Unemployment appeal for employee that quit 

I have an employee that quit voluntarily, gave his two weeks notice, was very cooperative returning equipment and transitioning everything over. A few weeks later I received an unemployment claim for Quit - Dissatisfied. They claimed their hours were reduced, change in job duties, and stress at work. None of this is true. The only change was he got a new manager to report to. After submitting the fact finding questionnaires, state denied the claim (rightfully so). I just received an appeal for the denial.

I am the HR director and have never been through an appeal before. Does anyone have insight on the process? Also has anyone been in a similar situation to this? Just seems like a waste of time for a seemingly clear cut voluntary resignation.

Jobadvisor

Here's how it works, and this is a totally normal thing to happen even with a clean-cut voluntary quit.

Why you're getting this appeal The claimant is appealing the denial — this is his right, and honestly, most claimants appeal denials whether or not they have a real case. It's a low-cost, low-effort move for them (fill out a form), so don't read too much into it as a sign your case is weak. DUA will send the claimant a notice with the date and time of the hearing when your employer files an appeal — but in your situation, since the claimant filed the appeal, DUA sends notices to both parties.

The process from here

1. You'll get two notices: Confirmation of your appeal and Notice of Hearing, both containing information you need to prepare for the hearing.
2. Timing: DUA aims to hold a hearing within 30 days of the appeal being filed, and most hearings are conducted by phone or virtually.
3. Level of process: This is the first tier — the DUA Hearings Department. If either side disagrees with the outcome, the next step is the Board of Review, then District Court, Appeals Court, and (rarely) the SJC. Very few cases go beyond the first hearing.
4. The hearing itself: It's conducted by a review examiner (not a judge in a courtroom sense) over the phone. Both you and the former employee will be sworn in and testify. The examiner will ask questions based on the fact-finding info already on file and give both sides a chance to respond to each other's claims.

How to prepare

• Notify witnesses and ask them to attend the hearing if necessary, and gather any documents/evidence to support your position before the hearing — you can't wait until it's scheduled to do this.
• Since this is a "quit — dissatisfied" case, the burden is actually on the claimant to show he had good cause attributable to the employer to quit (not just personal dissatisfaction). Useful things to have ready:
  • The resignation letter/notice (especially anything showing it was voluntary, no complaints noted)
  • Any documentation showing his hours were NOT reduced (payroll/timesheet records for his last several weeks)
  • Documentation showing job duties were not substantially changed
  • Notes on the transition — the fact he was cooperative, returned equipment, helped transition work is actually helpful color for the examiner (though it's more about his demeanor than direct legal disqualification)
  • Anyone who can speak to whether stress/workload was actually different than normal, if that's disputed
• Have the new manager available as a witness if the claimant is going to focus on this as the "change" causing him distress — being able to describe that this was a normal reporting change, not a demotion or hostile situation, will matter.

A few practical notes

• You do not need a lawyer for this — most employers represent themselves. If the case is high-value or you're worried about how it'll go, some employers use a UI/SUTA management company, but for a fact pattern like yours it's usually not necessary.
• The hearing is recorded, and the review examiner writes a decision afterward — it's not decided on the spot.
• Chargeback tail: keep in mind if this claim is eventually allowed, it stays on your account for five years — so if he claimed in 2026, it would affect your rates through roughly 2031 — one more reason it's worth showing up and presenting your evidence, even though it feels like a formality.

If you want, I can help you draft a short outline of talking points or a witness prep sheet for the hearing.

Hired 2 HR people never had hr before 

Long-TL;DR at bottom
Hi. I own a pipeline company that contracts welding and pipe installation to several larger outfits across the western US. We are based in CA. We have 18 employees and a few million in assets between trucks, equipment, buildings etc. I have horrible records (mostly on paper), terrible bookkeeping, a crew full of people with questionable pasts, myself included and we work out of multiple states.
I recently decided to hire 2 HR professionals who are pretty fresh out of college to handle payroll and implement a lot of things I recently learned I am supposed to be doing like sensitivity training and better records of credentials like NCCCO and DOT. I also need to be doing better background checks before securing jobs so I’m not scrambling to get guys to clear gates. I am planning on paying them each $90k a year salary to handle payroll, background checks, onboarding, vendors, HR compliance issues, certifications and licensing, vehicle tracker monitoring and more. However, I am still unsure if this will work out. I am concerned I have made too much of a mess as a roughneck trying to run a growing business from all angles. I found it hard to find these women who were willing to walk into my mess.
How do I insure these 2 will stay on and be happy to bring on more people as my company grows? I was planning on giving them each the same Christmas bonus as I give the guys every year-$5k and matching the guys $1800 tool and boot reimbursement so they can buy hr stuff or office stuff or whatever. I had an IT contractor set up their office and told the guys not to bother them. I mostly text with them so they don’t have to talk with my impolite and rude self frequently. Also am I asking too much of them? I am completely new to the concept of HR and tried to not have it for a long time. I really just want to know how to keep my new department happy and high functioning. They are the lowest paid employees in my company at the moment but from what I can tell it’s a strong number. Am I doing enough? Should I change anything?

TL;DR: I made a mess out of everything that an HR department does by being an ADHD pipeliner trying to run a large scale operation and I hired 2 HR professionals who are fresh out of school and I need to keep them but also they have a mountain of work setting up stuff I messed up and establishing protocols

Jobadvisor

You're doing a lot of things right already — and a few things that, with respect, are actively working against you. Let me go through it.

What's working well

• Competitive pay: $90k for early-career HR generalists handling this scope (payroll, comp, credentialing, background checks, vehicle tracking, compliance) is a genuinely strong offer, especially outside a major metro.
• Including them in the Christmas bonus and tool/gear reimbursement — treating them like part of the crew, not a separate caste — is a good instinct. Don't change that.
• Getting them a dedicated, quiet office setup is smart. HR work (especially untangling records) needs focus time.

What's likely to burn them out or push them out

1. You've handed two entry-level hires a job that's really 3-4 roles. Payroll + background checks/compliance + onboarding + vendor management + certifications/licensing + vehicle tracking is realistically a payroll specialist, a compliance/safety coordinator, and an HR generalist. Two fresh grads inheriting years of paper-based backlog across multiple states is a recipe for overwhelm, not because they're not capable, but because there's no way to do all of it well at once. Ask them to help you rank priorities and be honest that not everything gets fixed in month one.

2. "I mostly text with them so they don't have to talk with my impolite and rude self" — this is the biggest one. New HR hires, especially ones fresh out of school with no mentor or existing HR infrastructure to learn from, desperately need access to you, not distance from you. They need to understand your business, your risk tolerance, your history with these employees, and what "normal" looks like at your company. If you're not talking to them, they're making judgment calls on your compliance exposure with zero context — that's how mistakes happen, and it's also isolating and demoralizing for them. Self-awareness about being blunt is good; using it as a reason to avoid them isn't. Consider a standing 30-minute weekly check-in (call or in person) at minimum.

3. You told the crew "not to bother them." Well-intentioned, but it also signals to the guys that HR is untouchable/separate, which undercuts the two people you need to build trust and rapport with the workforce (background checks, credential tracking, and eventually things like harassment complaints all require the crew to actually talk to them). Better framing: encourage the crew to go to them for HR matters specifically, rather than isolating them entirely.

4. No mentor, no peer, no manager with HR experience. Two junior people with nobody senior in their own function to sanity-check decisions is a real retention risk — this is often the #1 reason young HR/compliance hires leave a company within a year, more than pay. Options: a part-time fractional HR consultant or PEO (professional employer organization) they can call with questions, a couple of them attending a local SHRM chapter, or budget for one of them to get PHR-track training/certification.

5. California compliance clock is louder than you may realize. A few things especially relevant to a company like yours with multi-state field crews:

• SB 553 requires California employers with 10+ employees to have a written Workplace Violence Prevention Plan, and it applies to nearly all California employers regardless of union status, with only narrow exceptions. While the general requirement has been enforceable since mid-2024, the more detailed written program, training, and recordkeeping requirements need to be fully in place by December 31, 2026 — penalties run $18,000–$25,000 per violation. Given your crew profile and multi-site work, this should be near the top of your two hires' list, not an afterthought.
• Harassment prevention training (SB 1343/AB 1825 lineage) is separately required for CA employers with 5+ employees, both supervisors and non-supervisors, recurring every two years — worth confirming your last cycle and scheduling the next.
• Given the "questionable pasts" comment, make sure background check practices are FCRA and CA-compliant (adverse action notices, ban-the-box timing) — getting this wrong is one of the more litigated areas in CA employment law.

A few concrete suggestions

• Sit down with them and jointly build a prioritized 90-day / 6-month roadmap instead of letting "everything" sit as an undifferentiated mountain. Ranked lists are far less demoralizing than an open-ended mess.
• Get them a budget line for outside help — a PEO, an employment attorney on retainer for CA-specific questions, or HR software (many bundle credential tracking, onboarding, and compliance calendars) so they're not building everything from scratch by hand.
• Increase your own availability to them, even in short bursts. A rough, direct founder who's present beats a polite, absent one.
• Ask them directly, now and periodically: "What's the hardest part of this job for you right now?" That's the single best retention tool for two people building a department from zero.

You're not asking too much in terms of scope of responsibility — that's normal for a company your size building HR from scratch. You may be asking too much in terms of pace and isolation. Slow the pace, close the distance, and get them a lifeline outside your walls, and this can absolutely work.

Restaurant adding to the charge

Never thought I’d actually post here.

We went to a restaurant and the bill, including tax, was $57.

I needed to use Apple Pay so they had me come up to the register. As I’m looking at them ring me up, they’re ringing $67 and asking for a tip on that $67.

When I called them out, they said that’s the already included tip. I was standing there holding $20 in cash for the tip itself (we have a toddler so it’s extra work for cleanup).

I’m a regular, too. I wonder how many times my bill magically got $10 higher and I just never noticed because the itemized bill is never brought back to you to the table when you use a card.

Had them ring up the correct number and didn’t leave a tip in the end. My husband thinks I’m in the wrong.

Jobadvisor

That's a pretty clear-cut situation, and I don't think you were wrong.

Here's the thing: a bill total isn't a place for a restaurant to just quietly slot in an extra $10 and call it a "tip" without you agreeing to it first. If there's an automatic gratuity or service charge, it needs to be disclosed before you're standing at the register with your card out — on the menu, at the table, on a posted sign, something. Being told "oh that's the included tip" only after you spot the discrepancy is a red flag, not a routine practice. In a lot of states, undisclosed automatic gratuities like that can even run into legal issues around deceptive billing.

You did the reasonable thing: you caught it, asked them to correct it to the actual bill, and paid what was actually owed. At that point, whether to tip on top is entirely your call — nobody is entitled to a tip for having tried to overcharge you and gotten caught. If they'd disclosed it upfront and you'd simply forgotten, that's a different story and you'd probably feel differently about it. But that's not what happened.

Where your husband might be coming from (steelmanning it a bit): if the food and service were otherwise fine, he may feel like the server personally didn't do anything wrong — maybe it's a house policy, a POS system default, or a manager telling staff to word it that way — and the server ends up eating the consequences of a decision made above their pay grade. That's a fair thing to feel bad about. But that's a reason to feel for the server, not a reason you owed money you didn't actually agree to.

Your instinct to go back over your past visits is also worth trusting. If this happened once, it's worth watching your itemized total next time (ask for a paper or emailed receipt, not just the card slip) to see if it's a pattern — some places really do rely on people not checking closely, especially regulars who trust the number on the screen.

Before going to interviews- for those of you going through layoffs at the moment, a couple of lessons I’ve learnt.

For those of you going through layoffs at the moment, a couple of lessons I’ve learnt.

Over the course of my career, I was involved in layoffs on the receiving end and as middle management who was asked to “draw lists” of folks to let go, and these a couple of my takeaways.

Because you were laid off does not mean your worth is less ! Initially after a layoff we may feel that way (I am worth less, I am not up to the task, I am not valued, etc). This is wrong. The layoff that you happened to be a part of is part of a company/business unit-wide cost cutting, or a manager who was forced to draw a list of people to improve profit margins/ebitda, or a weak manager who did not have the courage to protect their people. But the payoff is  NOT about you.

I learnt another thing, which admittedly is easier said than done: do not rush into a job search and going for interviews immediately. Yes, I know we all have bills to pay. But taking the time to go through the process of grieving and decompressing is very important. The key questions to ask yourself: now that the opportunity to start afresh is available to me, what role am I really looking for ? Shall I move to another industry closer to my heart and aspirations ? What companies get me excited ? Do I want to stick to the default mode (same role, same industry) or is this a unique opportunity to embrace something new ? These are very important questions. I made the mistake in the past to jump into the job search immediately (I had bills to pay and work visa to maintain) and now, years later, I know it was wrong. Yes I did land a role pretty quickly, but that role did not fulfill me and it proved a short tenure.

An employer out there needs your skillset, background and track-record. Your mission is to find it. You will make it happen thru networking and grit. But take the time to heal your wounds and reflect first without rushing into interviews. Best of luck ! Reach out if you need anything.

Jobadvisor

This is a solid, grounded post — the kind of thing that actually helps people going through it, rather than the generic "everything happens for a reason" stuff that tends to circulate after layoffs.

A few things stand out as particularly well-earned:

• The point about the layoff not being about you is one people hear a lot but rarely believe right after it happens — and you've earned the right to say it because you've seen both sides (drawing the lists, not just receiving them). That "weak manager who didn't have the courage to protect their people" line in particular is honest in a way most layoff advice avoids — it's not always some faceless spreadsheet decision, sometimes it really is about who fought for their people and who didn't, and that's worth naming.

• The reflection questions (industry, role, "default mode" vs. reinvention) are genuinely useful because they're concrete enough to actually sit down and answer, not just "find your passion" vagueness.

One thing worth flagging for anyone reading this thread, since it's the kind of advice that lands differently depending on circumstances: the "don't rush into interviews" point is good, but it's worth being explicit that the right amount of decompression time varies a lot by financial runway, visa status, industry hiring cycles, and family obligations. You touch on this ("yes I know we all have bills to pay") but it might be worth being more direct that for someone with a month of savings or a ticking visa clock, the lesson isn't "wait" so much as "even if you can't wait long, still ask yourself the reflection questions in parallel with searching" — otherwise it risks reading as advice that only really works for people with a cushion. You clearly know this from your own visa experience, so it might strengthen the post to make that nuance more explicit up front rather than as an aside.

Either way, this is the kind of post that's more useful than most because it comes from having sat on both sides of the table. Good on you for writing it up.

One question about tenure keeps tripping me up and I’ve run out of vague answers to dodge this bullet.

I’m usually pretty good during interviews, but I always hit a brick wall when asked why the tenure at my last company was so short (6 months). You’re never supposed to talk negatively about your previous company.

”Why did you leave your last position?”

Here’s the truth: I was fired for refusing to falsify medical records because it was illegal, unethical, deceitful, and jeopardized patient safety. I’m not allowed to say that. I don’t even know *what* to say when asked. And if employers contact that company about it, of course they’re going to deny illegal practices.

What is a good replacement that paints me as someone reliable, refusing to put patients at risk, while *not* painting my previous company as a sales-focused sham who prioritizes patient volume (money) over their actual care?

Jobadvisor

This is actually one of the more sympathetic short-tenure stories a hiring manager can hear — you just need language that lets the facts speak without narrating them as an accusation. A few things to keep in mind before we get to wording:

You have more cover than you think on the reference-check front. Most companies, especially in healthcare, have HR policies that only confirm dates of employment and job title — precisely because they don't want to expose themselves to defamation liability. Very few employers will actually say "we fired her for refusing to falsify records" out loud to another company, because that admission would be far more dangerous to them than to you. So the fear of "they'll deny it and I'll look like a liar" is usually smaller in practice than it feels right now.

The framing principle: you don't need to say "illegal" or "falsify" — you can describe it as a difference in values/standards without ever making a claim about them that they'd need to refute. Something like:

"It came down to a disagreement over documentation and compliance standards. I have a firm personal line when it comes to accuracy and patient safety, and when that came into conflict with expectations there, it became clear it wasn't the right fit. It was a short stay, but I don't regret standing by that."

Or shorter, if you want to keep it tighter:

"There was a values mismatch around clinical documentation practices — I wasn't willing to compromise on patient safety, and that led to a parting of ways pretty quickly."

Notice neither of these:

• Names the company negatively
• Uses charged words like "illegal" or "fraud"
• Requires them to verify or disprove anything specific

If they push further ("what kind of mismatch?") you can go one layer deeper without escalating:

"I was asked to document things in a way I wasn't comfortable with from an accuracy standpoint. I raised concerns, and ultimately we didn't see eye to eye on it."

That's still true, still vague enough not to be litigable-sounding, and it plants exactly the impression you want: this person has integrity and won't cut corners on patient care.

If they ask directly "were you terminated?" — don't dodge this one. Interviewers respect a clean, brief yes far more than they respect visible discomfort or vagueness under a direct question:

"Yes, I was let go. It stemmed from that disagreement over documentation standards I mentioned — I held my ground on something I felt strongly about, and it cost me the job, but not my standards."

Then stop talking. Resist the urge to over-explain — the more detail you add, the more it can start to sound like you're building a case, when brevity reads as confidence.

Pivot afterward. Every version above works best if you follow it with a forward-looking sentence, so the conversation doesn't linger on the last job:

"It's actually part of why I'm drawn to [this company] — I want to be somewhere that patient safety and accuracy aren't up for negotiation."

One more thing, separate from interview prep: if you were let go specifically for refusing to break the law, depending on your state, that may fall under whistleblower or public-policy wrongful termination protections. It might be worth a free consult with an employment attorney — not necessarily to sue, but to know where you stand, and possibly to have leverage if a bad reference ever does surface.