Well, now that I got laid off and don’t have a source of income I don’t know how I can possibly pay for health insurance. Ideally I’ll find a new job soon and get health insurance, but let’s be realistic… with today’s job market I’ll be lucky if I find a job before the end of the year.

I was told that the health insurance could be subsidized if I qualified for unemployment benefits, but I still don’t know if my former employer plans to contest my unemployment claim. If they contest it, I am in trouble.

I will officially not have health insurance starting next month. Am I required by law to get insurance right away? What if I don’t get it? What happens? Do I pay a big fine? Do I go to jail?

What are my options?
PS: The Cobra thing is $500 a month. Can’t afford it without a source of income.

Any thoughts on the possible new ruling from the federal bench regarding the civil service entry exam for public safety is bias against minorities, and that minority candidates should go to the top of the list so they are reached. Article from Lynn Item
Minorities may go to top of list
By Jill Casey Thursday, October 26, 2006

LYNN – The city would be required to move all minorities to the top of a hiring list for public safety jobs if a federal judge agrees that it is the appropriate remedy to a court case that found Civil Service exams discriminated against minorities.

“The minorities will be moved up on the list and receive a better opportunity to be reached and hired,” said City Attorney Jim Lamanna about a proposed remedy issued by the Massachusetts Division of Human Resources, which issues Civil Service exams for firefighters and police officers.
What given right does anyone have to pass me over today because I am white? Ignoring my score on an exam just because I am white? and passed over for a job to be given to someon non-white ? THAT is a ****** act towards me…

I have recently quit my job and need to know whether I should fight for my unused accrued vacation time or let it go.

The problem is my company has a “use it or loose it” policy when it comes to vacation time. You have to use all your vacation each year.

I gave my resignation letter on Dec. 21, 2008 my last day of employment was Jan 2nd. I tried to fight this over and over with HR – that I should receive my unused vacation time, but they said it is a new year and I was supposed to have used it all.

If I set my last day to be Dec 31, 2008 I would have received my all my unused vacation time which is seven days. ( about $1300 )

My argument to them was that I decided when my last day was so I suggested to them to only give me 5 days paid vacation time since they had already paid me for two days in 2009. They didn’t budge.

I did some research and this is what I found. Should I take them to Small claims court? Or are they correct? Is it worth the chance?

Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Attorney General, 440 Mass. 1020, 798 N.E.2d 273 (2003).

http://www.nelfonline.org/cases/EDS%20v%20Attorney%20General.htm

This case raises the issue whether the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act, G.L. c. 149, §148 (“Wage Act”), requires an employer to pay employees for unused vacation time upon termination, even when the employer’s written vacation policy expressly disclaims any such payments. The Superior Court held that the employee’s unused vacation time constitutes “wages” earned under the Wage Act, notwithstanding the employer’s published policy to the contrary. In its amicus brief representing the Associated Industries of Massachusetts and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, NELF argues that the lower court decision is inconsistent with the plain language of the Wage Act, which posits the employment agreement as the controlling authority on the subject of vacation benefits. The Wage Act merely enforces an employer’s contractual obligation to pay an employee’s regular compensation during an authorized vacation leave. Requiring an employer to pay for unused vacation time when the employment agreement disavows any such payments would violate the Wage Act and impose an unpredictable financial burden on the employer that would be contrary to the bargain between the parties. Moreover, courts from many other jurisdictions applying similar state wage laws have reached the same conclusion: a terminated employee has no right to receive payment for unused vacation unless the employment agreement so provides. NELF also argues that there are compelling policy reasons to allow an employer to treat unused vacation time differently from used vacation time. A paid vacation allows the employee to rest and recuperate and provides the employer with the benefit of a rested employee. Requiring the employer to buy back unused vacation time serves no such mutually beneficial purposes, because the employer receives no consideration for financing a former employee’s free time. An employer is also better able to manage the predictable cost of employees’ scheduled vacations than the unpredictable cost of paying employees for unused vacation time. Oral argument is scheduled before the Supreme Judicial Court in October, 2003.