Denied for unemployment

[Old Scatterbrain]

So I finally swallowed my pride and filed for unemployment last week. Today I receive an e-mail denying my claim, because I have been unemployed TOO LONG. If I hadn't been unemployed so long I wouldn't need to apply in the first place. XXX.

The claimant did not have at least twenty qualifying weeks of employment that was subject to an unemployment compensation law or did not earn

an average weekly wage of at least $215 before taxes during the base period 10/01/2010 to 09/30/2011

I called and tried to get some more information, but all the mindless drone on the other end could say was "You don't meet the requirements. You don't meet the requirements. You don't meet..."

 

EDIT in a way I'm actually relieved, because it never has made sense to me, to pay people NOT to work. Sure would be nice to pay some bills or buy some gas, though.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

So I finally swallowed my pride and filed for unemployment last week. Today I receive an e-mail denying my claim, because I have been unemployed TOO LONG. If I hadn't been unemployed so long I wouldn't need to apply in the first place. XXX.

 

I called and tried to get some more information, but all the mindless drone on the other end could say was "You don't meet the requirements. You don't meet the requirements. You don't meet..."

 

EDIT in a way I'm actually relieved, because it never has made sense to me, to pay people NOT to work. Sure would be nice to pay some bills or buy some gas, though.

 

I had to use unemployment for 6 months before I was hired. We pay into it, so it's good that there is some insurance if the time comes when we need it. I filed immediately when I was let go.....Sorry it didn't work out for ya...

 

GG ~

[Blackwater 53393]

Like Gunner said, we pay a premium to insure that we have income in a case where we are not employed. It is an insurance policy. This is not a handout and whether it is clericaly deducted from your earnings or a premium your employer is required to pay, (as is the case in the state where I live) it is money that you are due, provided you meet the requirements set out by law.

 

Years ago I was denied benefiets due to a technicality and my former employer appealed on my behalf. When he was told by the appeals tribunal that I was NOT entitled to the payments he responded that if he hadn't been forced to pay into the fund, he would have given that money to his employees and that he would never again pay into the fund. To my knowledge, until the day he died he never did pay the premiums and I know for a fact that he did indeed pay that money directly to his employees.

 

Sadly, it would seem your window of opportunity to apply for compensation has passed. That first episode taught me that you have to mind your Ps and Qs when navigating any government controlled benefiet maze. I know that this is of little help or solace to you, but I would still say that you should explore the appeals process.

 

Also, unemployment benefiets are not a case of the government paying someone not to work, just like Social Security is not an entitlement when properly administered. We pay into these insurance systems, (either directly or by employer support) and are due the promised benefiets.

[Grizzly Dave]

I've been on it several times when laid off from jobs. Last time I took a job that payed LESS than what I was getting from unemployment just to go back to work.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

I got this from wiki.answers.com. The "insurance" is never paid by the employees.

 

 

Each state pays its unemployed workers from the pool of unemployment taxes it collected from employers, based on their number of employees and their turnover history. The formulae is different for each state. According to the Related Links below the state collects payroll taxes from employers, based on their turnover rate. This became a law under the Federal Social Security Act and is administered by the individual states. The only time employers pay employees directly is when the employer has an agreement to do so by the state that collects the taxes from them, in order to opt out of paying the tax. The employer does not receive a bill for payments made, but the state does adjust his tax rate based on his turn over experience. The taxes collected pays for both operational costs as well as benefit payments.

 

Texas is a little different but it's still the employer that pays.

 

Read more: http://wiki.answers....s#ixzz1hNAKtlkK

[Old Scatterbrain]

Also, unemployment benefits are not a case of the government paying someone not to work, just like Social Security is not an entitlement when properly administered. We pay into these insurance systems, (either directly or by employer support) and are due the promised benefiets.

Therein lies the problem. I know several people who somehow have managed to draw unemployment for well over a year, without the slightest effort or even intention of finding a job. I know many others who, for years, have worked just long enough to qualify, somehow manage to lose their jobs, draw unemployment until it runs out and start the process all over. How they do this I don't know, but they brag openly about it. It is, effectively, a form of welfare. Apparently I have demonstrated myself not to be sufficiently dependent on Big Brother, so they have declined to help me at all.

 

I've been on it several times when laid off from jobs. Last time I took a job that payed LESS than what I was getting from unemployment just to go back to work.

I would happily take such a job, but unfortunately I live in an area with few jobs even when the economy is good. Of course it doesn't help that I am qualified to do virtually nothing. I'll be back out Monday looking.

 

I applied once before, back in 2001 shortly after leaving the navy, and was denied then too. Ohio had to send a form letter to the Bureau of Naval Personnel requesting my employment information, because they allegedly did not accept DD-214's as proof of service. They denied my claim because, supposedly, the navy reported "no record of naval service".

[Blackwater 53393]

And as I said, if that money wasn't paid into the system, It could go directly to the employee, as my former employer asserted in his confrontation with the system.

 

My most recent employer handed out an annual statement of benefiets to employees. In that statement they list unemployment insurance payments as part of their "benefiets package".

 

Maybe those who see this as another "entitlement" should have the choice of paying into the system themselves or not, and forgoing the "being payed not to work" stigma.

 

In many states the employer is subject to protest if they do not pay the premiums, (taxes) but there is no penalty if they don't, and the applicant has no recourse. I know those who received reduced benefiets or no benefiets because an unscrupulous employer failed or refused to pony up. In the case of my late former employer, he did in fact pay the moneys otherwise bound for the system to the employees with their complete knowledge and agreement. He also paid for their insurance and for full uniform service.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Yup on Blackwater Desperado...

 

GG

[Utah Bob #35998]

You just became a statistic for the administration to prove unemployment is getting better.

[Old Scatterbrain]

And as I said, if that money wasn't paid into the system, It could go directly to the employee, as my former employer asserted in his confrontation with the system.

 

My most recent employer handed out an annual statement of benefiets to employees. In that statement they list unemployment insurance payments as part of their "benefiets package".

 

Maybe those who see this as another "entitlement" should have the choice of paying into the system themselves or not, and forgoing the "being payed not to work" stigma.

 

In many states the employer is subject to protest if they do not pay the premiums, (taxes) but there is no penalty if they don't, and the applicant has no recourse. I know those who received reduced benefiets or no benefiets because an unscrupulous employer failed or refused to pony up. In the case of my late former employer, he did in fact pay the moneys otherwise bound for the system to the employees with their complete knowledge and agreement. He also paid for their insurance and for full uniform service.

I guess I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I already know how unemployment is funded, and I don't see how that is relevant to my situation.

 

Maybe those who see this as another "entitlement" should have the choice of paying into the system themselves or not, and forgoing the "being payed not to work" stigma.

If you are suggesting I should have prepared for the possibility of being without income, I did. I have been living on savings, off and on, for nearly ten years. That money is gone.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

I got this from wiki.answers.com. The "insurance" is never paid by the employees.

 

 

Each state pays its unemployed workers from the pool of unemployment taxes it collected from employers, based on their number of employees and their turnover history. The formulae is different for each state. According to the Related Links below the state collects payroll taxes from employers, based on their turnover rate. This became a law under the Federal Social Security Act and is administered by the individual states. The only time employers pay employees directly is when the employer has an agreement to do so by the state that collects the taxes from them, in order to opt out of paying the tax. The employer does not receive a bill for payments made, but the state does adjust his tax rate based on his turn over experience. The taxes collected pays for both operational costs as well as benefit payments.

 

Texas is a little different but it's still the employer that pays.

 

Read more: http://wiki.answers....s#ixzz1hNAKtlkK

Marshal Mo is correct.

 

And as I said, if that money wasn't paid into the system, It could go directly to the employee, as my former employer asserted in his confrontation with the system.

 

My most recent employer handed out an annual statement of benefiets to employees. In that statement they list unemployment insurance payments as part of their "benefiets package".

What a bunch of crap. They are forced to make those payments. I would think a benefit is something they offer voluntarily.

 

Maybe those who see this as another "entitlement" should have the choice of paying into the system themselves or not, and forgoing the "being payed not to work" stigma.

 

In many states the employer is subject to protest if they do not pay the premiums, (taxes) but there is no penalty if they don't,

This is not correct, they are charged a penalty and interest on the outstanding amount unpaid from the date it was first due.

and the applicant has no recourse. Again, incorrect.I know those who received reduced benefiets or no benefiets because an unscrupulous employer failed or refused to pony up. A fraud referral would be in order. The "department" would make an estimated assessment against the employer including penalties and interest. The employee could file a claim using their check stubs as proof of employment.In the case of my late former employer, he did in fact pay the moneys otherwise bound for the system to the employees with their complete knowledge and agreement. He also paid for their insurance and for full uniform service.

Then, he did so illegally unless he was a government or nonprofit employer who signed up for Reimbursable UI, where he paid the UI Fund dollar-for-dollar for any UI benefits paid. If he did not do this, all it would take is one irate employee to blow the whistle.

 

Do not take the employer's words as gospel on this. Call your local UI department and get the facts. Be persistent and, if you are denied something, ask for a copy of the UI Code to substantiate their decision. If they cannot substantiate their decision, file an appeal. Go online and research!

 

Old Scatterbrain, military income is considered income for UI purposes. Look here. I have no idea what happened to you. I think you got a bum deal! Unfortunately, you are past the statute of limitations for filing an appeal.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

PS I am retired from the CA State Employment Development Department (I worked in Tax Accounting and System Testing.)

[Blackwater 53393]

Allie, as to the former employer who refused to participate, he changed his business model to make "employees" private sub-contractors, with their approval I might add. I know for a fact that he did include a larger pay portion to each one because my brother continued to work for him until his passing. He was a good man, and true to his word.

 

As to the protest in the other case, that employer failed, or rather refused to pay the "taxes" levied and the state was unable to give proper benefiets to several employees because of it,(it's based on quarterly "contributions"). As with many statutes reguarding payroll and employment regulations, suitable penalties and such are not specified in the statute, and without major litigation, which most unemployed people can't afford and usually can't wait for as well, the violator is able to skate on his obligations. The state won't sue itself, and the potential litigants don't have the wherewithall to do so. If one did sucessfully sue and win, the violator could then appeal endlessly up through the system and if incorporated, could hide behind a corporate shield indefinitely. CATCH 22?

 

The unemployment regulations vary from state to state as do labor and workmans compensation reg.s and payment scales, and predatory employers find ways of circumventing the regulations. For the same pay rate I worked at in my home state, unemployed workers in other states get twice and more benefiets money-wise as I do. I should note that these are my personal observations and experiences over a forty-five year history of employment.

 

It's not the best run program in many instances, and given the most recent congressional shenannigans, less than a sure thing at best.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Allie, as to the former employer who refused to participate, he changed his business model to make "employees" private sub-contractors, with their approval I might add. I know for a fact that he did include a larger pay portion to each one because my brother continued to work for him until his passing. He was a good man, and true to his word.

 

As to the protest in the other case, that employer failed, or rather refused to pay the "taxes" levied and the state was unable to give proper benefiets to several employees because of it,(it's based on quarterly "contributions"). UI Benefits are based on the employee's salary not the employer's contribution. The Er's UI Rate goes up when sh/she has more claims. As with many statutes reguarding payroll and employment regulations, suitable penalties and such are not specified in the statute, UI Code specifies penalties. and without major litigation, which most unemployed people can't afford and usually can't wait for as well, the violator is able to skate on his obligations. The state won't sue itself, and the potential litigants don't have the wherewithall to do so. If one did sucessfully sue and win, the violator could then appeal endlessly up through the system and if incorporated, could hide behind a corporate shield indefinitely. CATCH 22?

UI is Federally Funded. State suing itself is usually not a factor.

 

The unemployment regulations vary from state As a Federally Funded program, there is little variation in eligibility requirements for UI insurance.to state as do labor and workmans compensation reg.s and payment scales, and predatory employers find ways of circumventing the regulations. Not when Fraud is made known to the "department's Audit Section. For the same pay rate I worked at in my home state, unemployed workers in other states get twice and more benefiets money-wise as I do. I don't know details; however, you are correct that benefits vary. I should note that these are my personal observations and experiences over a forty-five year history of employment. Observations and experience is not reliable. Bad, uneducated, sloppy decisions have been made. I think that kind of thing is rampant in today's society. Again, research the specifics in the UI Code on line and file appeals.

 

It's not the best run program in many instances, and given the most recent congressional shenannigans, less than a sure thing at best. Agreed. Incompetence is rampant and results in bad decisions. Know your rights, research, and file appeals. At that time, usually, a more knowledgable agent will be reviewing your case.

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

PS subcontractors were a frequent audit issue. Again, all it took was one disgrungled employee to get the employer investigated. Until that time, he/she could operate under the radar.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

That's right - KNOW YOUR RIGHTS - they do vary, even slightly, from state to state regarding UI benefits....

 

 

G (been unemplyoyed in Cali and MI - whoopie ...)G ~

[el Gato Gordo - SASS #15162]

I got this from wiki.answers.com. The "insurance" is never paid by the employees.

 

 

Each state pays its unemployed workers from the pool of unemployment taxes it collected from employers, based on their number of employees and their turnover history. The formulae is different for each state. According to the Related Links below the state collects payroll taxes from employers, based on their turnover rate. This became a law under the Federal Social Security Act and is administered by the individual states. The only time employers pay employees directly is when the employer has an agreement to do so by the state that collects the taxes from them, in order to opt out of paying the tax. The employer does not receive a bill for payments made, but the state does adjust his tax rate based on his turn over experience. The taxes collected pays for both operational costs as well as benefit payments.

 

Texas is a little different but it's still the employer that pays.

Read more: http://wiki.answers....s#ixzz1hNAKtlkK

 

 

The employer may write the check, but it is still money that the EMPLOYEE EARNED. If he or she had not brought in enough income to cover wages, benefits, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance, the employer would go belly up. It is all part of the EMPLOYEE package.

 

You earn it by working. If you haven't worked, you can't get it. That was my situation when I came back from taking a year off sailing; had to find a job somewhere in this nation and ended up here in Colorado. Just lucky, I guess!

 

Buena suerte, amigos, y Feliz Navidad (and a Warm Winter Solstice around the fire),

eGG

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

The employer may write the check, but it is still money that the EMPLOYEE EARNED. If he or she had not brought in enough income to cover wages, benefits, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance, the employer would go belly up. It is all part of the EMPLOYEE package.

 

You earn it by working. If you haven't worked, you can't get it. That was my situation when I came back from taking a year off sailing; had to find a job somewhere in this nation and ended up here in Colorado. Just lucky, I guess!

 

Buena suerte, amigos, y Feliz Navidad (and a Warm Winter Solstice around the fire),

eGG

 

I suppose you can say that, but my official benefits package includes health insurance, life insurance, dental insurance, long term disability insurance, eyeglasses, accidental death and disability, 401K matching and a few other goodies and all show up in my W2. Unemployment Insurance is an unspecified, unquantified, unstated benefit.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

I suppose you can say that, but my official benefits package includes health insurance, life insurance, dental insurance, long term disability insurance, eyeglasses, accidental death and disability, 401K matching and a few other goodies and all show up in my W2. Unemployment Insurance is an unspecified, unquantified, unstated benefit.

 

Good package....

 

GG ~

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

I'd have to lay MYSELF off first.

Yeah. Hmmm. Good luck filing unemployment if your self employed.

Instead we just sell off our assets.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

Well if is my money why does my former employer keep trying to stop my benefits? They tried once unsuccessfully now I have to go to second hearing because they appeal it.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

I'd have to lay MYSELF off first.

Yeah. Hmmm. Good luck filing unemployment if your self employed.

Instead we just sell off our assets.

Hello Dan,

 

In some states you can elect to be covered. Of course, you will have to pay in. Check in your state for details.

 

Also, if there is a declared disaster in your area, self-employed individuals may be eligible for Disaster Unemployment Insurance. It has different rules and eligibility requirements than regular UI.

 

Well if is my money why does my former employer keep trying to stop my benefits? They tried once unsuccessfully now I have to go to second hearing because they appeal it.

Hello Seldom,

 

I did not work in that area of our department. So, I don't know many details. Don't give up. Just because they appealed does not mean they will win, just that they are persistent. Maybe, a Website for your state will help you know how to better deal with this. This is one of the CA links. As the Code, Precidents, and Guides are on line (at least in CA), you can easily search for your situation. Again, check your state, look here for some links.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo