Employee Wage Garnishment
The boss is upset about the garnishment orders against a new employee’s wage in the organization. The boss is frustrated because of the complexity the case and its legal implications that the company has to face, besides the strained employee relationships. Moreover, the process of settling garnishment claims is long and tedious; therefore, it is prone to mistakes. If I served at the helm of the organization, I would convince the boss to comply with the orders for wage garnishment against the employee. The primary consideration before deciding to fire the employee would be the legal implications of the process. The failure to comply with the child-support wage garnishment orders would incur substantial consequences on the enterprise (Washington, 2018). Additionally, the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act protects workers from dismissal due to wage garnishment.
The second order on garnishment highlights employees’ ignorance and non-compliance. The garnishment order for the car accident follows the judgment the worker chose not to defend. The organization has reserved the right to demand proceedings that led to the current decision (United States Department of Labor, 2018). Undoubtedly, the employee’s insurance company should claim liability for the accident. The implications for defaulting payments would incur a loss for the corporation. The fact that the court issues the employee with proper notices about the case facing him but the employee opted not to defend his case indicates liability and galvanizes the employer against defendant’s responsibilities. Texas among other four states have no provisions for garnishment except for child support, tax debts, court-ordered fines, restitutions, and federally guaranteed students loan. The garnishment limits stand at 25% of the disposable income after taxation. In other states, the garnishment limits range from 50-65% of the disposable income.
The second wage garnishment orders change the arguments for the employee and organization (Sally Morin Law, 2018). Going by the prevailing conditions, the business was not responsible for employee’s ignorance regarding court orders and compliance with them. The case provides grounds for the management to dismiss the worker for cost implication and general ignorance. The employee is responsible for the errors that he made while reporting the incident. The worker could use an attorney to resolve the matter amicably instead of subjecting the employer to additional responsibilities (Washington, 2018). Doing so would also resolve the matter quickly.
References
Washington, D. (2018). Are your wages being garnished for child support? The Balance. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/wage-garnishments-and-child-support-2997006
United States Department of Labor. (2018). Garnishment. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/garnishments
Sally Morin Law. (2018). Personal Injury Attorney’s Guide to Wage Garnishment. Retrieved from https://www.sallymorinlaw.com/personal-injury/step-by-step-guide-for-intiating-a-wage-garnishment-claim/