California constantly provides examples of a pro-employee attitude, but the payment of unemployment in this case defies logic, even by California standards of logic.

The Worker’s Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act provides for 60 days advanced notice of large scale layoffs.  As an HR professional, I have been involved in giving WARN a number of times, once including drafting a notice to myself just before I was laid off.  Although there are many technicalities in the law, the most bizarre outcome with WARN occurs in California.  (For reference: A law commonly called “California WARN” is virtually identical to federal WARN except that it can apply to somewhat less drastic layoffs.)

In general terms, WARN provides that a covered employer must give either 60 days notice or pay employees (including full benefits, etc.) for 60 days.  In effect, an employer has bought the employees for 60 days whether they work or not.  Many employers let employees go to avoid the security concerns of having so many upset employees onsite.  Now here is the kicker – in California, if you are paying employees not to work, they are entitled to unemployment insurance during the same time period.  Take an employee earning $52,000 annually, that is subject to a plant closure.  If she is given notice and required to work, she will earn:

$8,000 in wages + full benefits during the notice period = $8,000

However, if she is let go and does not have to work, she will earn:

$8,000 in wages + $3,600 in unemployment + full benefits = $11,600

As a result, the employee is given additional disposable income to compensate  for the fact that they can sleep until noon while avoiding the expenses and headache of a commute?  Now that’s California.  Someone get me a non-fat grande mocha latte . . . and two aspirin.

Doubters – I was one too, before I saw this in action.  Amazingly, this interpretation is one specifically outlined in the California unemployment law.  Please see the link.