bartlett and DZ

[ckbolin]

I was just tyring to get some input on how Bartlett and DZ treat you when you decide to jump ship when the outages just aren't there? Especially for Jr's, time is the ultimate goal. Anybody wanna weigh in?

[UncaBuffalo]

I was just tyring to get some input on how Bartlett and DZ treat you when you decide to jump ship when the outages just aren't there? Especially for Jr's, time is the ultimate goal. Anybody wanna weigh in?

If you take care of them, they are more likely to take care of you.   

[johnnieslingshot]

Neither company will say much unless you leave an outage early to go to one with the competition.  That would be bad business on your part.  Both compnaies know you need to make a living, so if you need to work an outage that falls within your work schedule don't be afraid to put in for it.  I have worked for both and neither of them have made a big fuss about it.  One year I worked an outage with "B" and when it was over I went to Fitz working for "D" and then went to NMP back with "B".  I had no problems.

[Rennhack]

1: Due to unemployment insurance, a company will work harder to employ someone that is drawing unemployment against them, vs someone who is drawing unemployment from a competitor.
2: If you do something stupid like quit before your commitment is up, you wouldn't be considered reliable.
3: If you are just opting to work for a competitor because you have no other current options, they are happy for you, it makes you more marketable for them.  They want you to have more experience, and if they can't employ you, they want you to find employment some where.

[ckbolin]

thanks guys. I just wanted some of this valuable info from an crowd with no ulterior motive. This definitely helps!!

[Smart People]

Good luck in your endeavers. Most of us on this site have worked for several different companies over the years. We have gone back and forth to whoever has the work.

slightly edited

Working for another company will not impact your eligibility with our company, in fact if we don't have work for you, taking a job with another company will only get you more experience thus making you more marketable in the future.   

With that said you have to take into account we have an obligation to take care of those techs that most recently supported us, so if I have a choice between Tech A whose last job worked was for BNI and Tech B whose last job worked was for Shaw or QNS or whomever, I will urge my recruiters to hire Tech A.  The reasons are twofold - 1. it takes someone off our unemployment rolls & 2. it rewards the individual for working for us/supporting us in the past. 

I understand that sometimes by this methodology it may seem like someone is being blackballed, but should we switch it up and hire techs coming off of other jobs with our competition prior to techs coming off of our own jobs it just wouldn't make good business or people sense.    There are of course exceptions to every rule as there are times when we are persuaded to do just that at our clients request. 

I hope I have answered your question to your satisfaction.  As always,
Eric

[SpringChinook]

Back in 2013 I had an opportunity to work the wolf creek outage with QNS, the start date was the first week of January. Not many other jobs for a JR HP in January, I called Bartlett and talked to them and they were totally fine with it, as they had no work for me at the current time. After the wolf creek outage I worked 2 more outages that spring with Bartlett. Maybe being a JR helped with them not caring as much, especially since the industry is flooded with JR's, but maybe the fact that they had no work for me was the real reason.

GOOD LUCK!

[Content1]

If my only choice was DZ, I'd rather be unemployed then work for them.  Bartlett is a much fairer company.

[Rennhack]

Back in 2013 I had an opportunity to work the wolf creek outage with QNS, the start date was the first week of January. Not many other jobs for a JR HP in January, I called Bartlett and talked to them and they were totally fine with it, as they had no work for me at the current time. After the wolf creek outage I worked 2 more outages that spring with Bartlett. Maybe being a JR helped with them not caring as much, especially since the industry is flooded with JR's, but maybe the fact that they had no work for me was the real reason.

GOOD LUCK!

Bartlett wants you to work for other companies if they don't have work for you.  They just hire people they are paying unemployment to first.

[UncaBuffalo]

...They just hire people they are paying unemployment to first.

Is that the way unemployment works? I never knew it was quite that direct. I had assumed that the companies were paying a certain rate based on past claims against them.

[Rennhack]

paying a certain rate based on past claims against them.

You are correct, except it isn't number of claims, it is number collecting. "Your state unemployment tax rate depends on how much your former workers collect in unemployment benefits."

"There are two major components of state unemployment taxes, an experience-rated tax based on an average of the employer's layoff history over the past four fiscal years and a shared-cost (social) tax based on costs from the previous year that can't be attributed to a specific employer.  "

Every quarter, the states evaluates what your companies tax rate is based on what was paid out that quarter.  If the workers are still collecting unemployment, your tax goes up.  So if 4000 workers claim for a week, no big deal. If 4000 workers collect for 6 months, its a big deal.

For example, in Massachusetts, the rate can be as low as 1.26% if you never ever ever had a claim against your company, and as high as 12.27% if you have 4000 temp workers that get laid off every half of the year.  A new company with no history starts at 2.83%.

So, 11% delta is a lot.  That is 2x the typical profit of 5.5%.

Lets say you have 4000 workers, that make $30 an hours, 60 hours a week for 12 weeks.  Your payroll not counting tax's and insurance etc is $86.4M.  At 1.26%, you would pay $1M tax on that.  At 12.27%, you would pay $10.6M tax. So, your rate can be 10x higher with more people collecting unemployment.

Did I explain it well?

[Rennhack]

Back to the previous post; Bartlett (or any company) wants you working, either for Bartlett or for some one else, to keep the unemployment tax rate lower.  If you are working for the other guy, you aren't collecting unemployment from Bartlett.  You are also gaining valuable knowledge and experience which makes you more employable. If you are collecting unemployment against a claim for the other guy, it costs the other guy in higher tax rate instead of Bartlett.

So; do I cost the company $10M more in taxes and hire all of the 'other guys' people first, or do I save the company $10M and hire the workers we just laid off to prevent them from collecting more unemployment.  It's just $10 million more.

From a worker's perspective, you want to work as much as you can to collect a 'real' check instead of a unemployment check so you can buy your toys.  You will work for anyone. (Unless you have a beef with a company.)  You call up a company and ask to be submitted. -- During heavy season like spring and fall... all seniors are going to be working... it doesn't really matter who you worked for last. And no company cares who you worked for last.  If its summer or winter and there are 100 extra spots to fill with 4000 people collecting unemployment, the company will choose someone collecting against a claim against them.

[SloGlo]

  If its summer or winter and there are 100 extra spots to fill with 4000 people collecting unemployment, the company will choose some on collecting against a claim against them.

witch is why yule sea seasoned sr tex taking a short term outage in the spring with the detested company, catch the layoff, n get on the long term won in the  fall with said detested company.

[SloGlo]

looking at the ads fore tex hear n else ware, this probly bin a good time two sit back too commit at the lass minute four maximum bucks.