Ohhhhhh the Irony! Unemployment black hole...

I hope this is the correct forum.

I recently did everything possible to convince an employee to not leave a job here. The employee was doing a good job, and about to graduate college with a Master's degree. There was a temporary internship available, and the employee wanted to quit this job and go take the non-paying internship. For almost 2 months I dissuaded the employee, but eventually I got the resignation letter and the employee was gone.

Now, 4 months later, I get a notice of unemployment compensation. Since my department is a governmental entity that does not pay into an unemployment fund, the entire amount of the unemployment comes directly out of my budget, dollar for dollar, just like the employee still worked here!!!

To aggravate the situation, I still have the open position. In other words, the employee, that left voluntarily on good terms, could come back at any time and fill the same position. The employee voluntarily, against my advice, moved to another city for the other non-paying internship, which was temporary and has now ended, but does not want to move back here.

So, this is the situation in a nutshell: I will now have to budget to pay an employee for 99 weeks so that the employee can voluntarily sit idle in another city, while a position stays open here in my department that could be filled with said employee!

And, I see posters on ATS all the time stating how extending these benefits are a good thing? I guarantee that if the unemployment was denied, then the employee would be right here working. I would have better production and a lower budget, which would save the taxpayers money and provide them more access to their government. Instead, I have a budget shortfall, and I can't fill all my positions, and the people seeking to call into my department have to sit on hold for 30 minutes, because I am short-handed.

NOW, FOR EVEN MORE IRONY!!!

Since there is a budget shortfall, I may have to lay people off.
Those people will go and apply for unemployment, which will come directly from my budget, which means if I lay them off, they will be at home, still collecting a paycheck but not doing any work, and I won't realize any real savings?

This is why people hate the government!!

thats so...wrong.
its just that when you grand good stuff to people and they get lazy and ungratefull,not carying.
i would come to work for you,but i cant even cover my plane if i pay for my intern visa.

you should find a smart way to not pay them,that would learn the ungratefull bastards

reply to post by getreadyalready


Can't you contest the eligibility of that employee to recieve unemployment? I would think that since she resigned, she would not be eligible.

How does an employer/employee not pay into unemployment but get benefits? (just a little confused on the whole public/private, who pays/who doesn't, who's eligible and why?)

reply to post by getreadyalready


Hey man, if you cant beat em join em. The government that is. Not the unemployed fool. Im sure there is some loophole to be exploited. I didnt think you could recieve unemployment if you volintarily quit a job???

Anywho..... this is just another reason why we have people like Joe Stack.

MOTF!

reply to post by Stillalive


I am fighting it, but I have fought several in the past and I have always lost.

The only way to really get denied for the unemployment compensation is to intentionally defraud your employer for the purpose of collecting the unemployment. That is basically impossible to prove, even if I suspect it. I did have one employee this summer that wanted to switch to part-time. When the unemployment extension took affect, she decided not to switch to part-time, and instead she became a demon and did everything possible to get fired. Eventually she did get fired, and we contested the unemployment, because of her obvious attitude change and desire to work part-time. We lost. She is currently taking classes and partying with her friends while we give her free money for the next 2 years!

I don't know how this latest one will turn out, but I know I haven't won an appeal yet! I'm sure the employee will be sitting on the beach somewhere collecting a paycheck for the next 99 weeks, while I struggle to get some work done with a short, under-budget staff, and I'm sure all the residents of my state will be calling in to complain about our slow service!

reply to post by getreadyalready


i'm confused here if the guy is living in another city and filed for unemployment how is it your responsibilty for pay for him? seems to me you have no responsibilty there.

that is so wrong and 99 weeks of it is bs.

government rules and regulations are the reason and man that sucks.

reply to post by indianajoe77

How does an employer/employee not pay into unemployment but get benefits? (just a little confused on the whole public/private, who pays/who doesn't, who's eligible and why?)

I was confused on that point too.....until today.

Most private employers pay into an unemployment fund like insurance. When an employee collects unemployment it comes from that fund just like a health or car insurance fund would work.

In my department for our state, we do not pay into that fund. In essence, we are self-insured. When an employee receives unemployment, we cover the full cost of it dollar for dollar! In years past this has been a cost-savings, but in the current economy it has become a horrendous draw! More people unemployed and for longer periods of time, so it has become a major budget strain!

We do contest about 99% of the filings, but we lose about 99% of those contests.

i know that in europe and america if you work for some months,then if you quit the employer has to pay you like alot of salaryes and money,and thats why employers dont like theyr workers quitting.
sadly you would love bulgaria. here we work as graphic designers for 300 euro per month.
we get payd on the second month,and we dont get any money if we leave,only the unpaid sickdays.

your problem probably is because your going legal about it,you should find some friend thats into law,and find a loophole and an illegal way.
trust me i tryed the legal way,its just humiliating.

reply to post by neo96


There is a convuluted formula for who has to pay, but it boils down to who had the majority of responsibility for that employee over the past 12-24 months.

An employee could work here for years, leave to take a job with a competitor, get fired 2 weeks later, and then draw unemployment against us!

Historically, employees that left voluntarily were not eligible for unemployment. It used to be fairly easy to contest their eligibility and win. In my private industry career we used to win about 50% of the time. However, in my current position, I haven't won one yet!

I also work a part-time job with a non-profit organization. We hire temporary summer counselors. It is a 3-month contracted position, yet I have 2 of those that are currently receiving unemployment as well?

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I didnt think you could recieve unemployment if you volintarily quit a job??? "

In PA you can quit for no reason and still collect UC.
I have these leeches to society daily at my door.
Makes me ashamed for these worthless loophole and catch22 expounders.
They know the system all too well, and it sure as **** is not going to get any better soon.
Keep paying the way for these welfare sucklings...

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by neo96

 

There is a convuluted formula for who has to pay, but it boils down to who had the majority of responsibility for that employee over the past 12-24 months.

BASE YEAR EMPLOYER is the term for whom has mostly paid their wages and is likely to have their UC rates go up due to their unemployment.
It's as if they're coached how to sick the system dry, like theres an informer at the unemployment office telling them the ins and outs and what to do when...

reply to post by paratus


Who makes the laws around here again? Someone else needs to be collecting unemployment. Id gladly help pay them for 2 years if it meant afterward i wouldnt have to even think about them again.

This system that we are having shived down our throats on a regular basis is complete rubbish IMHO and i cant wait for something better.

MOTF!

reply to post by paratus


Thank you for the terminology!

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!


The biggest issue for me is that we are paying them, so why can't we get work out of them? My department is short-handed. We just hired 20 people, we still have 6 more openings. We fired 2 this week. We answer about 25% of the calls we receive. We have lost several positions due to budget cuts, but those people that are getting laid off are still on our payroll via unemployment? How does that make any sense?

The "Help-wanted" pages are full of ads. Some people are "unemployable" due to criminal records and such, but we supposedly have 10 to 17% unemployment rate in the state, and I can't fill my empty chairs? Why? I know why, it is because they can take a 2 year vacation and still get paid.

reply to post by getreadyalready


That is horrible. The extent that people are willing to go to just to suckle the governments teet is quite astonishing. What ever happened to honesty and hard work? We still got a little of that around here in Louisiana. Your more than welcome to join!?

MOTF!

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!


Thanks for offer! My wife refuses to leave this city she grew up in. If I had my say, we would be back in the midwest and we would only come to Florida for the beaches once in awhile. I grew up in a small town in Missouri, and we had some lazy freeloaders, but they stayed away from the good folks. The vast majority of people were good, hard-working people. If someone was down on their luck, then their friends and neighbors helped out. I don't know how many times my Dad put people to work whether he had a position or not. And, it always worked out for the best!

Maybe I'm just getting old. I find myself often missing the "better" times, but I hear that is just a generational thing. I guess I have transitioned to that generation.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Good will and helping those in need are still around buddy. Your lust looking in the wrong places.

On a side note, a kind of personal motto of mine....."I will never help someone who is not willing to help themselves"..... Those 12 words have never let me down. They have opened my eyes on many occasions also.
Hope everything goes well with your slack jawed looser of a former employee. i.e. i hope she dosent get crap and has to work at mcdonalds for a while. \

MOTF!

reply to post by getreadyalready


It has nothing to do with generations, it's ethics plain and simple. I'm still in my 20's. Barely holding on to it, but I'm still there for another few months. I can't stand the way things are going.

If you are a NPO, are your more service based than product based as a company? If it's more service based, maybe consider closing the doors then your wife open up "her" business with the same people? Might be cheaper than paying for 99 weeks of one or two ex employees. I know it sounds silly, but I've seen people get away with that before.

Generation Slacker

No care for others, themselves or the future...
My children with their knowledge will rule this earth and there will be a new class of scum unlike anything we've ever seen.
Makes me cringe to see what they're growing up in the midst of, scoundrels and misfits with no coherent thought and parents of the same mindset.
States rights needs to be put into full effect so that there will be GOOD and BAD states if you will to live in.

Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Can't you contest the eligibility of that employee to recieve unemployment? I would think that since she resigned, she would not be eligible

I tend to agree. We discussed this with my wife a while ago, and that's what she stated as well -- if someone resigns, the employer is not liable.

reply to post by buddhasystem


That is the way it has always been, if they leave voluntarily they are not eligible, and we always contest on the first pass, but if the employee chooses to appeal and it goes to a hearing officer, then all bets are off.

I had a girl quit voluntarily last summer, because she was dating a Jacksonville Jaguars player and modeling. Of course the modeling didn't pay consistently and the boyfriend got tired of her when she quit working and bugged him fulltime, so she filed for unemployment. We contested, she appealed, and at the hearing the officer told me that my only grounds were fraud. Did I believe she took her actions with the intent to not work and fraudulently collect unemployment. Since I did not believe that was the case, then she got her unemployment. This summer I had the case I mentioned earlier where I was certain that was the case, but then it became a matter of proof. How do you "prove" intentions? So, she got her unemployment as well.

Let me also add that I have had the assistance of counsel at all these hearings. It isn't a case of my negligence at the hearing, it is a case of the law being so dam lenient that pretty much everyone qualifies!

This most recent case goes to the hearing very soon, so I will post the results in this thread. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I have a lot of documentation supporting my side of this one.