Testing Dilemma

[billisonboard]

As COVID-19 testing increases, I see a dilemma. A person thinks it would be a good idea to be tested due to feeling symptoms or exposure. If they go in for testing, they will (or is it just likely they will?) be put on 14 day quarantine. If they are drawing unemployment because they were laid off, they wouldn't be available to work so would lose their money. If the test comes back negative, they would be unlikely to be eligible for anything. If it comes back positive, is there any legal obligation for an employer to put them back on the payroll and allow them to use already incurred sick leave. If one is employed, tested, and it comes back positive obviously sick leave would be available if they have any but what if they are quarantined for the 14 days and the test comes back negative.

I see a lot of incentive to avoid being tested. I think we need to address the issue before it becomes big.

[mary2029]

I think the larger reputable companies have already addressed most of your concerns and have implemented standard operating procedures.
Where I work, temperature checks occur on everyone who enters the site. If the person's temperature is above 100.4 F, the person is persistently coughing, the person has been exposed to someone who tested positive, or a number of other things, that person cannot enter the site that day. 
A medical doctor follows up with the person to determine if he/she likely has Covid and they proceed forward through the documented standard operating procedure. 
If the doctor determines that the person does not have Covid (e.g., coughing due to allergies), the person can come back to the site the next day and try again.   
If the doctor determines that the person could have Covid, then official Covid-19 testing is required to keep the job. There is also a Return-to-Work procedure to address situations that come up.  My company allows people to go into negative sick-time to accommodate a 14-day quarantine. Companies do not want to lose trained employees if they can help it. 

If people are unemployed, they probably would state that they are "available" to work. I know I would. Just because you start unemployment doesn't mean that there are jobs lined up for the taking anymore. If it was me, I would try to alter the start date of a new job. If not, I would definitely wear a mask the entire time. Due to HIPAA laws, a positive recent test does not need to be reported to the new company. 

 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Both of our employers if we are experiencing symptoms will grant you two weeks of paid sick time  They will also grant two weeks if your spouse has been exposed even if you have not started showing symptoms.

If you decide to put in for the leave you must present a doctor's note before you return.   They are not going to take your assurances that it is seasonal allergies or a head cold.  No note you don't return to work.

If you get a note saying it is likely not COVID you can return.  If it is COVID you stay home, trying to come in will get you terminated.   When in doubt they want you to stay home.

Nebraska and Iowa have waived the requirements to look for work during UE at this time.   Whether it will be extended or not IDK, at some point you will likely be expected to start seeking employment. I can't see the UE system being sustainable at this level for 18+ months.

[justme]

Didn't CARES Act have something about giving companies money to cover the 14 day period for employees? Am I remembering wrong? 

[teen persuasion]

I thought current unemployment rules were waiving the available to work rules...because they want everyone to stay home. Depends on the state?

[billisonboard]

Apr 21, 2020 14:24:52 GMT -5 mary2029 said:

I think the larger reputable companies have already addressed most of your concerns ...

I wonder what percentage of the working population are employed by companies which fit both of those criteria.

[mary2029]

Apr 21, 2020 14:32:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 21, 2020 14:24:52 GMT -5 mary2029 said:

I think the larger reputable companies have already addressed most of your concerns ...

I wonder what percentage of the working population are employed by companies which fit both of those criteria.

LOL. That's actually why I put both words in.  

[billisonboard]

Apr 21, 2020 14:31:56 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

I thought current unemployment rules were waiving the available to work rules...because they want everyone to stay home. Depends on the state?

Washington State still specifically asks if you were available to work. They have basically waved the looking for work requirement.

[resolution]

It depends on the state, but the new rules allow the states to make someone eligible for UI if they are suspended from work for 14 days due to quarantine, even if they have an expectation of returning to work after the quarantine is up.

[billisonboard]

Apr 21, 2020 14:24:52 GMT -5 mary2029 said:

...

If people are unemployed, they probably would state that they are "available" to work. I know I would. ...

As would I. But is "commit fraud" the best answer?

[mary2029]

I would not consider it committing fraud. If I was unemployed, I would have an extra 40/50/60 hours per week to work. I would be in town and my time isn't otherwise spoken for.  
Would I want to? No.
Would I try to do anything possible to not show up until after 14 days or more have passed? Yes. 
Would I wear a mask? Yes. 

[teen persuasion]

Apr 21, 2020 14:37:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 21, 2020 14:31:56 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

I thought current unemployment rules were waiving the available to work rules...because they want everyone to stay home. Depends on the state?

Washington State still specifically asks if you were available to work. They have basically waved the looking for work requirement.

Huh.  Guess I'd have to look at the details and parse what "available" means in this scenario.  Given that I don't think the unemployment office will be finding me a new job (where "available to work" sounds like "schedule me immediately"), I'd be inclined to interpret "available" as "has not accepted a new job - still unemployed".  IFF they actually had a job waiting AND I was still quarantined so couldn't report to work, would I think about saying "not available - because..."


But this is all my speculation  

[irishpad]

Apr 21, 2020 14:31:52 GMT -5 justme said:

Didn't CARES Act have something about giving companies money to cover the 14 day period for employees? Am I remembering wrong? 

It was actually the previous act passed in mid-March called Families First Coronavirus Response Act.   Below is a copy of what I received.  (I couldn't make the link work)   www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic/ffcra-employee-paid-leave    (ETA: cool, now the link works)

The Act requires employers to provide the following to their employees:

• Two weeks (up to 80 hours) of paid sick leave at the employee’s regular rate of pay where the employee is unable to work because the employee is quarantined (pursuant to Federal, State, or local government order or advice of a health care provider), and/or experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking a medical diagnosis; or

• Two weeks (up to 80 hours) of paid sick leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay because the employee is unable to work because of a bona fide need to care for an individual subject to quarantine (pursuant to Federal, State, or local government order or advice of a health care provider), or to care for a child (under 18 years of age) whose school or child care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19, and/or the employee is experiencing a substantially similar condition as specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor; and

• Up to an additional 10 weeks of paid expanded family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay where an employee, who has been employed for at least 30 calendar days, is unable to work due to a bona fide need for leave to care for a child whose school or child care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19.

This new law takes effect April 1 and is in effect until December 31. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I don't see how that is fraud.   I AM available to work, which means that I am not currently employed and am physically capable of doing my job.    I am pretty sure common sense dictates that "available" comes with an * right now.   Hence why they waived the requirements to be looking for work in order to collect.

[billisonboard]

Apr 21, 2020 14:48:35 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Apr 21, 2020 14:37:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Washington State still specifically asks if you were available to work. They have basically waved the looking for work requirement.

Huh.  Guess I'd have to look at the details and parse what "available" means in this scenario.  Given that I don't think the unemployment office will be finding me a new job (where "available to work" sounds like "schedule me immediately"), I'd be inclined to interpret "available" as "has not accepted a new job - still unemployed".  IFF they actually had a job waiting AND I was still quarantined so couldn't report to work, would I think about saying "not available - because..."


But this is all my speculation  

"If you had been offered hours to work for pay, were you in a position to take them without an issue?" is what I think is the meaning.

[billisonboard]

Apr 21, 2020 14:48:50 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I don't see how that is fraud.   I AM available to work, which means that I am not currently employed and am physically capable of doing my job.    I am pretty sure common sense dictates that "available" comes with an * right now.   Hence why they waived the requirements to be looking for work in order to collect.

Technically, what was done was they are allowing a very liberal interpretation of "standby status" which means that your employer plans on having you come back to work by a certain date in the not too distance future. I had to give them a date that would be happening. There is a 12 week limit so that was the date I reported. I have coworkers who gave a sooner rapidly approaching date and they aren't sure if they can extend it. They have gotten an automated notification that they will be required to start looking for work to remain eligible for benefits.

[teen persuasion]

Looking for the answer in my state, NY, I found this link.

It seems in NY, you are eligible for unemployment if you are quarantined, or looking for testing to see if you need to quarantine, etc.

So I guess it varies by state regs.

ETA: compilation of state links link

[billisonboard]

Thanks all for sharing good information on my concern. Looks like it is being addressed more than I thought.