Steve Mnuchin: Employees Who Reject Offer To Resume Work Ineligible For Unemployment

With more reports surfacing of employees refusing to return to work due to the benefits of unemployment, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said on Tuesday that people who persist in staying home despite an offer to work will not be eligible for federal unemployment benefits.

Employers getting benefits from the Payroll Protection Program will be required to report it to the unemployment offices when an employee refuses to return to work. It seems a whole lot of people are making more on unemployment (with the $600 per week extra from the federal govt) than they make on their actual paychecks and are trying to milk it for what it is worth.

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that about half of U.S. workers can earn more with these jobless benefits than they did while working — a factor that could hurt efforts by some businesses to reopen.

Even if fear of the virus may give them some kind of legal standing in court most don't have the financial means, resources or time to challenge it. And who really can afford to take a chance on losing their job permanently when the job market is this bad? Lots of companies are downsizing and eliminating positions while others are closing up shop completely. If their unemployment benefits are cut off can they really afford to wing it until the economy recovers?

Full Article

So now the government has realized that fear mongering can not be undone?

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

so when big companies milk the system its all good, no punishment.

when the poor do it, its the bane of society.

$15 per hour is $600 a week. no wonder they are trying to milk the system is they make so little to begin with.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
So now the government has realized that fear mongering can not be undone?

Sounds like they are going to try to undo it by force. Sitting at home is fine so long as the money keeps rolling in but cut that money off and people's fear of the virus takes a back seat to fear of homelessness and starvation.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
So now the government has realized that fear mongering can not be undone?

No. They just did a small scale test to see much control they have built.

For example:

Heaven's Gate Cult: If you commit suicide as the comet approaches, you will hitch a ride to heaven.

Members: OK.

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

so when big companies milk the system its all good, no punishment.

when the poor do it, its the bane of society.

$15 per hour is $600 a week. no wonder they are trying to milk the system is they make so little to begin with.

Maybe so but the reality is that thinking it would go on forever was a fantasy.

The President should replace Mnuchin, with Red Foreman.

The Red Foreman plan:

Give them a foot up the a$$.

Go back to work, hippies.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Employers getting benefits from the Payroll Protection Program will be required to report it to the unemployment offices when an employee refuses to return to work.

What requirements are Steve Mnuchin requiring those employers to have in place before requiring scared workers to return? Isn't Mitch McConnell still pushing a liability protection law for employers so they don't get sued for forcing workers back to work and then get they get sick?

"how many American lives are worth .5% of GDP?"

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Because our (IL) governor has us under a stay-at-home order, a ton of workers are receiving unemployment from both the State and the Federal Govt. At my favorite gas station, 7 of the 12 employees are heeding the governor's order. They got a doctor's note saying they should not work because Illinois is under a "state of Emergency", and drawing $900 to $1100 a week without working. The station cannot fire them either.

Also, the program setup to keep Employers afloat and paying their employees is being ripped off by several entities. The latest big one reported today is Planned Parenthood. They got $80 million dollars from the "Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP), even though the baby-murderer is not eligible for PPP funds. (They have to pay it back ASAP)

Mitch McConnell said this evening that Nancy Pelosi's $3 Trillion plan will not even be considered for a couple of months. As the country re-opens, people need to not be paid $24.00 @ hour to stay home, like they're getting now in most states.

Governors of (mostly) Democrat-run states who were already almost broke before Covid-19 (including Illinois), are angry as hell at Mitch McConnell tonight. $1 Trillion of the $3 Trillion was earmarked for them.

originally posted by: madmac5150
The President should replace Mnuchin, with Red Foreman.

The Red Foreman plan:

Give them a foot up the a$$.

Go back to work, hippies.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Employers getting benefits from the Payroll Protection Program will be required to report it to the unemployment offices when an employee refuses to return to work.

What requirements are Steve Mnuchin requiring those employers to have in place before requiring scared workers to return? Isn't Mitch McConnell still pushing a liability protection law for employers so they don't get sued for forcing workers back to work and then get they get sick?

"how many American lives are worth .5% of GDP?"

Not my circus, not my monkeys.
I know a lot of people were hoping this all dragged out until it became a Universal Basic Income. That was a fantasy. This was never intended to last indefinitely. It all comes down to which you fear more- a virus with an extremely low mortality rate or being homeless and starving.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Employers getting benefits from the Payroll Protection Program will be required to report it to the unemployment offices when an employee refuses to return to work.

That has always been the case. PPP or not.

"Did the employee accept ALL work offered?"
Been there as long as I've been in the business.

The UI office doesn't know if an employer has a PPP loan.

I mentioned this when the info came out about the unemployment 600 buck bonus came out and most of the people I know here said I was wrong, if they did not feel like going back to work because they felt it was not safe, they could keep on unemployment. I read the employer part of the information, I always look at the employer requirements. They are required to notify the unemployment office within a couple of days if the employee does not show up for work when called back.

The employees think that employers cannot fire them if they do not come back....the employers are not breaking the law if they don't show up, the employee is actually quitting. There are going to be a lot of lawsuits creating tension between workers and ex-employees. How can an employer work if his employees do not come back, they have to hire new employees to do the jobs or their business can't open. An employer has the right to hire a new person if the employee does not show up for work for ANY reason. How is an employer supposed to pay his workers if he makes no money to pay them?

Employers have rights too, the right to choose the employees they hire. Now the employer does not have to hire back employees he does not want to hire back either, it is a way to cleanse undesireable employees off of the payroll. Expect some of that. I did not hire employees back after a layoff if they disrupted the crew or were not pulling their own weight on the job, if they made it harder on the other employees who had to work harder because they were lazy, I would not hire them back. I asked my other employees what they thought, and they did not want to be carrying dead weight and working harder either. I never had a problem getting employees, most of them were pretty decent, but a few were more work than they were worth.

a reply to: carewemust

I'm sure our governor is pissed as well. Can't bail out those pension plans that were in the dumpster before the WuFlu was a twinkle in a scientists eye without those federal Covid-19 assistance dollars!

a reply to: rickymouse

And unfortunately, there will soon be lots of potential employees because there are plenty of people out of work through no fault of their own right now.

If you had a job and you think you can milk it for pay while staying at home, then I foresee you will soon be traded in for a newer and more willing worker.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Employers getting benefits from the Payroll Protection Program will be required to report it to the unemployment offices when an employee refuses to return to work.

That has always been the case. PPP or not.

At the beginning of all the lock downs they were making allowances for those who refused work out of fear of catching Covid-19 and granting them benefits anyway. That is about to come to a halt.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

It was a strange situation. Some employers genuinely felt bad in some cases because their employees were actually prevented from working. So I know some employers have done what they can to keep all of theirs afloat as best they can. But now that the tables are turning, I hate the idea that some of those employees may be returning the favor by being turd buckets in return.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

At the beginning of all the lock downs they were making allowances for those who refused work out of fear of catching Covid-19 and granting them benefits anyway.

Are you sure about that?
In any case, like I said, the question is nothing new. Nor is the idea of funemployment payments.

There is not much incentive for employers to allow employees to slack for UI. The premiums you pay are increased by the payments made. Unemployment premiums are not cheap.

a reply to: rickymouse

When this all started the hubs was offered the option of taking a furlough. We discussed it and he decided not to in the end. Those who stayed working are still working, those who chose to stay home may not have a job to go back to because there isn't as much work as there was previously due to the current state of the economy- which may take quite a while to bounce back, and it may take years to get back to a pre-Covid economy.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

At the beginning of all the lock downs they were making allowances for those who refused work out of fear of catching Covid-19 and granting them benefits anyway.

Are you sure about that?
In any case, like I said, the question is nothing new. Nor is the idea of funemployment payments.

I don't know for certain about ALL states, but in most not only did they approve unemployment benefits for those who refused work due to feeling "unsafe" because of the virus but also suspended the requirement to seek any other work.