Unemployment Compensation Question

[SoutherDem]

I at times hear Republicans claim unemployment compensation prevents people from taking jobs when they are offered. They seem to think everyone who isn't rich is lazy.

If someone had a full time job with benefits making $50,000 are they really suppose to take a part time job without benefits making $16,000 per year, just to get off unemployment?

[teddy51]

1. As a working person one of your contributions is to UI so you are perfectly within

your rights to draw from UI when laid off or out of work.

You can bet your ass that there Righties on UI out there.

[coalition_unwilling]

7. Technically, workers do not contribute to UI, only employers do. Of course, one

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2012, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

can argue that a worker's wages are lowered by some % of what the employer must contribute to UI.

At least that's how it works in California.

[teddy51]

11. Yeah I think it's that way in WA State as well.

[sad sally]

13. And the employer uses the UI they pay as a deductible business expense

Additional benefit to employers is the 5.4% credit against their federal tax liability if they pay state taxes on time, so the 6.2% on wages up to $7,000 a year paid to an employee has an offset for employers.

(there are 3 states who do collect UI from employees - Alaska, New Jersey and Pennsylvania)

[gregoire]

16. Huh?

> You can bet your ass that there Righties on UI out there.

Where Righties?

[Vincardog]

2. In the Reich wingers world yes. You should take a min wage job and forfeit any chance

of ever making a decent wage again. Anything to avoid being a drag on the corporate gods bottom line.

[elleng]

3. Yes, and continue to look for the 'better' job,

which may or may not come. Sure as hell, Unemployment Compensation won't last forever.

[SoutherDem]

10. This question is from a conversation I had with a stranger yesterday

we were both waiting for a table at a restaurant.

He told me he was unemployed and keeps hearing about he should take ANY job out there. He said there were few problems with that notion.

1. Now he is able to devote several hours each day to looking for a job.

2. He is able to go to interviews with little notice.

3. He is afraid if he "resets" his pay rate he will never recover.

He said he wasn't opposed to taking one of those jobs, but is worried he will be stuck in it or a similar job for the rest of his life.

[elleng]

12. He raised real and serious issues.

My UI was approaching running out when I luckily found a very good new, tho 'temporary' job, which lasted only 1 year. Had THAT job not appeared, I likely would have accepted less good, and even more temporary, jobs.

VERY individual matters.

[SoutherDem]

14. I really felt for him

I remember back in the early 90s I hired a mechanical engineer to sell shoes. His job was taken over by computers and younger workers. He all but begged for the job. He did a great job, but I have no doubt he was making maybe 25% of what he made before. Oddly, he was more educated than any person working for the company including our district manager.

[jeff47]

17. It really depends on his situation

I'd recommend staying on unemployment until one of the following:

1) Can't afford to - this assumes his unemployment is less than the new job.
2) Unemployment will be running out in the next month or so - time's running out, so get _something_ that pays the bills.

[TheWraith]

4. Bear in mind, that $16k job may actually pay better than unemployment.

For all the talk about how cushy unemployment is, it really isn't by any stretch of the imagination. If you're really, really lucky, it pays most of the salary you were making before; if you're not, then you could end up getting half to a third of what you were making.

[coalition_unwilling]

8. UI was only about 50% of what I had previously earned. - n/t

[TheWraith]

19. For me, it was around 40%.

It gets progressively worse if your income is variable or based on bonuses of any kind.

[TBF]

5. In this economy I'd probably take it and continue looking -

but yes they are assholes. And it's ridiculous that we even talk about this - UI should be federal and higher than poverty level. It is just more wedge-talk to pit the 99% against each other so we don't notice how the 1% are the ones really robbing us blind, not folks drawing their UI.

[hfojvt]

6. yes, yes they are

In fact, it is the law. If they are offered a $16,000 a year job, they must take it. If they refuse to do so, their unemployment will be terminated.

However, because they have lost so much pay, they still may be able to collect partial unemployment benefits after taking such a job.

As a person who spent years working part-time for about $11,000-12,000 a year, I have little sympathy for people who think they are too hoity-toity to do the kind of work I do and to make the kind of money that I make. And for them to sit back and collect $300-400 a week for doing nothing, while I am out here working hard for less, is not something I find copacetic.

[jeff47]

15. No, actually they aren't.

If the job is sufficiently lower in pay, or below market rate, they don't have to take it.

Otherwise, businesses would use this loophole to underpay people all the time.

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. That may depend on the state.

Some states will kick you off unemployment if they find out you turned down a job. Any job.

And - because UI is based on your last salary, taking that much of a cut in pay means that some folks are not only going out of pocket to keep up with living expenses, but if they lose the new job, their benefits will be a fraction of what they are now.

It can be a vicious cycle in this economy.

[TheWraith]

24. It also depends on your time after last employment.

For instance, here in New York, for the first period after you become unemployed you're only legally obligated to take jobs affording close to or equal to your old salary. After a few months, you're required to take anything that you're offered, even if it's not in your field, even if it's a minimum wage job when you used to be making $75,000 a year.

[gregoire]

18. Why lie about that when it weakens our position?

Unless you actually are against UI.

Of course you don't have to take a job that pays much less than you were making before. I was able to refuse a minimum wage job because my previous job paid almost twice that much. Of course in retrospect I should have taken the job because my current job I had to take after my 99 weeks ran-out pays minimum wage minus locker and uniform fees.

[hfojvt]

21. one should be careful about the use of the word "lie".

I gave my understanding of unemployment law. Maybe I don't know as much about it as you do since I have never been able to get paid 99 weeks for doing nothing, and plus I have not usually made much more than minimum wage.

As for being against UI, I don't think people on UI should be able to turn down work and still collect it.

[jtuck004]

23. What if it's not a lie? Have you checked the laws in all 50 states?

From NJ Dept of Labor, here


"Q. Do I have to accept a job that pays less than I used to earn?

A. While you are collecting unemployment benefits, you are expected to accept suitable work when it is offered or you could be denied benefits for four weeks. Suitable work depends on your work history, salary, skills, commuting distance, etc. If you remain unemployed for an extended period of time, you will be expected to revise your minimum job requirements. You may be required to travel a greater distance, accept a different type of job or accept a lower starting salary."

[Ian David]

9. GOP: "Unemployment Benefits Encourage People Not To Work" ...LIES

[revolution breeze]

22. In Louisiana, the max unemployment you can draw is $180 per week

and that is only for 26 weeks. That $180 is supposed to feed and house your family AND allow you to search for work. Less than $5,000 in 6 months? I think they keep it so low so you are forced to take whatever comes your way.

[TheKentuckian]

25. Wow, that is brutal low. It is seldom going to be a living wage anywhere but a $180 max is crazy

I would imagine many get much less. It would seem the people wouldn't bear it. Folks making 50k aren't going to even piece that together and folks making 20k sure as hell can't manage on a $100 or whatever that gets you.

[revolution breeze]

26. I was just corrected, it is $200

$180 if you have taxes taken out and claim one dependent.