Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"unemployment" is currently 79 wks in Michigan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cicy33
    replied
    Originally posted by cptacek View Post
    I think you lose your benefits for that week (in Kansas at least) if you go to any kind of training.
    In illinois too, you cannot go to school and have unemployment benefits. Apparently is not able to work and go to school. For quite some time I worked and went to school but if I continue in school I won't get benefits.

    Leave a comment:


  • cantretire
    replied
    Originally posted by maat55 View Post
    In case I miss it, let me know when the government actually does something right. By nature, the government is inefficient, this is why it should have very few responsibilities.

    The people today are nowhere near the resourcefull people that came out of the depression. This is largly due to the numerous government programs that have been established since then.

    As far as unemployment, 3 months should be tops.

    You mean selling apples and pencils on street corners? Yeah, that'll work.

    Leave a comment:


  • cptacek
    replied
    Originally posted by Justice44 View Post
    I understand your position. I do think that people should at least seek training programs to prepare them for jobs that fit their salary. Many people are going back to college to make themselves more marketable. These people should not be required to seek a job, until their schooling is finished.
    I think you lose your benefits for that week (in Kansas at least) if you go to any kind of training.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justice44
    replied
    Re: Because that would be the responsible thing to do?

    Originally posted by feh View Post
    Because that would be the responsible thing to do?

    I'm quite liberal; I believe in social programs like unemployment benefits. But I must admit, it riles me when I hear about people treating unemployment like a vacation. Or not taking a job because it doesn't pay what their previous job did. I view that kind of behavior as gaming the system.

    PS - I shouldn't refer to UI as a "social program", as it isn't (usually) a government program. However, we do all pay for it, indirectly (and the extended benefits, I believe, are coming straight out of the stimulus money).
    I understand your position. I do think that people should at least seek training programs to prepare them for jobs that fit their salary. Many people are going back to college to make themselves more marketable. These people should not be required to seek a job, until their schooling is finished.

    Leave a comment:


  • maat55
    replied
    [QUOTE]
    Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
    We can all point to examples of government waste and inefficiency. I'm not arguing that point. Even in non-government programs, though, there is plenty of waste and inefficiency. Look at private health insurance companies. There's a perfect example. I'm a board member of a private religious organization. We have a system in place to help members who are struggling financially to maintain their memberships. Last year, the board approved a change in the policy of how we evaluate requests for assistance because we felt too many people may have been getting aid that wasn't truly needed. So even in fairly small privately run organizations, there can be inefficiences and abuses. That is not confined to the government.
    At least your organization is attempting to weed out the waste, it is nice to know that they have a savy financial guy giving input.

    As for unemployment, why 3 months? Why not 2 or 4 or 5? Maybe it should somehow be a floating number based on the state of the economy and the unemployment rate. In good times, it could be shorter. In bad times, it may need to be longer since finding a job is more difficult. I don't know the right answer anymore than anyone else does.
    I'm being generous with 3. My guess is that the world would not come to an end if 3 were the line in the sand.

    Leave a comment:


  • disneysteve
    replied
    cantretire, that reminds me of what my cousin told me a few years ago. Pre-recession, he was looking for work. He went to a few job fairs in Philadelphia. There were booths from many big name local companies. It looked like a great opportunity. After speaking to some of the recruiters there, though, he kept getting the same answer: We're not hiring right now. Well then why are they set up at a job fair? The answer was that they are contracted with the company that runs the fairs to have a table there whether they have any openings or not. So hundreds of people looking for work come, resumes in hand, only to speak with dozens of company reps who don't actually have any jobs available and aren't looking to hire anyone. It was a total waste of everyone's time.

    Leave a comment:


  • cantretire
    replied
    The mindset of today's employer:

    Just got this in my mailbox today:
    Dear Cantretire:

    This will acknowledge receipt of your resume for the Administrative Assistant position which was advertised. We have decided not to fill this position, but will keep your resume on file for future reference.

    We greatly appreciate your interest in the firm and extend to you our best wishes for your future success.

    VTY
    PrettyBigLawFirm, LLC

    Now, I'm used to the 'we've hired another candidate' and the 'we've hired from within' letters and emails, but I've gotten many of these in the last few months. It seems like the surge of job postings, that I thought might signal a positive sign in the employment front, are a bunch of bull cookies. Companies are posting jobs to see what they have to pay for people, and then decide not to hire.

    WTF??????

    Leave a comment:


  • ceejay74
    replied
    Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
    I suspect that they don't actually "make up the rest" but rather up to whatever the max benefit is. If you were making 500K, they wouldn't make up the difference if you got a new job making 100K. That could still leave you making a lot less than you did at your old job.
    For sure, DS. Sorry if I wasn't clear. My girl only gets half of what she made at her previous job. I was responding to comments on this thread (including one from you) about not wanting to take a job that brought in less than the UNEMPLOYMENT compensation they were already getting. This way, you could take that job and it would give you something to do plus extend your benefits if your desired job field was really tight but you wanted to keep trying to get into it.

    Leave a comment:


  • disneysteve
    replied
    Originally posted by maat55 View Post
    In case I miss it, let me know when the government actually does something right. By nature, the government is inefficient, this is why it should have very few responsibilities.

    The people today are nowhere near the resourcefull people that came out of the depression. This is largly due to the numerous government programs that have been established since then.

    As far as unemployment, 3 months should be tops.
    We can all point to examples of government waste and inefficiency. I'm not arguing that point. Even in non-government programs, though, there is plenty of waste and inefficiency. Look at private health insurance companies. There's a perfect example. I'm a board member of a private religious organization. We have a system in place to help members who are struggling financially to maintain their memberships. Last year, the board approved a change in the policy of how we evaluate requests for assistance because we felt too many people may have been getting aid that wasn't truly needed. So even in fairly small privately run organizations, there can be inefficiences and abuses. That is not confined to the government.

    As for unemployment, why 3 months? Why not 2 or 4 or 5? Maybe it should somehow be a floating number based on the state of the economy and the unemployment rate. In good times, it could be shorter. In bad times, it may need to be longer since finding a job is more difficult. I don't know the right answer anymore than anyone else does.

    Leave a comment:


  • cschin4
    replied
    A forty hour job should be a cake walk. The idea you think you are intitled to a vacation on the taxpayer is sad. Working 100 hours a week, you should have loads of money to get you through.

    I used to believe that "hard work" was the way to get through life. Now, I am not so sure. I see lots of people working very hard and not getting ahead at all and others who don't and have lots of money. A lot of it just had to do with picking the right career through skill, luck, or whatever.
    As for working "100 hours" a week. Uh, no thanks. I think I would rather live in a tent in the woods and own my time and have time to spend with my family than slave away day in and out for little to nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • maat55
    replied
    Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
    The problem is that any program, public or private, designed to help people in need tends to have some type of loophole that can be used to abuse the system by people who aren't really in need. That is not a reason to scrap the program, though. It is a reason to find a way to close loopholes and better manage distribution of the resources. That often raises administrative costs, though, which can make the system too costly to exist. Instead, they may just accept the fact that abuses will occur but for the sake of the greater good of all the people actually helped by the program, they let it go on.
    In case I miss it, let me know when the government actually does something right. By nature, the government is inefficient, this is why it should have very few responsibilities.

    The people today are nowhere near the resourcefull people that came out of the depression. This is largly due to the numerous government programs that have been established since then.

    As far as unemployment, 3 months should be tops.

    Leave a comment:


  • cantretire
    replied
    Originally posted by maat55 View Post
    If you are refering to me, I have paid into the system as an employer for the last twenty years and am not quailfied to recieve it.

    It is a government run insurance policy that promotes financial irresponsibility and abuse by those who choose to ride it out.

    The employer pays it as an expense, much like supplies or rent. To say it is money you have paid in is a stretch.

    I'm not begrudging you for taking advantage of it. You are just like those who are taking advantage of cash for clunkers or the 8k home buyers incentive. My beef is that they offer them at all.

    The government has a long history of establishing poorly ran socialistic programs that are a detriment to society as a whole.
    Not to you specifically, more of a general address. I've always thought that the self-employed should get help if they needed it. I hope to open my own business someday and this is a concern of mine. I hope you have a healthy emergency fund should you need it. As for the statement of paying, that was in response to someone stating that we all pay for it in the long run, through the cost of consumer goods and services. I have to agree as a company would add the cost of UI expenses to their product.

    I'm not in the same group as the cash for clunkers or mortgage people. I'm not 'taking advantage' of anything. I'm not buying a car or house or any unessential consumer goods. I'm trying to pay the rent to keep a roof over my head, and food on my table. Electricity is a nice perk too. I'm so glad I don't own a car.

    Leave a comment:


  • cantretire
    replied
    Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
    The problem is that any program, public or private, designed to help people in need tends to have some type of loophole that can be used to abuse the system by people who aren't really in need. That is not a reason to scrap the program, though. It is a reason to find a way to close loopholes and better manage distribution of the resources. That often raises administrative costs, though, which can make the system too costly to exist. Instead, they may just accept the fact that abuses will occur but for the sake of the greater good of all the people actually helped by the program, they let it go on.
    BINGO! A large majority of people are NOT abusing the UI system.

    As for part-time work, in NY they take what you're making out of your check. It does help to 'extend' the benefits over the year - before they granted the extensions. You can end up making a little more than the UI payment, but not much. The form asks me if I made more than 405. If so, I get nothing. So it can help. Problem is, can't find part-time work either. Maybe next week. or the next. or the next

    Leave a comment:


  • cptacek
    replied
    I NEVER thought I would be unemployed. I never thought about if the government would help me or not if I was. It didn't even cross my mind. I think before I went through this experience, I would probably be echoing maat's sentiments.

    I worked for an airplane company, and after heads of companies were crucified for flying private jets, three aircraft companies in Wichita dropped over 1000 workers within months. I hear they are still dropping employees. I was on a project where there were 5 of us, and they dropped it down to one.

    I was on unemployment for 4 months, going through the same kinds of things other posters are talking about. At first I felt ashamed I had to take it. I had gotten all my other jobs by sending one resume to the company I wanted to work for, dazzling them with an interview, and negotiating my salary up . I still can't believe it took that long to get a job. I was making $45 an hour at my previous job. Unemployment paid $11.20 ($423 per week from the state, plus $25 in stimulus money / 40 hours)! I was offered part time job making $8. I did do some part time work and reported that income, because I could make $100 extra and still get the full amount. I also helped my husband farm, allowing him to take on more custom work.

    A few months before I was unemployed, I got an offer for $34,000 (down from $95,000, mind you, but closer to home). I maybe could have gotten that one had I called them again. What held me back is that when I start working for someone, I think they deserve to know that when they hire me, I will be dependable, hard working and loyal. Taking a job when I knew that as soon as I found something else I would be out of there felt like cheating them, a little. So, I looked and looked and looked some more, and after 4 months, finally landed one making $60,000. Am I now under-employed? I don't know about that. I am doing pretty much exactly the same kind of work, and even after being there for only a week, I think I might expect some good raises. It might be that due to the location, I am making just about as much as I can expect.

    I am grateful for the unemployment. I was able to pay all of our household bills with it (it, along with the severence pay I got). Had my new job not started Aug 1, we would have been in some trouble, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • disneysteve
    replied
    Originally posted by maat55 View Post
    It is a government run insurance policy that promotes financial irresponsibility and abuse by those who choose to ride it out.
    The problem is that any program, public or private, designed to help people in need tends to have some type of loophole that can be used to abuse the system by people who aren't really in need. That is not a reason to scrap the program, though. It is a reason to find a way to close loopholes and better manage distribution of the resources. That often raises administrative costs, though, which can make the system too costly to exist. Instead, they may just accept the fact that abuses will occur but for the sake of the greater good of all the people actually helped by the program, they let it go on.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X