Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Unemployment Benefits      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 cookie22222
Joined: 8/4/2007
Msg: 1
view profile
History
Unemployment BenefitsPage 1 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.aolnews.com/story/senate-inaction-jeopardizes-unemployment/577652

I personally know someone who has been on unemployment for 20 months at this point...back in "regular" economic times, it was always 26 weeks. They are expecting to receive benefits through 2010 - and it sounds like the article above is just a bump in the road, and the extensions will go through.

Should the rest of us be supporting people who can't find work for this length of time? Should they be given "public service" type duties in order to collect? Should they have to prove they are looking for work? Healthy enough to work? Should they be allowed to be picky?
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 2
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/26/2010 8:11:00 AM

Should they be given "public service" type duties in order to collect?

I absolutely think this should be a requirement. The unemployment system is completely screwed up. There are tons of opportunities for a person to earn money under the table and still collect unemployment. And in the case of some jobs such as actor, a person can do one big job that pays well and then collect benefits until the next big job (after which they can try to reopen their claim). I think mandatory community service would eliminate the freeloaders and ensure that all people are earning those checks. I don't even blame people for taking advantage of the system, but the system has to be changed so they can't.
 WalksOnWater2
Joined: 5/19/2009
Msg: 3
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/26/2010 10:23:26 AM
I know several people out of work drawing unemployment for over a year.
A few are not too hot about finding employment, because the according to them, the available jobs pay less than the unemployment... Plus they work for cash here and there.
So Cheers!
As long as Wellfare is more lucrative that work, that's where we will be.
 readyfornow
Joined: 5/15/2009
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/26/2010 11:36:22 AM
Exactly. It says right there on my paperwork, "if this job does not pay as much as your benefits, you do not have to accept that job offer." Unbelievable! It's scary to think about where we're headed. I don't see anything positive about any of it, other than the fact that we might eliminate some of the bottom feeders out there eventually.

That is an absolute fact. I hear that every day from new applicants who USED to make eighteen to twenty dollars per hour. They know most temp jobs don't pay anywhere close to those wages. Unfortunately, most entry level jobs don't quite match what unemployment pays. Here in Nevada, UEI recipients are required to keep a log indicating every place they apply for work. My guess is a lot of them are just "filling the squares".
 Singleinlewistonidaho
Joined: 8/25/2009
Msg: 5
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/26/2010 12:45:01 PM
Hotrodhary,

They are indeed working by design to cause a world economic collapse. It is for control as you say and so much more. If anyone reading this wants to know more look up Bilderburg on you tube.

As for people collecting. I got laid off from a mill and found a job within two weeks at a hospital but was fired after three weeks cause I was not cut out for the computer work. 10 years at a mill and not using my brain well took it toll in a radically different work setting. So I was then out of work for three months and was still collecting before I got hired at wal mart.

I too believe they should pay us for a while it's true but on the other hand I see the lazy guys I knew from the mill going to school to be RN nurses or radiology techs. With few exceptions most have already gotten their CNA licenses but refuse to work because they are lazy and don't want to work unless they are making what they made before and like before doing hardly anything that breaks a sweat. Meanwhile I am working as a housekeeper back at the hospital that fired me with no time to go to classes because I followed the letter of the rules for un employment and actaully looked for work. The truth is they don't really make you look like they can if they wanted to.

Mike
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/26/2010 3:51:35 PM
With all due respect folks, calling those who receive unemployment "freeloaders" does little more than prove your own ignorance. "Unemployment" is a Federally mandated, State operated INSURANCE fund...NOT "welfare". While you're busy worrying about those who receive that "insurance check"....you might want to take a look at whether you think it fair that when there's a flood in Iowa or an earthquake in California, or a hurricane in Florida...that the rest of us have to pay "those freeloaders" who VOLUNTARILY live in regions well known for natural disasters....when they collect "insurance checks" for homes and property which is destroyed.

Most people don't quit a perfectly good job based solely on the chance that they may some day be laid off...whether due to a temporary or seasonal cut back, or a permanent reduction in work force...to take another job.....with exactly the same risk! Nor do those who have lost jobs generally pack up and move the very same week so as to avoid having to file for an Unemployment INSURANCE Benefit check. KEYWORD here being INSURANCE...NOT "benefit" (which suggests that it's a transfer payment (give away) rather than something that those who MAY someday need to rely on it PERSONALLY PAY into for years....just in case.

But, given this thinking....perhaps since I've paid into health insurance for years and am never sick...I should start a thread to bash those who ARE sick for sucking up MY insurance money!
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 3:33:44 AM

Mostly paid for by ... " Employers" , with a small amount deducted from employees !
Yes, and your point IS?

Workman's Compensation IS also a federally mandated employer paid benefit, as is 50% of everyone's Social Security (unless they're self employed and pay 100% themselves).

As is the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation which "insures" the pensions of 44 MILLION American workers.

Surely you cannot be saying that you support these "insurers" to collect premiums but don't think they should ACTUALLY DO what they SAY they will do....in the event that what they're "insuring against" becomes a reality? That's like saying....well....we know you pay $800 a year to insure your house....but we didn't think you'd every actually FILE A CLAIM!

Excuse me, but we put Bernie Madoff in prison for his Ponzi scheme...yet our government runs all kinds of "ponzi schemes".....'cause I sure as hell don't know what else you'd call Social Security.

The OPS question however does NOT ask whether these "systems" are good or bad, but whether those who have been told that they have this "benefit" should actually take advantage of the benefit when circumstances qualify them to do so. I.E. If these laid off workers (who....I believe...not sure...but I think the UIB is right around 1/3 of their average wages) do not receive this "insurance" then they would qualify for "public" assistance. (TANF, SSI, etc).....which IS paid for by public taxes.

I wasn't around in 1935 when this system was implemented, but I'm pretty sure it was thought to be a safegard (not only, but one of the reasons) to insure that EMPLOYERS who received TAX MONEY as an incentive to CREATE JOBS (sound vaguely familiar) would not take the millions they received to grow businesses and then lay off all the workers they'd hired after they'd gotten the federal tax money....which by the way...the percentage rate for personal Income Taxes jumped in that year (1935) over 50%. (From lowest to highest tax rate going from 1.125% to 4% for the lowest bracket and from 25% to 63% for the highest bracket)

I simply think that attacking those who receive unemployment benefits as being "deadbeats" is not only off the freaking wall....but that is wasting time that could well be spent devising a plan to solve other social system inequities which are truly assinine. To think that someone is having a high ole time on 33% of what their average wage HAD been for years is pretty ridiculous. I will grant you however that there MAY be a select few people who's only goal in life is to work 26 weeks...and collect unemployment for 26 weeks, repeating the cycle over and over...but you know....EMPLOYERS DO have a SAY in who qualifies for benefits and who does NOT!!!! Workers who were let go for "CAUSE" do NOT qualify for Unemployment Benefits. How hard is it for them to say....No, these people where "laid off" because there is no work.....but these people were "let go" because they didn't work???
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 8
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 4:15:09 AM

I simply think that attacking those who receive unemployment benefits as being "deadbeats" is not only off the freaking wall....but that is wasting time that could well be spent devising a plan to solve other social system inequities which are truly assinine.

They may not be "deadbeats" but I can guarantee you they're not spending 8 hours a day every day searching for jobs nor will many accept positions they consider beneath them. And it's completely understandable that a professional won't take a job at McDonald's earning $500 a week when he can collect $350+ collecting unemployment.

This is why I think public service should be mandatory to collect unemployment. So let's say to collect the maximum benefits a person has to perform 15 hours of service per week. The people who are already earning money under the table elsewhere may decide they just don't want to do the service in addition to their other work. And the people who take their leisurely time to find work and treat their unemployment as an extended paid vacation will be more ambitious about securing a job and/or won't be able to take off on a trip since their local presence will be monitored. In addition to all that, the person might learn some valuable skills through their service that could help them find a decent job. To me, it just seems like a no-brainer to do this.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 6:01:50 AM

To me, it just seems like a no-brainer to do this.
Hmmmm, ok....well to you perhaps it IS [a no brainer] LOL! I guess I just haven't met all that many of the "deadbeats"...though, grant you....I do believe that they exist. (I've only drawn unemployment twice, 25 and 27 years ago....and both times drawing the maximum, so yeah...I certainly wasn't going to give up $240 a week to make $100 a week at McDonald's either)

HOWEVER, I do believe that this "service work" in lieu of or to supplement "unemployment" was ALREADY tried....and found to be a huge failure. If you will, the US Automotive industry created a "jobs bank" where by, workers who would have traditionally been placed on unemployment were INSTEAD placed in positions doing "community service". While many of them worked at churches, community centers, etc but communities simply didn't have the resources to put the numbers of "unemployed" during the recessionary periods of the 1980s and 1990s. Those who were in areas that had other industries supporting their local economies were able to take advantage of of this "donated" labor, but it seems that ALL we heard of on the news was those who were in the hardest hit locations...where churches and communities had the available labor....but lacked the donations to purchase the materials to put that labor to work. I.E. some of those laid off workers in my area repaired roofs for the elderly and low income, they cleaned and maintained parks, built playground jungle gyms and in fact, there several dozen of them who spent weeks doing clean up in Florida after both Hurricanes Hugo (1989) and Andrew (1992). Naturally, there were NO news reports of those "unemployed workers"...but we've certainly all heard about those who sat for years in little rooms in Detroit playing cards.


And the people who take their leisurely time to find work and treat their unemployment as an extended paid vacation will be more ambitious about securing a job and/or won't be able to take off on a trip since their local presence will be monitored. In addition to all that, the person might learn some valuable skills through their service that could help them find a decent job.
Now, while this is no doubt a great idea.....and would CREATE a lot of jobs....thus taking people off the unemployment roles, those who are hired to "monitor" those who are unemployed would probably want to be PAID! (seems to me, that if they're not being paid...then it's not really a job...it's volunteer work) So....then we have to INCREASE TAXES to pay those doing the monitoring....but then when those being monitored are again gainfully employed....WHAT exactly would those being paid to "monitor" do????? (sit in rooms playing cards waiting for more unemployed people to monitor...OR would they themselves become the new unemployed? Frankly...I don't think we'll get past having the tax increase passed to hire these monitors in the first place.

Yup, I agree, learning valuable skills that would help them find a decent job is also a great idea....once again, same thing as with the monitors. We have to hire the instructors and where is that money to come from?


The real unemployment rate? Try 15.6%
An 8.5% unemployment rate is unmistakably bad. It's the highest rate since 1983 -- a year that saw double-digit unemployment, nearly 30 commercial bank failures and more than 15% of Americans living below the poverty line.

But the real national unemployment rate is far worse than the U.S. Department of Labor's March figure, announced today, shows. That's because the official rate doesn't include the 3.7 million-plus people who are reluctantly working only part time because of the poor labor market. And it doesn't include the workers who have given up scouring want ads for seemingly nonexistent jobs.

When those folks are added to the numbers, the unemployment rate rises to 15.6%. In March 2008, that number was 9.3%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking this alternative measure (.pdf file) in 1995.

"The situation out there is very grim," says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. "We have seen the mounting of job losses faster than any point since World War II. I have never seen anything escalate this bad."
That was dated April, 2009. Almost 1 year later, it's no better...in fact, I think it may still be climbing (not sure) What we mostly hear about....are NEW FILINGS. To be sure however, the ONE thing hindering an economic "recovery" IS the LOSS of jobs. We're not talking about jobs that are THERE...just waiting for someone to FILL them...we're talking about jobs that NO LONGER EXIST....I believe, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong....but in the last 2 1/2 years...the US has LOST something like 4 million jobs! A report dated March, 2009 stated that 6.5 million people were drawing unemployment.

Granted there are some jobs that are "undesirable" and there are also certainly some "undesirable employees"....but honestly, with the disappearance of 4 million jobs in the last 3 years can you still say that ohhhh, 50% of those drawing unemployment are really "deadbeats"? 40% maybe? 30%? What would your guess be?
 jelunc
Joined: 8/24/2008
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 7:40:13 AM
I am perplexed by those who claim to know people who are collecting and working anything more than a few hours.
The system allows a few hours, I think.
If you know someone who is scamming why not turn them in?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 7:44:07 AM
Allow me to suggest a compromise position:

What if those eligible for unemployment would automatically receive some percentage of the benefit due them, and only draw full benefits if they performed public service?

I do like the idea of there being some sort of safety net for those unexpectedly put out of work. I also think the system should be designed to incentivize desired behavior. Here in WV you have to apply for one or two jobs per week to keep getting your benefits (I forget which).

I have in the past accepted unemployment pay, and I have also chosen not to at other times when I was legally eligible. For me I drew my ethical line between circumstances when the rug was unexpectedly pulled out from under me and those when I knew for months in advance that I would ultimately be out of work, or chose a job that I knew had a finite lifespan.

I'm not one to game the system, but do support programs that enable all of us in dire circumstances to get an extra boost to help us get back on our feet again, and I also believe we all have some degree of obligation to help those least fortunate among us. I also think systems need to be designed so they don't make it easier to be less ambitious about taking responsibility for our well being. That means drawing vague lines in grey areas and thus no system will ever be perfect, but we should still strive to create the best society we can, not just revert back to a 'survival of the fittest' world with no concern for those less fortunate or able.

Dave
 barbee1970
Joined: 12/29/2008
Msg: 12
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 8:39:19 AM
Unemployment is suppose to last up to 6 months.

I've seen people who won't even look for a job until their benefits are about to run out. They don't want to lose that free money and working people are supporting them.

When my job was hiring, lots of people came in for an interview "just for the signature" stating they are looking for work. I would rather have a job than a temp benefit any day.
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 13
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 9:13:26 AM

workers who would have traditionally been placed on unemployment were INSTEAD placed in positions doing "community service".

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with this but to me the flaw in that system is the word "instead." It makes sense that a community couldn't bear the burden of full time employment for people. My suggestion is that the government still pay out the funds and the recipients contribute a minimal amount of work in return.


those who are hired to "monitor" those who are unemployed would probably want to be PAID!

I'm not getting what you mean by a monitor. Here's the way I envision it: the government has a website with all the service opportunities. A person signs up for an available slot. They show up and present some sort of unemployment ID that could be quickly scanned as they clock in and out. The next day they could go to an entirely different location and repeat the process until they've fulfilled the hours required for the week. Keeping track of each person's hours could all be done by computer. Oh, and I'll add that I think educational courses monitored for attendance would be a good alternative to public service.


So people that have been laid off should be punished like they have committed a crime or something, is essentially what you're saying.

Not at all because I don't see how rendering services in exchange for payment is "punishment." The current system is just a one-way street with the government forking over cash and getting nothing in return. Mandatory service is a way for the government to recoup some of its costs in the short term and save lots of money in the long run by making the collection of unemployment benefits as inconvenient as possible so people will work extra hard to get off them and never have to collect again.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 10:51:42 AM
Admittedly, I'm not familiar with this but to me the flaw in that system is the word "instead."
I'm curious as to what that "flaw" is that you see. It's exactly what you propose...that INSTEAD of being laid off and getting "unemployment" benefits...they were paid by their company to do public service work.

My suggestion is that the government still pay out the funds and the recipients contribute a minimal amount of work in return.
OK, I get that...my question IS...HOW are these people to be supervised? WHO is going to make sure that they're doing this "minimal amount of work"? Surely you have to realize that we can't trust these "already known deadbeats" to be honest about how many bags of trash they picked up off the highway, or how many parks they mowed.


Here's the way I envision it: the government has a website with all the service opportunities. A person signs up for an available slot. They show up and present some sort of unemployment ID that could be quickly scanned as they clock in and out. The next day they could go to an entirely different location and repeat the process until they've fulfilled the hours required for the week.
Uhhhh Huh....well, I checked this out...the CLOSEST one for anyone in my area, is a 120 mile round trip drive. How do you suggest that someone GET to that sort of a "service" job? Another issue which hinders the plan of placing these folks in "service jobs" IS...that even non-profit organizations have to be covered by Workman's Compensation. You can't simply send an unemployed person down to the City street dept and have him/her picking up trash....because IF he/she is hit by a car...OR sprains an ankle...then the CITY is LIABLE.


Mandatory service is a way for the government to recoup some of its costs in the short term and save lots of money in the long run by making the collection of unemployment benefits as inconvenient as possible so people will work extra hard to get off them and never have to collect again.
I agree! It's also a good way to create hundreds of clerical jobs and field position to run the computers that read these time stamps, and to report that data to higher ups, etc, etc, etc. Our system is already FULL of "bureaucratic" waste...LOL! and let's face it...there's no scam like a government scam for pulling it off for decade after decade. But, ya know....I agree with you....those government jobs are much better than working for minimum wage with no benefits....where you're likely to get laid off occassionally...and have to draw unemployment. This might also remedy the problem that so many "service organizations" have with accepting "volunteer help"...because then it would be the "government" (taxpayers) absorbing the liability costs.
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 11:15:15 AM
The OP says


Should the rest of us be supporting people who can't find work for this length of time? Should they be given "public service" type duties in order to collect? Should they have to prove they are looking for work? Healthy enough to work? Should they be allowed to be picky?


Unemployment compensation is supplied through state and federal taxes paid in by your employer and not by you. That would probably be one of many reasons that an employer would use as validation for why they do not pay more in wages than they do.

In Texas and I believe most states you have to show that you are applying for jobs to continue to receive benefits. Texas also requires that those receiving food stamps, TANF, and other government benefits have to be actively seeking employment. The latter have so many weeks to look before either showing proof that they have a job or they must do community services. I’m not sure about the unemployment benefits.

If someone is not healthy enough to work yet receiving benefits it is up to government employees to determine what is needed to validate such reasons such as a person receiving medical care and/or applying for disability.

Unemployment benefits are not nearly enough to compensate for lost wages and most people could not continue to live their lives, pay their normal debts, etc. on unemployment benefits alone. However, if a person has to take too great a cut to their wages simply to be employed that could be more detrimental. They might be qualifying for Medicaid, CHIPS, food stamps while on unemployment benefits and would most likely lose all these benefits if they simply took the big cut in pay with a new job. So, I understand why they might be a bit picky although too picky is still too picky.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 12:24:00 PM
Specific unemployment policies vary by state, but here in WV...


<div class="quote"> Does your unemployment benefit vary according to your previous pay or is it a standard rate per week ?

Here they look back over a recent time period, maybe a year and a half, not sure, and base your unemployment compensation on the amount you made during that period working for employers who paid into the unemployment fund. If you worked for yourself or a non-profit or any other employer not required to pay into the unemployment fund you're out of luck.


<div class="quote"> What is the unemployment benefit pay per week,per person ?

This varies based on the above, and you also deduct any money you make during that period through part time work from any benefit paid. The way it's set up when you first start collecting unemployment you're informed not only how much you can receive every two weeks, but the total amount of money allocated to be paid to you should you continue to draw benefits. Once the money is gone, you're out of benefits. Continuing to do part time work allows you to extend the time you can draw benefits even if on the short term you don't make any more money, because that's that much less deducted from your total fund.

To the best of my knowledge those unemployed who exhaust their benefits without finding work no longer show up on any unemployment statistics, even if they're still unable to find work, so keep that in mind when you hear national unemployment statistics.


<div class="quote"> Do you get unemployment pay if you were fired ?

Yes. This is what it's there for. You do NOT get benefits if you quit. Here in WV you're also eligible if you're temporarily laid off with an assurance that you will be rehired soon by your employer, and in such cases get 'low earnings' unemployment of a lesser amount than full benefits but without the requirement to keep looking for work.


<div class="quote"> Obviously a safeguard should be in place as in drugs tests /time limit for example.

Time limits exist in all states, I'm pretty sure. Drug tests are up to individual states. WV is currently contemplating legislation to do just that.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 12:42:00 PM

So its the employer who has paid into it for you ?


Yes, although here in WV employees also contribute a small amount to the fund as a payroll deduction. I question the wisdom of this, as employees contribute a very small proportion of the fund, but I've heard many people say "I'm going to take the unemployment because I paid into it."

There is no standard basic figure. It's a percentage of how much you made in qualified income over whatever the designated period is. You could find yourself getting $10 a week if you didn't make much much in the way of qualified income during the period in question. I can say that the last time I was in this position I got nowhere near $350 per week. And my current job is for a non-profit that doesn't pay into the fund, so I would have no benefits should I lose this job.

It's also worth noting that unemployment benefits don't count toward future benefits. So if you're out of work for a year, work for a month, lose that job, you'll get next to nothing in benefits.

Dave
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 18
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 1:00:54 PM

I'm curious as to what that "flaw" is that you see. It's exactly what you propose...that INSTEAD of being laid off and getting "unemployment" benefits...they were paid by their company to do public service work.

No, that's not what I proposed. I proposed that they would be paid the same way they are now (a combination of employer and government dollars) and they would be paid the same amount they are now with the added component of so many hours of public service but not the equivalent of a full time job.


HOW are these people to be supervised? WHO is going to make sure that they're doing this "minimal amount of work"?

These would be positions that already exist but let's say instead of five people assisting there might be 20. And I'm certainly not suggesting the sort of work that requires heavy supervision, for example: collecting trash or stuffing envelopes.


well, I checked this out...the CLOSEST one for anyone in my area, is a 120 mile round trip drive. How do you suggest that someone GET to that sort of a "service" job?

What exactly did you check out? I find it hard to believe you're 60 miles from the nearest government facility or non-profit organization or trade school.


even non-profit organizations have to be covered by Workman's Compensation.

Correct. They're already covered.


It's also a good way to create hundreds of clerical jobs and field position to run the computers that read these time stamps, and to report that data to higher ups

Computers can process millions of records automatically or with a few clicks. But even if it did create hundreds of jobs. Those could be filled by hundreds of people who would otherwise collect unemployment. And the extra costs would easily be offset by fewer and shorter unemployment claims.


I see figure of $350 per week being quoted here.Would that be correct ?

A quick search turned up a national average of $293 with Mississippi the lowest at $230 and Massachusetts the highest at $628. These are maximum benefits, mind you. The benefits depend on a person's income during a particular period so some people would earn a fraction of that. I'll add that for the public service I propose, the required hours would also be on a sliding scale.


So if you're out of work for a year, work for a month, lose that job, you'll get next to nothing in benefits.

I'm not certain but I don't think that's correct. I believe there's a certain window during which you can reopen your old claim.
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 19
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 1:26:25 PM

For the sake of comparison again.If someone had worked for the time period in question and had been collecting $500 per week.....................what kind of approx figure would be unemployment benefit ?

It depends on the state and I really don't know that information but my guess is that $500/week would be toward the lower or middle end of the scale so that person would earn far less than the maximum.


If you qualify for unemployment benefit........can these people take up college or uni courses for free ? As in BA and Masters degrees ? Do they get medical aid too?

Financial assistance is available for low income students who qualify. In fact, one of Obama's campaign proposals was to ensure anybody could get a college degree in exchange for the same sort of public service that I've discussed in this thread. Don't know what's happening with that. As for medical aid, there are many agencies, colleges, etc. that provide free or low-cost health care to indigent people.


It is hard to believe if you're used to living in L.A. It's actually 70 miles one way, for me Alooo.

So you're 70 miles from the nearest town? Is that how far you traveled to work each day?
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 2:21:01 PM
In OHIO:

Disqualification from Unemployment

The following circumstances may disqualify you from collecting unemployment benefits, depending on state law:

* Quit without good cause
* Fired for misconduct
* Resigned because of illness (check on disability benefits)
* Left to get married
* Self-employed
* Involved in a labor dispute
* Attending School
About the same as WVa, but here you CANNOT get benefits if you were FIRED for any "just cause". In essense, your benefits are dependent on the agreement from your previous employer.

I can't locate an exact figure for any states except the highest, New York at $405 per week, and Arizona, the lowest, at $205 per week. I believe that Ohio's (highest rate) is right around $300 per week.


If someone had worked for the time period in question and had been collecting $500 per week.....................what kind of approx figure would be unemployment benefit ?
In my understanding, it is calculated by
Unemployment Benefits are categorized in 3 main contexts; by geographic area, by occupation, and by industry.

Each State will have its own unemployment benefits which are also determined by the three categories above.


What as a matter of interest is the bottom tier of income tax you pay in the US ?
Currently, our Federal rates range from 10% to 35%....this of course does NOT include State and Local income taxes...which vary.


If you qualify for unemployment benefit........can these people take up college or uni courses for free ? As in BA and Masters degrees ? Do they get medical aid too?
NO! Absolutely not. See the list of disqualifications for Unemployment. If you are attending school, you are NOT "available" for work, thus...NOT covered by Unemployment Insurance. And NO, there are no medical benefits available which are associated with being unemployed. MANY people who become unemployed WAIT to seek employment for this reason. Company or "group" health care benefits tend to "carry over" for anywhere from 90 days to 1 year after the "member" (employee) is considered "inactive". Since our Health Insurance premiums tend to cost (for a family) somewhere between $500 to $1,000 per month, many simply hope to be recalled to their former jobs before that "grace period of coverage" expires. If they take new employment before that time, they forfeit that coverage not only for themselves, but for their family.


Then you also get free education,dental and prescriptions.Medical is free anyway.
LOL! well, the only free education, dental and prescriptions I know of in the U.S. is if you're in prison....or for the children (under age 18) of of those who are a "chronically poor" or...."unemployable".


These would be positions that already exist but let's say instead of five people assisting there might be 20. And I'm certainly not suggesting the sort of work that requires heavy supervision, for example: collecting trash or stuffing envelopes.
Ummm huh....so, you really want 15 extra people stuck in YOUR office? And you're willing to supervise them.....to make certain they're stuffing ALL the envelopes they're supposed to stuff instead of goofing off? Collecting trash? What? like, off of a garbage truck? Again, does "on the job injury" mean anything at all to you? If they strain their back or break a leg...then they are DISQUALIFIED from receiving unemployment (I know...this is your goal to begin with) BUT, Cities simply are NOT going to turn a bunch of laid off bankers....OR McDonald's workers loose driving garbage trucks....they CANNOT AFFORD THE LIABILITY INSURANCE.

What exactly did you check out? I find it hard to believe you're 60 miles from the nearest government facility or non-profit organization or trade school.

You might try looking at a map...or getting out of California once....because indeed...it IS 60 miles to the nearest "city". Which "government facility" would you recommend checking out? Non-profit organization? Sure, we have tons and tons of churches...but as I said in an earlier post...there's only so much trash to be picked up. And as I also said earlier....when General Motor employees were in their "jobs bank" in the late 1980s here, many of those churches had donations which allowed them to purchase materials to repair the roofs on the homes of the elderly, etc...but with the high unemployment rate here, churches are having difficulty just staying open themselves....and feeding people, so other than dishing up soup, there's not much to do.


Correct. They're already covered.
INCORRECT!!!! They are NOT covered! Period, End of discussion. I happen to have done some "volunteer community service work" in my life, and can tell you that it is a LONG and tedious process with some organizations to "waive" one's rights to compensation should you be injured while performing work for them. That in and of itself would be a VERY FOOLISH thing for someone receiving unemployment benefits to agree to....
As for schools, Yes, I once "volunteered" my services to the local high school which provided Adult Basic Education. They stated that they would be thrilled to have my help, but that they had to present it to the State Board of Education. Since I was myself a college student (with a 3.64 GPA) and an adult (age 44) the State Board FINALLY approved my "certification" as a "volunteer" reading instructor. (Tutoring adults who where preparing for GED exams) The entire process took ONLY.....4 MONTHS.


It depends on the state and I really don't know that information but my guess is that $500/week would be toward the lower or middle end of the scale so that person would earn far less than the maximum.
You are INCORRECT....as I've already stated, according to the U.S. Buruea of Labor Statistics....the HIGHEST rate per week is paid to New York workers.....at a MAXIMUM of $405 per week.

These arguments sound amazingly like my 6 yr old grandson who insists that if I don't have any money....I should just...."Go to the bank and GET SOME!"


So you're 70 miles from the nearest town? Is that how far you traveled to work each day?
YES, that is how far some travel back and forth to work each day. You're totally missing the point....that when one is WORKING....and earning a pay check
of say....$700 a week, that $60 a week for gasoline is not much of an issue. When they're collecting $240 a week in unemployment....yes, the $60 IS a big deal. But, I'm sure you're going to suggest that they just take one of the many buses or other mass transit systems.....unfortunately....we don't have those either....but since we have the worlds largest Amish population here....I'll bet some of the unemployed could borrow a horse!!!! LOL! how long would it take to go 140 miles on a horse?
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 21
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 3:53:46 PM
Grandmabooboo, this may be my last response to you if you can't follow along and if you're going to call me wrong when your facts are incorrect.


You are INCORRECT....as I've already stated, according to the U.S. Buruea of Labor Statistics....the HIGHEST rate per week is paid to New York workers.....at a MAXIMUM of $405 per week.

Let me start with your accusation that I'm "INCORRECT" based on information you admitted you couldn't even access. So here's some information you can access:

A list of benefits per state showing Massachusetts the highest at $628: http://tinyurl.com/national-unemploy

This information is $1 off the amount ($629) that's listed on the Mass.gov page: http://tinyurl.com/ma-unemploy

I'll point out that your response here shows you clearly didn't grasp the question that was asked and that I answered. Reread my comment (msg 39) to which you responded (msg 41) as well as the original question (msg 37). The question in msg 37 asked how much would someone's benefits be if they were earning $500 a week when they were employed. Your statement about New York's benefits had nothing to do with the question asked.

On to your next false correction:


Correct. They're already covered.

INCORRECT!!!! They are NOT covered! Period, End of discussion.

It's not "INCORRECT" and "end of discussion" just because you say so. Here's an actual fact: "All employers, including nonprofit organizations, which have employees, must carry workers' compensation insurance. " Source: http://tinyurl.com/non-prof-work-comp

And some inaccurate information:

NO! Absolutely not. See the list of disqualifications for Unemployment. If you are attending school, you are NOT "available" for work, thus...NOT covered by Unemployment Insurance.

It varies by state. Attending school does not automatically disqualify someone from collecting unemployment. In your state of Ohio, "As a general rule, folks can go back to school to take training courses as long as they're still looking for work," Brian Harter, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, said in an e-mail."
Source: http://tinyurl.com/oh-unemploy-school

Since you didn't yell "INCORRECT" I'll go easy on this one:

well, the only free education, dental and prescriptions I know of in the U.S. is if you're in prison.

Google "free dental" or "free medical" and you'll see there are actually many places where these services are available.

I'm not an expert on all this stuff and I'm not going to bother trying to figure out the logistics but I do think that if Obama's team believes that they can provide students with $4000 in college tuition in exchange for 100 hours of service (http://change.gov/americaserves/) then a similar program could work for unemployment as well.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 5:52:31 PM
From www.ssa.gov.
In the 1970s, a permanent federal-state program of Extended Benefits was established for workers who exhaust their entitlement to regular state benefits during periods of high unemployment. The program is financed equally from federal and state funds. Employment conditions in an individual state trigger Extended Benefits. This happens when the unemployment rate among insured workers in a state averages 5 percent or more over a 13-week period and is at least 20 percent higher than the rate for the same period in the 2 preceding years. If the insured unemployment rate reaches 6 percent, a state may by state law disregard the 20 percent requirement in initiating Extended Benefits. Once triggered, Extended Benefit provisions remain in effect for at least 13 weeks. When a state's benefit period ends, Extended Benefits to individual workers also end, even if they have received less than their potential entitlement and are still unemployed. Further, once a state's benefit period ends, another statewide period cannot begin for at least 13 weeks.

State law determines most eligibility conditions for Extended Benefits and the weekly benefit payable. However, under federal law a claimant must have had 20 weeks in full-time employment (or the equivalent in insured wages) and must meet special work requirements. A worker who has exhausted his or her regular benefits is eligible for a 50 percent increase in duration of benefits for a maximum of 13 weeks of Extended Benefits. There is, however, an overall maximum of 39 weeks of regular and Extended Benefits. Extended Benefits are payable at the same rate as the weekly amount under the regular state program.

Before the 1992 legislation, the Extended Benefits program was based on the insured unemployment rate (IUR)—the number of unemployed workers receiving benefits in a state as a percentage of the number of persons in employment that is covered by unemployment insurance in that state. By definition, the IUR does not include workers who have exhausted their benefits but are still unemployed.

The 1992 legislation (Public Law 102-318) provided states with the option of adopting an additional formula for triggering the permanent Extended Benefits program. Effective March 1993, states had the option of amending their laws to use alternative total unemployment rate triggers, in addition to the current insured unemployment rate triggers. Under this option, Extended Benefits would be paid when (1) the state's seasonally adjusted total unemployment rate for the most recent 3 months is at least 6.5 percent and (2) that rate is at least 110 percent of the state average total unemployment rate in the corresponding 3-month period in either of the 2 preceding years.

States triggering on to the Extended Benefits program under other triggers would provide the regular 26 weeks of unemployment benefits in addition to 13 weeks of Extended Benefits (which is the same number of weeks of benefits provided previously). In addition, states that have chosen the total unemployment rate option will also amend their state laws to add an additional 7 weeks of Extended Benefits (for a total of 20 weeks) when the total unemployment rate is at least 8 percent and is 110 percent of the state's total unemployment rate for the same 3 months in either of the 2 preceding years. As of November 2, 2008, Extended Benefits were not payable in 2 states.

In addition to the permanent Extended Benefits program, Congress from time to time enacts temporary extensions of unemployment compensation benefits. The most recent such enactment is Public Law 110-252 signed by the president on June 30, 2008. This program provides up to 13 weeks of 100 percent federally financed compensation to eligible individuals in all states.


Re:
A list of benefits per state showing Massachusetts the highest at $628: http://tinyurl.com/national-unemploy
Ummm, yes, I do see that MSN Money is reporting the figure you quote. LOL! that's what I get for avoiding "low credibility" sites and opting for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I also see on the page you link that
That law also reimburses 65% of the cost of COBRA health insurance payments for the first nine months of unemployment. That's a huge benefit for those with children because the full cost of a family-of-four policy can be more than $12,000 a year.
This is referring to a law "just passed"...the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. What you haven't included is that the 65% "reimbursement" of the cost of health insurance payments is nothing more than a tax deduction that you can take....it certainly doesn't help someone who's living on 50% of their "regular pay" MAKE those payments for the year...in order to be ABLE to claim the deduction at the END of the year.

From www.workerscompensation.com

Volunteers can at times be considered employees and allowed benefits when there is some consideration provided to the volunteer for services, including meals, transportation or room and board. Loaned or borrowed employees also may create a special set of circumstances in considering the employer/employee relationship.
Now, perhaps I was unclear earlier, because "volunteer " workers CAN be covered...IF the company PAYS to cover these individuals. Generally.....as far as I know, that additional premium is calculated by estimating the "value" of the work being performed. HOWEVER....from the legal standpoint....as YOU have said.....
Mandatory service is a way for the government to recoup some of its costs in the short term and save lots of money in the long run by making the collection of unemployment benefits as inconvenient as possible so people will work extra hard to get off them and never have to collect again.
When the work is MANDATORY....then it is NO LONGER....."VOLUNTARY". I'm sorry, but this is NOT "free" insurance" and the first thing Workman's Comp is going to ask is....where is this person's income records....why is there no record of him/her being an employee??? Then they're going to tell the employer....NO...he's not covered...because you weren't paying the premium for the "value" of the work he was doing....per $100 of payroll. AND, here again, from www.workman's compensation.com
An employer should be alert for fraud if the injured employee was disgruntled at the time of the accident, has been a poor performer, has unexplained absences shortly before the injury, is new to the company or job, has a history of frequent job changes, is in financial difficulty, has other family members also receiving work comp benefits or other social insurance benefits, earns extra money by moonlighting, is in college, or is known to participate in contact sports or physically demanding hobbies. Other signs may include someone who has a history of frequent injuries of a subjective nature, receives income from workers' compensation benefits and other collateral sources, is difficult to reach at home or returns calls with incongruous background noises, frequently changes medical providers or attorneys, has recently purchased one or more disability policies, demands quick settlement decisions or commitments, is usually familiar with work comp claims, and/or is consistently uncooperative.
They already have any "mandatory volunteers" pegged as frauds from the very get go! New to the job, history of job changes, is in financial difficulty, recieves money from other sources...OR, is familiar with workman's comp claims!!!! Another fact that you may not be aware of....is that "lost time accidents" cause a SIGNIFICANT increase in premiums.
The last consideration is what is known in the industry as the "experience modification factor" or "experienced mod" or simply the "mod." This calculation applies to policies with more than $5,000.00 in premiums. In determining the experience mod, the individual employer is compared with other employers within the classification based upon the frequency of accidents and severity of injuries. The more accidents an employer has had in the past, the higher the modification rating.
THIS is the REASON that employers have "light duty"....trust me on this if nothing else. It's NOT because they care about financial stability...it's because a "recordable lost time accident" is absolute murder on their workman's comp premiums.

I would be automatically disqualified under ANY employer's workman's comp policy not because I've ever filed workman's comp...but because as a sociology/economics major in college (with the ultimate intention of working in the area of Human Resource Management)...I'd be considered "high risk".

I once did some volunteer work for the University I attended...in the Ecology Dept, which was setting up a county wide recycling program. Well, I'm an OSHA certified fork lift operator...but there was just this major...I mean MAJOR argument over whether I could perform this task without being an employee of the university's maintenance crew.

You state:
All employers, including nonprofit organizations, which have employees, must carry workers' compensation insurance.
ABSOLUTELY, they DO. But I'm still not seeing how you think that means that "mandatory volunteer" workers are covered? I'm suspecting that you're thrown off by the "non-profit organization" thing....and thinking that it includes "volunteers".....but it DOESN'T. Even Non-profit organizations have a PAYROLL....on which they pay workman's comp.

As the man said,
Maybe you should have to prove that you know WTF you are talking about before you are allowed to speak/write about it.
And that was pretty blunt; but all I'm trying to say IS...that this is a MUCH more complicated issue than you think it is. We haven't even begun to get into the macroeconomic issues, like the societal costs of unemployment....which are ASTRONOMICAL compared to people collecting $200-$500 a week in Unemployment Insurance Benefits.


The world is undergoing the largest wave of urban growth in history. In 2008, for the first time in history, more than half of the world’s population will be living in towns and cities. By 2030 this number will swell to almost 5 billion, with urban growth concentrated in Africa and Asia. While mega-cities have captured much public attention, most of the new growth will occur in smaller towns and cities, which have fewer resources to respond to the magnitude of the change.

In principle, cities offer a more favourable setting for the resolution of social and environmental problems than rural areas. Cities generate jobs and income. With good governance, they can deliver education, health care and other services more efficiently than less densely settled areas simply because of their advantages of scale and proximity.
BUT

Urbanization of poverty

Poverty is now growing faster in urban than in rural areas. One billion people live in urban slums, which are typically overcrowded, polluted and dangerous, and lack basic services such as clean water and sanitation.

Although urbanization increasingly concentrates poverty, it also provides possibilities for escaping it. For the most part, rich countries are already urbanized, and most of the expected urban growth will occur in less-developed regions, which have fewer resources for coping with the scale of the change.
FIRST of all....you need to stop thinking that EVERYONE lives in a city....We DON'T....in fact....it's only RECENTLY that the number of people (world wide) DO [live in cities]. Another reason that YOU have these "free medical and dental services" is because the there's more poverty in urban areas than in rural areas. WE [country bumpkins] DON'T have those things. I mean...I'm glad that you get free medical and dental in California...but...I thought you were against "deadbeats" who collect all these "free benefits"????
 4408joseph
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 6:21:27 PM
Was I the only one after reading the link picking up on tons of PORK in the bill...



The bill would extend unemployment payments to laid-off workers and provide them with subsidies to help pay health premiums through the COBRA program. It would extend funding for highway projects and spare doctors from a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments. It would extend a small business loan program, the National Flood Insurance Program and the copyright license used by satellite television providers.


Paying for health insurance? House insurance? Unemployed Doctors??? Keeping tv up and running??

WTF??? Funny a country built on the backs of hard workers, has turned into a country that expects everything while lying on their back.


Should the rest of us be supporting people who can't find work for this length of time?


Phuck NO...People collecting benefits over 6 months are either lazy or stupid..

32 weeks, that should be the plan... I have a perfect 32 week plan..as I often like to say.

I can help the helpless, but I don't have a fuggin clue what to do with the clueless

In my state you can milk the system just like welfare ....for years...

I come from a long family line of self-employed... Not once in my life have I ever collected a check for not working ever.

When you work/care for yourself unemployment usually last about a week.



Should they be given "public service" type duties in order to collect?


He11 no... Let's not BREAK something we are trying to fix.


Should they have to prove they are looking for work?


Absolutely, Maryland you have to twice a week mail a paper with the names of a contact person..

WTF????2!!

In the real world of a self employed contractor of a very small business. I'm guessing yearly averages out 15-25 contacts a week for me...Pretty much daily I have to return contact a couple times a day.


Yes, some people do and there is no public transport up here in the real world.


And WHO forced you to live there??

Besides a quick check of the on-line director there are 100 plus government offices in Wheatland.

Oh. In Maryland you can go to school and collect full benefits.. You have to go to school{( not verbatim) during non traditional work hours.} also there is..."work search exemption (training waiver)"
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 6:43:21 PM
Aloo: I found another source that backs up your MSN Money reference....it's Business Week.


Massachusetts

Unemployment rate: 8.0%
Weekly benefit maximum: $628
Average weekly benefit: $405.64
Benefits recipient rate: 57%

California

Unemployment rate: 11.0%
Weekly benefit maximum: $450
Average weekly benefit: $312.33
Benefits recipient rate: 39%

Ohio

Unemployment rate: 10.2%
Weekly benefit maximum: $372
Average weekly benefit: $311.84
Benefits recipient rate: 31%
LOL! now they have me curious about what that "recipient rate" is in reference to....will have to check that out.
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Unemployment Benefits
Posted: 2/27/2010 7:59:08 PM
This is the way unemployment benefits are determined in Texas.


What is Unemployment Insurance (UI)?

Unemployment Insurance (UI) is an employer-paid insurance program that helps workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own. It provides temporary financial help to qualified individuals, based on their previous earnings, while they are looking for other work. Employer taxes and reimbursements support the Unemployment Trust Fund. Employers cannot deduct any money from employees' paychecks to pay for this program. Apply for UI benefits anytime online or call the TWC Tele-Center nearest you.

The law governing UI benefits in Texas is the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act, which is Title 4, Subtitle A of the Texas Labor Code. From here on, we will refer to that law as "the Act." The Act is available online at www.texasworkforce.org (choose the link for Job Seekers and Employees; then Employee Rights and Laws), and it is in the Vernon's law book series found in most public libraries.
How Do I Qualify?

The law sets qualifying requirements in three main areas: your past wages, your job separation, and ongoing availability and work search. You must meet all of the requirements to receive benefits.

1. Your past wages

To establish a payable claim, you must have received enough wages to meet the requirements. We use the wages paid to you during a recent 12-month period, called the base period, to calculate your benefit amounts. The base period is the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters before you filed your claim. (Calendar quarters are three-month periods beginning with January, April, July, or October.) This means that when we calculate benefits we can't use earnings in the calendar quarter in which you filed your claim, or the quarter just before that. We base your weekly benefit amount on the highest quarter earnings in your base period. We divide that high quarter's total earnings by 25 to get your weekly benefit amount. We may have to change this amount to be inside the allowed range of benefit amounts in Texas. Your maximum, or total, benefit amount is the smaller of 26 times the weekly amount, or 27% of all your wages in the base period. Your weekly benefit amount will be between $59 and $406 depending upon the wages you earned.

To have a payable claim, the law requires that:

1. You have wages in at least two of the four base period calendar quarters being used, and
2. Your total base period wages are at least 37 times your weekly benefit amount, and
3. If you qualified for benefits on a prior claim, you must have earned 6 times your new weekly benefit amount since that time.

If you were out of work for a prolonged time during the base period because of a medically verifiable illness, injury, disability, or pregnancy, tell TWC because you may be able to use an alternate base period. If you meet the requirements, the alternate base period could use wages you received before your illness or injury. If you qualify under both base periods, you decide which base period to use.

2. Your separation from your last work

You must be unemployed or partially unemployed through no fault of your own to receive benefits. You should be prepared to present evidence that you tried to correct the problem before you quit.

Examples of qualifying reasons are:

* You were laid off due to lack of work.
* You are still working but the employer reduced your hours. (Your reduction in hours must not be the result of a disciplinary action.)
* You were fired without work-related misconduct. Examples of misconduct are a violation of company policy; violation of law; neglect or mismanagement of your position; or failure to perform your work acceptably if you are capable of doing so.
* You quit your job for a good well-documented work-related or medical reason. TWC may rule good cause if the work situation would cause a person who truly wants to keep the job to leave it.
o Examples of possible good cause are unsafe working conditions or a significant change in hiring agreement, or not receiving payment for your work.
o Examples of medical reasons are quitting on your doctor's advice, or quitting to care for a minor child, or quitting to care for a terminally ill spouse if there is no alternative care provider.
* You quit to protect yourself from family violence or stalking, evidenced by an active or recently issued protective order, a police record documenting family violence or stalking directed against you, or medical documentation of family violence against you.

In addition:

* If you quit to move with your husband or wife, you may be able to receive benefits after a disqualification of 6 to 25 weeks. This is a disqualification of both time and money, because we must subtract the number of disqualified weeks from your total benefits.
* If you quit to move with your military spouse, Texas lets you receive benefits without penalty if your spouse has a permanent change of station longer than 120 days, or a tour of duty longer than one year.

3. Ongoing availability and work search requirements

During each week you claim benefits, you must:

* Make an active search for full-time work, unless TWC exempts you from this requirement
* Be physically able to work
* Be available for full-time work
* Apply for and accept suitable work
* Be registered for work search online at www.texasworkforce.org, (click on WorkInTexas.com), or with the nearest workforce center
* Call TWC, or call or report to a workforce center, as instructed

Is My Claim Confidential?

Yes. However, we share some information with certain government agencies, when the law allows it. These agencies use the information for programs like Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Child Support. In addition, we share your information with Chase Bank; it manages your debit-card account. The law allows TWC to release information if necessary. Government agencies and Chase Bank must keep your claim information private. TWC mails a written notice of your claim to your last employer and may communicate with your former employers about your claim.
When Will I Know My Benefit Amounts?

We will mail you a Statement of Benefits the same day we mail your benefit information packet. The Statement of Benefits tells you:

* The base period used for your claim
* The wages your employers reported paying you during each quarter of the base period
* Whether you are eligible for benefit amounts based on those wages

If you are eligible, it tells you the 12-month period your claim will be in effect, which is your benefit year. Your benefit year stays in effect for those dates even if you were disqualified or you have drawn all of your benefits. In other words, the money may run out before the year is over, and no more benefits will be available until the next benefit year. The statement also tells you your potential benefit amounts. The weekly benefit amount is the amount we can pay you for one full week of unemployment. Your maximum benefit amount is the total amount we can pay during your benefit year. Your weekly benefit amount will be between $59 and $406 depending upon the wages you earned.

Check to make sure that the Social Security Number (SSN) on the Statement of Benefits matches the number on your Social Security card. Look at the employer(s) and the wages listed for your base period, and check to see if all your wages for that period are included. As you check the wages, keep the following tips in mind:

* The wages are listed in the quarter in which they were paid to you, regardless of when you earned the money.
* The law does not allow us to use some types of wages to establish claims. Some examples are:
o work as an elected official
o work for a foreign government
o work for a church
o work for your son, daughter, husband, or wife
o most work as an insurance agent or real estate broker
* The first Statement of Benefits usually does not include wages received from work for the federal government, military service, or work in other states. We will send you an adjusted Statement of Benefits when we receive records for those wages.

What if Wages Are Missing or Wrong?

You should call us if you believe there are any mistakes on the wages. The phone number is on the front of the Statement of Benefits. Mistakes might include missing wages, the wrong amount of wages, or wages that are not yours. Contact us quickly so we pay you the right amount of benefits--no less and no more than due. If you receive benefits based on incorrect wages or wages that aren't yours, you will have to repay any overpayments. You may request that we correct your wages at any time during your benefit year.

Once we determine your correct wages, we will send you a new Statement of Benefits. If you disagree with the new determination of your wages, you can appeal. There are instructions for appealing a determination later in this information.
Who Pays For UI Benefits?

Employers' UI taxes pay for your benefits. Unlike income tax or Social Security taxes, employers cannot deduct money from workers' wages to pay UI taxes. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) administers the UI program in Texas.

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/bnfts/claimant1.html#missing


Just using 16 dollars an hour I estimate that a person would receive about 256 dollars per week. A lot less than the 640 dollars a week they are used to.

I know a lot of younger people in town who are looking for work and have been for a good while. They have been told at TWC's office that there have been no real jobs posted for at least 6 months and that they should keep looking online instead of coming into the office.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Unemployment Benefits