployment…develop a foundation of iron-clad company regulations…etc.” Then you say “just because you are the business owner does not mean you are in complete control.” Sounds like a contradiction to me.”

would you care to illustrate how the second sentence contradicts the first or vice-versa?

“Is it because you’re indecisive that you seem so worked up?”

the only person who seems worked up here is you. your digressive who/whom tangent is certainly indicative of this.

First you say, “avoid making irresponsible business decisions that will result in you needlessly having to jettison an employee into the murky waters of unemployment…develop a foundation of iron-clad company regulations…etc.” Then you say “just because you are the business owner does not mean you are in complete control.” Sounds like a contradiction to me. Is it because you’re indecisive that you seem so worked up?

who = nominative
whom = objective