Comments

1
As crappy as it may seem, if you quit, you get no unemployment. Imagine how that would play out in reality land.
And I'm in no way taking a side against the disgruntled walkouts.
2
It used to be that if you quit for no just cause, you were denied benefits for a period of time. Six weeks, I think. It's been so long since drew unemployment that I don't remember for sure. I just fail to see how BOLI can allow Cuti to draw benefits and deny someone else with the same problems.
3
It's pretty clear why they quit. It's no secret that Davis was trying to cut corners by paying them extremely late, and eventually not at all. How many IOU's do you have to have an employer throw at you before you can quit and get the benefits you're legally entitled to?
4
D,
That's actually a misconception. You qualify for unemployment benefits if you quit with good cause. Check out the Oregon state bar website for a long-winded description of what "good cause" entails:

http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1099…
5
s.mirk, perhaps you should tell as about the success statistics about people that claim "good cause". They might surprise you.
6
that should have be "us", not "as".
7
marty davis is a disaster and embarasment to the gay community. Just out has nothing to offer any more. both should call it quits...
8
Why didn't they all just file BOLI complaints and keep working? Then, when they got fired, it would be a slam dunk. Either way, they got screwed.
9
The thing is, even though Davis doesn't have the final word on the matter, she definitely disputed the unemployment claims. If she hadn't, both Radosta and Martinez would be collecting unemployment. She also BRAGGED about denying them unemployment IN A STAFF meeting after the three walked out. True story.
10
Insider, I hope to god that those of you that remain are keeping fastidious records about this shit.
11
If you don't get paid for your work, then I'm fairly sure you aren't employed, since that involves getting paid. If you go to the formality of telling your ex-boss that you are going to stop showing up in that condition, that is nice, but not required. The only thing they did wrong is that they should have filed for unemployment back in November.
12
"That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I have absolutely no recollection of that and I cannot recall for a moment why I would say anything like that," says Davis.

My reputation as a reporter hinges on my ability to distill key facts and extract quotes at meetings. I think I'm good for it.--Jaymee R. Cuti
13
It is VERY common for benefits to be denied on the first filing requiring most recipients to move on to the appeal process. It's like filing for SSI. The system is designed to deny benefits to as many people as possible to keep the system solvent. They hope that most people who are denied benefits won't appeal out of frustration or find a job before the appeal hearing.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.