Problem:
Other |
Date
of Problem:
2009-02-15 23:44:39.0 |
Company
Name:
California Employment Development Department |
Has
this problem been resolved yet?
No |
Submitted
by:
george dorian |
|
Share
|
In 1988 I was hired at a company, in Petaluma, called Optilink as an electronic technician. Optilink has since gone out of business. During my eight months there my supervisor occasionally stressed to me that the company is a startup, and for it to succeed we all need to work hard, work overtime, and otherwise go the extra mile. I always felt sympathetic to this. I’ve worked up to 16 hour days at former employers’, so overtime was no stranger to me. But at Optilink I was never asked to work overtime. After some weeks I noticed that I was only being given what I consider to be “busy work.” This was work that was far below my professional abilities. At that time I had about 8 years experience in designing industrial computers, but the work they had me doing was more of an entry level position. I was asked to read many technical manuals of equipment and computer chips that the company was considering for use in future designs. In general this is a good idea, but I was surprised at the sheer amount of material that I was asked to read. I was also occasionally asked to fix some PC computers and assemble office furniture. I would run out of things to do about once a month or so, so I’d ask my supervisor for something else to do. He usually gave me more busy work or would say “Just hang out.” or “Don’t worry about it.” One day my supervisor asked me to build a small prototype circuit from his hand drawn schematic; again an entry level job, and far below my expertise at that time. When I was about half way through the job I spotted an error in his schematic. I corrected the drawing and the prototype circuit accordingly. Later my supervisor came by to see how I was doing. When I told him of the error and that I had fixed it he literally became red in the face and started shouting at me because I had “…changed the design”. I asked him if he wanted me to change the prototype back to his original design, but he said “Since you did it like this, you might as well leave it this way.” Some days later he asked me to design and build a prototype for another simple circuit, but he asked me to show him the schematic that I was to draw before I started to build the prototype. Drawing the schematic took me only about an hour. When I showed it to him he stared at it for a few minutes, and again his face turned red. When I asked him what he thought about it, he said, “I want to take it back to my office and look at it.” Later that day he came by my desk and gave me his hand drawn schematic, which was almost illegible, and asked me to build a prototype for it. His schematic was virtually the same as mine. The only difference was that a small part of his circuit was actually slightly less efficient and more susceptible to failure, but I built the circuit to his design as he requested.Eight months after I was hired at Optilink I was given my six month evaluation by my supervisor. During my performance review my supervisor again became red in the face, shouted at me, and informed me that I was on probation. Now, it’s my understanding that typically employer should give a verbal then a written warning before placing an employee on probation, but I received no warnings. He mentioned that he felt, for some time, I was doing many things wrong, but that he didn’t want to say anything about it because “…I wanted to see how far you would go.” In the review my supervisor criticized me for, among other things, using up too much time reading technical manuals. Later in the review I asked him exactly what he wanted me to do. He pointed to the company’s technical library and said “There’s a whole library of books that you can read.” He also indicated to me that he wanted me to work overtime on the weekends to read certain books. I felt that he was raving and not making sense. During this eight month time period I gradually became aware that my supervisor seemed to act unusually. He had a steely eyed look in his eyes, and he sometimes seemed to rave, talking nonsensically. As I understand, these are symptoms of Cocaine addiction. If I had any doubt before, I was now convinced that the man sitting across the table from me [during my performance review] was not right in his mind. This performance review episode was the last straw for me. I was being verbally abused, I was suspicious of my supervisor’s behavior to me, I felt that I was being discriminated against, and I was also concerned for my personal safety. I felt that there was no way that I could nonchalantly go about working at Optilink under these abusive circumstances, so I quit the next day. In early 1989 I was applying for unemployment benefits at the San Rafael EDD office after quitting my job at Optilink. As I understand, an individual is eligible to receive unemployment benefits if he quit a job due to a compelling reason. I applied to the EDD and explained the above circumstances that lead to my quitting. Later I received a letter titled "NOTICE OF DETERMINATION/RULING" from the EDD in response to my application for benefits. The letter states that I am not eligible for benefits because "IT MUST BE DETERMINED THAT YOU QUIT FOR PERSONAL NONCOMPELLING REASONS."
The statement in the EDD’s letter was, I assume, a typographical error. I brought this letter to my local EDD office to alert them of a simple typographical error. What precipitated concerned me. I talked to four EDD people over the course of about a half hour, and apparently not one of them could see or understand the error. I finally gave up. This simple error, on the part of the EDD, was only the start of a long chain of events involving government incompetence that I have been experiencing to this day.
I’ve been trying to resolve this matter with the EDD, Optilink, and government officials on-and-off since 1989, and I have gotten nowhere. I feel that I was discriminated against by Optilink, and to add insult to injury, I was also discriminated against by the EDD. When you consider the level of incompetence of the EDD that I have outlined above I think it is reasonable to assume that they confused the matter and did not use common sense in their original investigation. For the same reason, I also felt that appealing the original decision, at that time, would be a waste of time. I was still getting over the trauma that my former supervisor at Optilink had put me through, so I was in no condition to deal with more frustration and incompetence of the EDD. I was also unemployed and could not afford to hire a lawyer.
Some years ago I was in communication with Assembly Person Kerry Mazzoni’s office. They where good enough to investigated this matter, and, as they mentioned to me, where also met with ineptitude at the San Rafael EDD office. In fact, they told me that San Rafael EDD had lost her letter that they had sent them regarding this matter. Mazzoni’s office suggested to me that I apply for an appeal to the Santa Rosa office of the EDD, rather than the San Rafael office. I did appeal to the Santa Rosa EDD office. The purpose of my appeal is to show that I did in fact have a compelling and good reason to quit Optilink, to show that the EDD were inept in their original investigation, and to receive the unemployment benefits that I’m owed. On or about 16 October, 1998, I received a “NOTICE OF HEARING”. Upon reading it I was alarmed to discover that the appeal hearing would be held on 29 October, 1998—less than two weeks later. On 19 October, 1998, I telephoned the San Francisco office of the Appeals Board and talked to a person to request a continuance to July of next year. She informed me that continuances are not granted. I then explained to her that I was a full time student, that I must be in school at the time of the hearing, and that I will needed several months to prepare this case. But she was unsympathetic. Remember that this case was about ten years old at that time. I need
|
