Ohhhhhh the Irony! Unemployment black hole...

reply to post by getreadyalready


I have an additional question. Was the hearing officer the same in both instances when you appealed? Also, can you appeal higher, like to your state's secretary of labor?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Having been thru this a number of times I can tell you that if an employee quits a job the unemployment office will not pay benefits. Contact your nearest unemployment office and they will be happy to guide you thru how to deny coverage. My worst case was I had a guy just up and quit for no good reason. I got the notice in the mail notifying my that this guy applied for benefits. I denied the claim and it went to arbitration. A few weeks later I was on a conference call with that employee and a judge of some sort. Once I was able to get this guy to admit that he quit that was it case closed without him getting his benefit. Be aggressive and persistent. If you are patient the system will work for you. Good luck I know these type of things are frustrating.

Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I have an additional question. Was the hearing officer the same in both instances when you appealed? Also, can you appeal higher, like to your state's secretary of labor?

Good questions, and I don't know the answer. I don't think the hearing officer was the same. These are "telephonic hearings" so I didn't get to see them, and I didn't recognize the voice.

As far as I know there is no higher appeal, but I will check into that! It is a great question!

reply to post by scotticus prime


Thank you for the reply, but as I stated, I am already assisted by our Human Resource department, and our General Counsel. It isn't a matter of knowing the ropes, it is just the current state of affairs. I am a supervisor in a large state agency. I only represent my small portion of the agency, but I am supported by Adminstration all the way up to the Governor's office, and we still lose! There has been an attorney present, and a high ranking human resource representative at every hearing.

I also happen to have a friend that is an attorney known for suing the state very successfully. He informed me that 70% of lawsuits against the state government are successful! As an attorney, that is a very lucrative business! I asked someone in our general counsel and he agreed that the number sounded right!

So, even if we were to win the unemployment issue, a savvy person with a decent attorney would sue and win almost 3 out of 4 times!!

The problem, in this case, is the employee is now out of state. He was let go of a company in another state. I'm sure the employee filed for unemployment with that state office, which he is supposed to do. When applying for unemployment, the employee has to list most current employer and the previous employers over the past 24 months.

The UEI office will determine the employees UEI entitlement based on last year's first quarter wages (or,similar formula). Whomever the employee worked for, during that quarter, is responsible for his/her unemployment benefits.

Reason for unemployment is based on most recent job, not necessarily the job that pays the benefits. Confusing, I know. But, this is how I understand it - from when I had my own business and fought this every chance I could.

So, just because the employee may have voluntarily left the OPs company, his company is still most likely liable for benefits.

Now, since the employee lives out of state, this is another thorn for the employer. Even though the employer may still have the job available, and the employee may be re-employable, the distance is taken into account (as in not in the fault of the employee) and judgment will side with employee.

Now, the way I understand it, if the employee was still local and you still had the job available - and the employee was 'eligible for rehire' - and was offered the job back; then, the employee would no longer be eligible for the benefits.

reply to post by SourGrapes

Reason for unemployment is based on most recent job, not necessarily the job that pays the benefits. Confusing, I know. But, this is how I understand it - from when I had my own business and fought this every chance I could.

I think that is the biggest hurdle on this particular case. They left my employment voluntarily, but the subsequent employer was an involuntary one.

It seems entirely unfair, but I think the hearing officer will find that we are liable for paying the person, even though someone else is liable for making them unemployed. I highly doubt the hearing officer is going to tell them they need to move back and take back their old job. I am hoping that the hearing officer will see that the person went into this temporary job knowing that it had a specific end date, and therefore see it as a voluntary termination. Who knows?!?! I will certainly let you guys know the results before the end of the week.

reply to post by getreadyalready


All I see is you crying about having to spend money on an employee that you could not control. I hate to say this but, build a bridge and get over it.

That employee was free to choose their own destination. This is why we live in America. The pursuit of happiness knows no borders.

reply to post by The Sword


It isn't about control, it is about my budget. Yes, I am whining, because I would love to employ someone that actually works here, instead of spending my budget on people living it up in some other city? It also isn't just about this employee, it is about the entire system.

I'm not mad because she left, I'm mad because at the conclusion of the highly foreseeable consequence, now she expects someone else to pay for her bad decision.

I despise the 99 week extension!

My own mother took advantage of the extension, even though she had no intention of going back to work?!?!? She voluntarily left a job, got her benefits, and then got 2 more extensions? She worked for about 5 months, but she got unemployment for almost 2 years? How is that even remotely possible? I love her, but it is people like her that are taking advantage and ruining the system for people that actually need a "temporary" hand.

reply to post by getreadyalready


You are around these boards enough to realize what type of person The Sword is... I would not even bother replying as you are probably arguing against their bread and butter right now.

reply to post by getreadyalready


well unless there something you arent telling us..... then their claim will be denied.

There is no way somone can give you a letter of resignation sayin that the ONLY REASON to leave this job is to go to another state for a job..... then lose that job and get benifits from you.

your either a fear monger or a liar.

reply to post by Wertdagf


"Fear Monger?" That makes no sense?

I assure you that I am neither, and I also assure you that it has already happened twice.

I don't know the results of this particular case yet. I will post the results as soon as I get them, and I agree that there should be no way she gets the benefits. I do have a letter of resignation, and plenty of other documentation supporting my case that the position here was available and a number of concessions and flexibilities could be made to accomodate her.

So, if you have already prematurely cast me as either a fear-monger or a liar, when I post the results of the hearing in a couple of days, what will you be? Quite possibly we will win the hearing, but if we don't win it, and my frustrations and fears are correct, then what name will you call yourself?

reply to post by getreadyalready


if you win then it means you where an alarmist fear monger..

if you lose then it means her letter of resignation was not given PURELY based upon her ONLY desire to move across state for another job. That would make you a liar. Or atleast somone willing to omit every detail necessary to garner the support of the ignorant.

reply to post by Wertdagf


Ok, if she wins, and I post her letter of resignation (minus identifying information) then what?

I assure you, I do not post threads for the stars and flags, it is for the theraputic value alone! Also, I like to discuss these things with other intelligent individuals. Everything I have posted is fact, and there is no additional information at this time.

You might be right on one count. If I win, then I was an alarmist, and I was reacting to something that hadn't even happened yet.

Don't know where you are doing business, but here in WI, if an employee voluntarily leaves a position, or is fired for an action for which he was previously warned, he gets no benefits.

Perhaps you're not fighting (or documenting) correctly?

Situations like this piss me off. I hate to see people scaming the system. It makes it nigh on impossible for the people that honestly need help to be taken serious.

The company I worked for closed. I couldn't qualify for unemployement because I was technically an independent contractor. Never mind that I literally moved in on the premises and only left for 48 hours each week. I could not qualify. I started looking for work, but it was the height of the ecnonomic melt down. So, no dice. I've been looking for two years and even with a college degree I can not get a job.

At first they blamed it on the economy. Then when I decided to try Radio Shack they hired a guy with a master's degree in electrical engineering. I went to fast food places. They told me that my degree meant that I was too smart. So, I decided to try starting my own business. I ran it with mixed results. Eventually it ran dry.

Now they tell me I'm not qualified for a job because I don't have a job. Get that, they tell me that because I was self employed for two years, I am not qualified to work for a company. I have heard everything from, "it will take you too long to get up to speed," to people that have been unemployed for long periods of time are more prone to violence and substance abuse.

Nobody seems to understand that I was not unemployed. I was running my own business. They say self employeed is code for unemployed and that there is no difference.

So, yeah some people are screwing the system, but some people are being screwed by the system.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
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!!!

...................................


This is why people hate the government!!

This is the irony I see. Large government writes your check, and yet you hate large government. If you have such morals and want to take a stand, quit. Time to put up or shut up, eh?

reply to post by aching_knuckles


I don't see the irony? How would quitting solve anything? There are a lot of problems in government, especially BIG government. Florida happens to be the "leanest" government per capita in the country, so I wouldn't call us a big government. There are plenty of state workers here that are typical, lazy, and unproductive. I am not one of those, and nobody working on my team is one of those. Therefore, if we quit, we actually make the problem worse. Better that we stay and fight the good fight! The frustration comes when dealing with other governmental entities, or other governmental workers that have that typical lazy mindset.

And, I didn't say that I hated the government, I said this case is the reason people hate the government in general. I hate certain laws, and I hate certain people and processes within the government, but I am thankful to have a job, and I am more than willing to keep getting my hands dirty and my back worked to try and improve the system.

reply to post by Wertdagf


So.....we got the results, and it turns out I am an alarmist!

We won this one!! She did not get unemployment, because this hearing officer stuck to the letter of the law. The law reads that she must be unemployed as a result of the employer's actions. They go on to describe several scenarios where an employee could voluntarily leave a job, but still receive benefits because it was somehow the fault of the employer, but the hearing officer found this case to not meet any of those exceptions, and therefore upheld the denial of benefits.

I think the kicker was that she still listed an active address in this town, and we still had openings that she was qualified to work. There was no reason she could not return to work here, other than her own wants and desires. In other words, I think we barely won, but at least we won!!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On another note. Our new governor-elect, Rick Scott, is already calling for budgetary reports, and he has vowed to cut 10% of our state government. Florida already has the leanest government per capita in the nation, and now we are about to get 10% leaner! Wish me luck!

Well im rarely wrong you know.

Im glad to see that the law is atleast protecting SOME people properly. Cheers mate!

reply to post by getreadyalready


Isnt an employer only obligated to pay toward the first 6 months of an employees unemployment? Anything thereafter is a federal extension which removes you as the employer from obligation, correct? Do employers have to pay beyond 6 months on ex-employees?