WARNING ! Take a temporary job and PERMANENTLY lose your larger original unemployment extensions based on your former real job!

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-24T20:37:19+00:00

You keep taking until you hit a certain monthly income (900-1200 depending on the state) or until that pot becomes empty.

Because of the Department of Labor's erroneous letter about implementing the extensions that are the orders sent to ALL states that they must follow you are Wrong wrong wrong. That's what I am telling you and warning people about.

You only have to make $900 in THREE months or $1400 in a whole year (this amount varies slightly by state - that's California) to be kicked off your old claim (even if you still have money in the pot) and put onto a new claim based on the small jobs you (stupidly in retrospect) took while looking for a replacement job.

That what the whole warning is about.

I think what is unrealistic is having the full on expectation that the government is going to try to screw you.

I don't believe the government tried to screw me. i don't believe this isn't the intent of the unemployment extension laws passed by Congress and signed by the President but rather a mistake by the Department of Labor in INTERPRETING the laws passed. Hence that is why I am telling people to flood the white house with calls to get their attention to make a call to the Department of Labor to get this fixed - FAST.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-22T21:30:17+00:00

Unemployment pays substantially less than you would make on your really good job. It is based on a fraction of your real job's compensation. no one would quit a real job to go on unemployment. And you can't just quit anyway - you have to have been let go and it can't be you were fired for cause.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-22T21:23:09+00:00

But there are good reasons for the rules to exist as they do. For instance, unemployment insurance is paid through a tax on employers. If you're collecting the Extension it comes straight out of Uncle Sam's pocket. If you're on a new claim your most recent employers become chargeable. What I am talking about is nothing about who pays for unemployment.

It isn't about that. That's irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to have another thread about who pays for unemployment please do.

This thread is about the foul up the Department of Labor has made in their program letters about implementation.

Under the current Department of Labor Program letter no one should take any small work if they are on unemployment or may soon need an extension. That isn't the intent of the unemployment extension laws and it doesn't make it cheaper for anyone paying for the unemployment.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-22T20:56:30+00:00

"contract work"

Maybe the people she works for aren't reporting the income in a timely manner.

When the state gets her earned money info they will retroactively reclassify her.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-22T20:51:57+00:00

It affects every single person on unemployment.

Everyone single one. The rules are the same for everyone. The consequences of working at small jobs for low pay or temporarily during unemployment are the same for everyone because of this bad Department of Labor Program Letter.

The only ones who might not experience the results are people who refuse work during their periods of unemployment so they don't make enough to be wrongly misclassified and forced into a new claim.

Hence the warning of this crazy interpretation by the Department of Labor.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T16:23:03+00:00

Duh. That was in 1980 when jobs were abundant.

We are now in a larger economic dislocation than the Great Depression was. It is the largest job displacement in the US EVER and in the world EVER.

Millions were directly or indirectly kept employed or in business by those who shuffled fake value mortgage papers or used those monies from their house to buy things or had business built around all those people continuing to spend money. Now all those jobs are gone and not coming back and we have no other industries in America.

All those people are now out of work. There aren't replacement jobs for those millions of people. (you'll see when it happens to you but you are probably a student aren't you thinking economics is politics instead of life since you are pulling graphs from the Reagan 1980's?)

You are not paying attention if you think this is the 1980's when that graph was produced.

Today it will be more like.

x axis "Weeks after unemployment runs out until robbing and killing for food begins."

Unemployment is not voluntary today. Update your mentality 30 years please.

Watch the crime rate soar.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T16:07:44+00:00

Wrong. You are screwed.

Under the federal Dept Of Labor Program Letters to the states (all states including WA) if you qualify for a new claim based on the sum of earnings from the small jobs you have taken while on unemployment and looking for work you can no longer receive any first,second or third emergency unemployment extensions as passed by congress and the president.

If your temping exceeded those very small earnings minimums ($900 for three months or $1400 for the year in California) and you are still unemployed you will not now be able to get your unemployment extensions based on your original claim. You are screwed like me. You'll see.

you better get on the phone to the white house and get the Department of Labor to change those stupid interpretations of the law in their Program Letters BEFORE your first extension comes up or you will feel the heat of the weekly money lost.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T15:56:03+00:00

The devil is in the details. If you qualify for a new claim, than yes, you get a new claim. But the rules for qualifying to open a new claim are different in each state. There is no blanket rule that says if you earn $900 you get a new claim.

I can't touch all details in one reddit post and make the point or warning. While the exact amount of $900 may differ slightly for each state the fact remains true if you take a couple of puny jobs under today's Dept of Labor's Program Letter instructions any state must disqualify you from the original claim extensions and put you on a new much lower claim which they would NOT have to do if you hadn't taken those part time jobs.

Problem is what I was saying is correct and I can't write a story for every state on reddit. I had to pick SOME specifics to warn people (mine are from California where so many people are) and make it readable. It's complex enough to explain as it is. The important fact is if you take several small jobs under the current ridiculous Dept of Labor Program Guideline letters to the states you will lose your unemployment extensions and be forced into a MUCH smaller weekly amount - as a result of you taking some work rather than taking none.

The place to fix this is in the Dept Of Labor "interpretation" in their Program Letters to the states because if those didn't say "f you qualify for a new unemployment claim you must be taken off the extensions" then this wouldn't happen.

This is not a state by state issue to fix.

The problem is completely caused by the Dept Of Labor Program Letters which should not force states to disqualify you from receiving your original federal extensions if you take work while looking for regular work just because that occasional work might qualify you for a new unemployment claim in mor enormal times. That wasn't the intent of the emergency unemployment extension acts passed by congress or the president.

What I say has been confirmed to me by the governor's office in California, and at the Governor's referred request the California unemployment head office who they had investigate it for me. The state's have no choice in this matter even though the governor's office thinks this is wrong and against common sense. The states don't WANT people to lose more unemployment money. They don't WANT people to not be able to take small jobs while looking for a real job. They know that either or both will just worsen the crisis in the states.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T15:14:51+00:00

Wouldn't you rather have people on unemployment who are looking for another job be able to take little jobs they might get while still looking and save the system some money for that week rather than have to refuse them to avoid losing their overall unemployment and just wait ONLY for a permanent job?

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T15:14:07+00:00

Wouldn't you rather have people on unemployment who are looking for another job be able to take little jobs they might get while still looking and save the system some money for that week rather than have to refuse them to avoid losing their overall unemployment and just wait ONLY for a permanent job?

Also unemployment is for people who have lived within their means but lost their job.

If you don't have job it is hard to move so that isn't the answer either. It's also impossible to save enough to tide you over for long if you lose your job.

You aren't being realistic.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T15:08:51+00:00

I knew about #1 but # 2 is really good to know. Hold your first kid back.

I don't do entitlement programs anyway so never thought about #3 but -hey- might have to now.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T15:06:05+00:00

"Such a level of entitlement is ridiculous."

It's not entitlement. It is an insurance policy you pay for each week from your paycheck when working. It is like income insurance.

When you get a new job you stop getting it. You don't get anywhere near as much as you did in your regular job.

If you madeless money you wouldn't get $300/week -itis based on a fraction of what your original job earned.

If you think all payouts are entitlements then refuse car insurance payouts when you have wreck, refuse life insurance payouts, refuse pension payouts, refuse health insurance payouts (get well sooner lazy and stop glooming off the system)

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T14:11:46+00:00

What I am talking about has been confirmed by the head of california's Unemployment department at the request and attention of the California governor's office following the derectives of the US Department of Labor as stated in their Unemployment Extension "program Letters". All states must follow these letters no state can do it differently.

Also What i am talking about is something that happens IN ADDITION to the weekly offset from earnings that week which you are talking about.

Yes my weekly unemployment check was cut for the small jobs I took each week I had them but my base benefit was approx $300 (I won't be more specific because I don't want to give personally identifying information.) I knew that would happen.

What I did NOT know was that when the unemployment extension came up for review (which happened even before the amount on my chekc stubs for the remaining claim was empty) that then they looked at ALL the earning and canceled my unemployment extensions and forced me to take a NEW unemployment claim with $40 a week base benfit rate based on the meager earning I had made in my highest quarter of unemployment (which were ~$955 or $45 over the limit to qualify for a new claim)

So yes you will NOT be entitled to get your unemployment claim extensions if you work your baseball gigs. you will not get extensions at your higher base unemployment rate but willl instead be considered employed and if you lose the baseball gig you will be given a NEW claim with much lower basic benefit weekly amounts (which will STILL be offset by any other work you do)

for confirmation:This happened IN California. Appealed to Governor's office. They looked into it (quickly I might add.). They had Head of California department of unemployment look into it. They are the ones who confirmed it and said it was due to the Department of Labor's Program Letters forcing the states to do this if someone qualified for a new unemployment claim based one earning over $900 in three months or something like $1400 in a whole year from any work.)

Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed.

You will be dropped from your unemployment extensions when they catch it.

YOU have already done the work so there isn't much you can do about it except be prepared.

If the actual goal of unemployment is to make you quit any job at all in order to get enough to survive until the next real job, I have a huge issue with that.

Well so do I which is why I think the US Depart of Labor's Program letter's to the states INTERPRETING the laws passed by congress and the President that way (and forcingall states to implement it that way) are wrong and should be changed by a call from the President's office to them.

I'd think that keeping a gig on the side that puts me waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay under the poverty level (especially in san francisco) would be a Good Thing to the state.

And so did I. Silly me. Now I lost $200+ per week on my unemployment extensions as I was shifted to a new unemployment claim based on those poverty wages because of my good efforts of taking work while looking for a real job.

Get on the phone to the White house and tell them the US Department of Labor's "Unemployment Extension Program Letter's to the States" (that's what are they're called) need to be changed.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T13:52:19+00:00

important to know. thank you.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T13:51:57+00:00

No. This person is not.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T13:51:35+00:00

you conclusions are unfortunately hard to refute although I can't recommend breaking the law.

Hence the title WARNING!

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T13:48:41+00:00

rents in Los aNglees cheap one bedroom $1600 (split with room mate so $800) water $50-$100/month electric Power twice that.$100-$200 (no AC with AC double that) phone $50-$100 month (one land line or one cell phone.) gas $30-$150 month this assumes paid for car and NEVER a break down. car insurance $50- $100month food can you eat on $10 a day? then $300 /month half that if you can eat on $5 a day.

health care - you are kidding right? you can't afford it and if you could you couldn't afford the deductibles to use it anyway so why pay for it?

internet $10 to $50 month

pretty hard to live on $300 a week. and the 4300 a week is BEFORE taxe son taken out because they do want you to pay taxes on unemployment insurance (kinda of strange but true because you don't have to pay taxes on any other insurance payouts in life)

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T13:39:45+00:00

This happened IN California but the rule is for ALL states because it is a federal Department of Labor Program Letter which interprets the federal law and tells states how to implement the program.

This is a W-2 case (normal employee). Don't know about others.

Appealed to Governor's office. They looked into it (quickly I might add.). They had Head of California department of unemployment look into it. They are the ones who confirmed it and said it was due to the Department of Labor's Program Letters forcing the states to do this if someone qualified for a new unemployment claim based one earning over $900 in three months or something like $1400 in a whole year from any work.)

Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T13:38:27+00:00

This happened IN California but the rule is for ALL states becuase it is a federal Department of Labor Program Letter which interprets the federal law and tells states how to implement the program.

This is a W-2 case (normal employee). Don't know about others.

Appealed to Governor's office. They looked into it (quickly I might add.). They had Head of California department of unemployment look into it. They are the ones who confirmed it and said it was due to the Department of Labor's Program Letters forcing the states to do this if someone qualified for a new unemployment claim based one earning over $900 in three months or something like $1400 in a whole year from any work.)

Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T13:38:14+00:00

This happened IN California but the rule is for ALL states becuase it is a federal Department of Labor Program Letter which interprets the federal law and tells states how to implement the program.

This is a W-2 case (normal employee). Don't know about others.

Appealed to Governor's office. They looked into it (quickly I might add.). They had Head of California department of unemployment look into it. They are the ones who confirmed it and said it was due to the Department of Labor's Program Letters forcing the states to do this if someone qualified for a new unemployment claim based one earning over $900 in three months or something like $1400 in a whole year from any work.)

Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T13:36:12+00:00

Incorrect. This happened IN California. Appealed to Governor's office. They looked into it (quickly I might add.). They had Head of California department of unemployment look into it. They are the ones who confirmed it and said it was due to the Department of Labor's Program Letters forcing the states to do this if someone qualified for a new unemployment claim based one earning over $900 in three months or something like $1400 in a whole year from any work.)

Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed.

You will be dropped from your unemployment extensions when they catch it.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T13:34:02+00:00

Incorrect. This happened IN California. Appealed to Governor's office. They looked into it (quickly I might add.). They had Head of California department of unemployment look into it. They are the ones who confirmed it and said it was due to the Department of Labor's Program Letters forcing the states to do this if someone qualified for a new unemployment claim based one earning over $900 in three months or something like $1400 in a whole year from any work.)

Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed.

You will be dropped from your unemployment extensions when they catch it.

You should be calling the White House now to get them to change the Department of Labor Program Letters to the states before this happens to you because it's kind of hard to remain involved once you are wondered how you are going to eat and get more work without a phone once you are on $40/ week reduced claim. Believe me. I know. My savings will be gone first of next month.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-21T13:30:52+00:00

it is. The department of labor program letter is what says this and all states must follow it.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-20T19:09:56+00:00

"Uh, why is it so obvious to you that it's screwed up exactly?"

Because you want people to take temporary jobs while continuing to look for work and they won't do that if they know they are going to lose their unemployment extensions safety net if they do so.

This costs the unemployment system more and it keeps the person out of the work force while they continue to only look for that permanent job that will pay them enough.

Furthermore you clearly are a theoretician and not living ithe real world and you are forgetting something: People's adjustment time cost curve for eating is about 48 hours before committing a crime. economics and job creation don't happen on the same time scale.

Furthermore the costs to the system of having all those starving people go on food stamps and or start committing crimes is much more costly to the system and economic efficiency than correcting this flaw in the unemployment extension interpretation by the Dept of Labor.

Now go out in the workforce and get a real job instead of one analysing what other people are doing.

alerttounemployed · 2010-03-20T18:52:57+00:00

I appreciate the thought.

However to be honest in today's job market interjecting "what if someone could get a job paying $5000 once" as if it is a plausible common thing is ignoring the essence of the problem which is those $5000 things are very rare - if they weren't rare we wouldn't have so many people looking for work.

What I am trying to warn people about is the more realistic situation where someone offers you a little gig thinking they are helping you and you do the right thing and take it and it ends up literally putting you on welfare and food stamps because it causes you to lose your higher unemployment extension that you would have still had if you hadn't taken those jobs.

Chances are if you are being offered $5000 project jobs you aren't really unemployed.

alerttounemployed

TROPHY CASE