As Economy Tightens, More Employers Are Fighting Unemployment Claims
This is just awful, but I knew it was just a matter of time before we saw employers try to save money this way:
It's hard enough to lose a job. But for a growing proportion of U.S. workers, the troubles really set in when they apply for unemployment benefits.
More than a quarter of people applying for such claims have their rights to the benefit challenged as employers increasingly act to block payouts to former workers.
The proportion of claims disputed by former employers and state agencies has reached record levels in recent years, according to the Labor Department numbers tallied by the Urban Institute.
Under state and federal laws, employees who are fired for misbehavior or quit voluntarily are ineligible for unemployment compensation. When jobless claims are blocked, employers save money because their unemployment insurance rates are based on the amount of the benefits their workers collect.
As unemployment rolls swell in the recession, many workers seem surprised to find their benefits challenged, their former bosses providing testimony against them. On one recent morning in what amounts to one of Maryland's unemployment courts, employees and employers squared off at conference tables to rehash reports of bad customer service, anger management and absenteeism.
"I couldn't believe it," said Kenneth M. Brown, who lost his job as a hotel electrician in October.
He began collecting benefits of $380 a week but then discovered that his former employer, the owners of the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, were appealing to block his unemployment benefits. The hotel alleged that he had been fired for being deceptive with a supervisor.
"A big corporation like that. . . . It was hard enough to be terminated," he said. "But for them to try to take away the unemployment benefits -- I just thought that was heartless."
"A big corporation like that. . . . It was hard enough to be terminated," he said. "But for them to try to take away the unemployment benefits -- I just thought that was heartless."
We don't inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children - Native American proverb
If being cold means there's no such thing as global warming, does being full mean there's no such thing as world hunger?
A big Corporation that is heartless?!?! Who would have thought it?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
do we need to review the economic pluses of unemployment compensation?
because i will!
this is, yet another, punch in the nutz to our economy/taxpayers by the private sector.
I don't know what you guys are talking about this for. Haven't you heard that there's a MISSING WHITE GIRL!!!
actually Billy that's horrible. Shouldn't make light of her plight.
I think the octomom that OLiely is belly-aching about is the distraction du jour.
Yeah, I'm a turd.
between the Missing White Woman syndrome and a missing child report. Just sayin'.
Do not look back.
Judd Gregg
U.S. Senator, New Hampshire
Study the symptoms not the virus...
That a train wreck was averted!
Check Rush Limbaugh's phone records. I have a feeling he just made a call. "Tow the obstructionist line, or no wingnut welfare for you when you retire."
at least the level of claimant victories in the hearing hasn't changed despite the rise in employer contesting.
I had a friend who worked for design in agency towson maryland who lied to the state saying my friend just walked out and never came back.
Don't know why, but this immediately brought an old Daily Show segment to mind:
"The hotel for people who are gay for the Lord"
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml...
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
They'll do anything to get/save money. Among other money-gathering entities, they own the Oklahoman newspaper and used to have ALL part-time employees there so they wouldn't have to pay benefits. Sleazeballs for generations. I'm still hoping their paper bites the dust soon.
When I was out of work 3.5 years ago, I took a part-time job at Blockbusters warehouse to help pad out my account. Of course I drew less unemployment that way, but that was the idea, to extend the life of it.
Blockbuster was in the midst of changing their set up to be like Netflicks, so at the moment there wasn't enough work for us to do, supplies were minimal, so when you went for movies or games being requested by stores, there was nothing to pull, and we were blamed for the near empty containers.
They started working people for less and less hours, when they weren't firing people for little or no reason.
They kept claiming there wasn't enough work, but kept going to job fairs hiring new people for the work that was dwindling.
That way you never qualified for full-time work with benefits.
Finally, they let me go, and when I filed to restart my unemployment, it was blocked. They claimed I wasn't fired, but didn't show up the next day, i.e. job abandonment.
I had to appeal it, then reappeal it by a phone process. They weren't prepared for someone who could read a paystub to prove they were being underworked, and if I didn't show up the next day, wouldn't that mean I'd still have their security card, and wouldn't that be a security breach? They couldn't answer that when the judge repeated that question to them. They also said I should've called for more work at a different location. I responded that I did call, gave them the number I called so it became a question of following the rules, but not having all the numbers since they were never given.
Suffice it to say my compensation was restarted, and back-pay of the compensation met. The VA representative at the unemployment office was amazed. He said, "Those bastards do this all the time, and always win, but somehow you did."
It helps to know how to read a contract, and anticipate what points the opposition will raise.
The next week I landed my current job.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
and your current job is.....? Or shouldn't I ask in public.
I can safely say I'm a clerk, although I have an Associate in Business, a Bachelor in Interdisciplinary Studies (majoring in Political Science, and minoring in Arts), and a second Associate in Paralegal Studies. I belonged to Phi Beta Kappa, and Golden Key Honor Societies, and the Dean's List, and graduated Cum Laude, three or four points shy of Magna Cum Laude, but then I wasn't pursuing any of these since I had to work my way through college.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
What surprised me was the last appeal hearing allowed my summation where I said a job contract is signed under duress, and shouldn't be binding, as long as economic need can be considered duress.
And although we could ask questions when it was by group, with limited time, and most were younger taking up time asking about why they couldn't wear their hard boots or carry cell phones, you never have the chance to ask relevant questions.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
If your unemployment is contested or turned down, make sure that you apply every week. Just keep reapplying until you get your money. They will get sick of you after a while, and probably just cave in.
The redneck repugs around here always complaining about "redistribution of their wealth to lazy people" when it comes to unemployment benefits, welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc.
They can't seem to understand that most of their "wealth" (taxes) have been redistributed to corporations and the wealthy by their own repug leaders.
designed to help the layed off employees. It was designed to help the businesses. Take construction for instance. How many people do you know get layed off every year, but have been with the same construction company for years? I know of one guy where I work, that has been there since he was 16 and is now in his late 40s. Layed off every year, but is always back the next. How is that possible when you are supposed to be actively looking for a job? Unemployment doesn't catch on that businesses have been using this for decades to keep their workers, even if they have no work for them? Bullshite. It's all a phoney "we care" scam. Just another corporate subsidy.
Are there taxes taken off Unemployment down there? I always found that odd, that I pay income taxes on my unemployment the same as if I was employed.
its going to be hand to hand fighting getting them big bucks from de gubment!
Here's some stimulus. $13 for you, and hundreds of billions for Mr. I Wrecked The World Economy. What a deal.
whats not to like? 13 dollars will get you a few burgers fries and a big ol cokie coler!yippieeeeee living fat now! poor dumb smucks!
that whole $8 tax cut slated for next year!! Another Big Mac meal, provided of course, that the dollar value doesn't drop through the floor and make that combo worth 10 times the new found wealth in your wallet!
Chris Martenson's ~ The Crash Course:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
It ensures that employees do not seek revenge upon former employers. Watch the work related shootings shoot through the roof.
Wouldn't that be indicative of poor aim?
I think the NRA offers classes in marksmanship.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
God forbid you work in a right-to-work, or I should say, "right-to-fire" state like Nevada or Florida now.
When tourism jobs decide to cut staff their policy is to generally make employees so miserable as to want to quit so there's no chance of an unemployment claim.
I've worked for 30 years. Never been fired--until yesterday, by a well known 'liberal' educational institution, which, by the way, fired me 5 days short of the end of my probationary period, when I would've had the protection of a union.
I'm still in a state of shock, but applied for unemployment benefits today (in New York State). Was told I'd get them, but frankly, don't know how I'll live off of them...!
But as scared as I feel, I consider myself lucky because I WILL get unemployment.
God help us all.
The saddest part of this entire ordeal is that the majority of these laid-off employees do not expect dishonest blocking from their companies or employers. And then they find out when all of the unemployment benefits that should right be theirs are not available.
There should be a much higher standard of proof for those businesses wanting to block former employees' benefits.
is designed this way on purpose. All employees (and taxpayers) always try to defraud the government and are guilty until proven innocent. Corporations don't do that. Hahahahahaaha....sorry, it isn't funny, but reality never is.
yeah i allways felt i was stealing from them when i sighned up for my 25 bucks!
I worked for Unemployment Insurance in Interstate Claims in Illinois and Missouri many years ago and still have friends who work for those state offices. Certain companies routinely challenged unemploymebnt claims and generally, the claim was denied. I always counseled my clients to appeal the ruling. Many times the denial was overturned, but many times it was upheld, which I advised to appeal again. In the vast majority of cases, as long as there was no *documenteded* misconduct, the claimant won and received their benfits.
YOu don't need a lawyer for either appeal - just make sure it's timely and keep claiming your weekly job search and showing up for any appointments. You will get all the back checks other than your waiting week which you'll get at the end of the full length of your benefits if you're out that long.
It is important to realize that companies thta routinely challenge claims get a reputatzion for doing so and they lose credibitlity. Some companies didn't even bother to change the cause for separation and the challenge was dismissed pending fuller documentation.
Dont' let those bastards bluff get away with it. Appeal, and if necessary appeal again. It costs nothing and you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Milo
or not that you need a lawyer for an appeal. Here in Oklahoma you damn sure do because I had to seek out legal assistance from an organization that provides lawyers for poor and broke people to appeal my unemployment denial. The opposition was a no show but the judge insisted that the proceedings go ahead. I won. But, I had to lawyer up to do it.
And btw, as JudyLou stated upthread, the Gaylords control the main state newspaper in OK, and are in bed with the local OKC CBS affiliate that is owned by Griffins Media. The same Griffin's produce the generic jelly, jams, and mustard that you see in grocery stores. I boycott all Griffin's products to this day. The Gaylords also purchased and ruined my father and grandfathers Grand Ole Opry. Their son-in-law bought the Seattle Super Sonics and moved them here. The greedy sumbitches have their hand in a helluva lot more than what I mentioned.
Our culture has never been to look out for one another. It is a dog eat dog world and we're going to have to either sharpen our teeth or get kicked around and feed on scraps. The most important word to people seems to be the word mine...until that changes don't be surprised by the heartlessness of the businessman.
Actually caring for your neighbor is socialism. Or is it communism? I can't keep 'em straight.
just dont take what is mine to give to someone else. That is sure as hell one or the other.
If capitalism is so terrible... why are we the most giving nation on earth? Ohhhhh yea. Its because we are so wealthy. It sucks that people are greedy, but Ill take the greedy as long as we remain free and wealthy as a whole.
Damn that capitalism. The government does such a better job at spending our wealth and redistributing it in the name of goodness. Ask all those dead people around the world. Im sure those little kids loved hearing bombs dropping.
Pffft.. Almost forgot! Thats Bush and Co's fault. No Democrats voted to ignore their duties and just hand him the power to go to war. Or did they?
How would the crooked employer appreciate someone picketing their business wearing a sign THIS SCUMBAG LAID ME OFF THEN SCREWED MY INSURANCE CLAIM AROUND.
This is what "right to work" gets you.
Years ago I worked in a place with unionized lower echelon workers. One of them was caught stealing the property of her supervisor as she walked off the premises with it. She was caught redhanded. She was fired. Sure enough, she applied for unemployment. The employer challenged it, because she was caught stealing (there had been other thefts which had been unsolved and we suspected her after she was caught, but we could not prove it).
Anyway, the union went in and backed her 100%. She made up some cock and bull story about merely taking the property home to clean it, as a nice surprise for her boss. It was so pallid. She was denied at first, appealed and again, the union backed her (with a lawyer) and this time she won.
Moral of the story - unions back their employees even when the employees are scum-sucking thieves. Who would you rather be, the non-unionized worker, or the unionized worker who is laid off?
...that when corporations fabricate dishonest stories specifically in order to run a boondoggle past the state agencies, they are criminally guilty of perjury and fraud. I would also bet that a clever lawyer could find cause to nail their asses to the wall in lawsuits based on libel, slander, defamation violations of labor laws....who knows?. This seems a painfully stupid and short-sighted tactic that these corporations are deploying.
Also seems just downright evil. Especially the slimey tactic from the jerks who run IBM, where instead of laying employees off they notify them of their intent to transfer them to India...working at local wage and benefit scale: a few pennies on the dollar and no benefits, and that, only if they pay their own relocation and travel expenses. Naturally, nobody takes them up on the offer, so they are terminated, losing all eligibility for unemployment. Cold day in hell before I ever buy another IBM product, and because I have purchasing authority, same goes for my company. That may be one of the slimiest things I have ever heard of in my entire life.
In 1989 I was laid off (for the 1st and last time), and my former employer - a major corporation - fought my benefits. They claimed I was unavailable for work, despite the fact that I had actually requested overtime because I needed more money than they were paying in regular wages. I won, of course, though I don't know that I would these days.
I've worked for years in unemployment compensation. Employers are not fighting any more cases now than ever. The unemployment deputies in the states are giving out more money to former employees whether they deserve them or not. That's why many states have depleted their funds. Those funds are, by the way, paid to the state by the employers.
I work for a lot of big companies - most of which you have heard of. If you are laid off and file for benefits - we do not fight the cases. If you are fired due to your lack of ability to do your job - we don't protest. We only protest if the employee lost the job due to their own actions. (Breaking company policy, theft, excessive absences within thier control) I cannot respond, of course, to the individuals above who claim that their former employers protested when they were laid off. But that is not the norm, and that is not becoming more common now either.
I have personally witnessed thousands of former employees who lie (successfully) in order to get benefits. The cards are stacked against the companies. Believe me - it's a fight to get any of these benefits denied.
What is the percentage that the employer pays? The percentage of the employees wages? 2%? Weekly? Bi Weekly?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Mudshark,
Every state has their own rules. in NY for example - the employer can pay up to 3.4% of all their empployees wages back to the unemployment office. (eg - if a NY company pays out $5,000,000 to all of its employees in payroll, the company then has to give $170,000 to the unemployment program) It is paid to the state quarterly. The percentage can go up or down every year, depending on how many former employees got unemployment benfits the year before.
I think we must also look at the profit made by these companies.
What I'm getting at is this. If the companies make a profit margin of (just for conversations sake) say...30%.
I'd say that 3.4% is in the cost of doing business. Wouldn't you?
Now. I'm in Calif. Painting contractors initially start off at 1.2% The more claims filed against the employer the higher it gets. But as far as I know, they don't pay more than 2.4 %.
I could be mistaken on that. Because all the painters I know find work quickly.
I'm not going to bring up the golden parachute thing. But I think you know where I stand on that one.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
The amount of profit that a company makes doesn't affect their contribution at all. If the company is in the red - they still have to pay the unemployment tax. If none of their employees had ever filed for benefits - they still have to pay the tax (albeit at a lower rate than other companies.)
In IL for example, a company hires an employee - and he/she works 31 days, then gets laid off. If that person files a claim for unem. benefits - the company could be on the hook for $11,000.00 - no matter what the employee only earned when working there.
Every state is different, but it is a cost that the employers' have to face. It is a cost of doing business that can be controlled to a degree, by making sure that former employees do not file fraudulent claims. (They quit, but pretend that they were laid off.)
The unemployment benefits are payed into a general fund, right?
So, there are employees who work their whole lives who were never layed off. correct?
Hey, I dislike anyone who abuses the system. But it seems to me that the good out weighs the bad in this instance.
There will always be people who abuse the system. Just look at the current fiasco in the banking system.
And you're right. The amount of profit isn't affected by this. The numbers are passed on to the consumer.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Yes, of course there are employees who never get laid off. But unfortunately, there are also former employees who weren't laid off - but tell the unemployment office that they were. Unless the companies protest - the state will give that person benefits. Those people need to be stopped - that's what the protests are for. You'd be amazed how many people are working full time, and still try to get unemployment benefits - just to scam some money. They cannot be punished for it - so, why not try? The former employees either get the free money, or they don't. But they cannot lose anything.
The employer must challenge the claim.
And go in front of an unemployment judge.
Both the former employee and former employer must show up and present their case. Then the judge decides. That's how it works.
I also feel that once a person is found guilty of defrauding the EDD. They should get suspended from receiving benefits for a year. The 1st time. 2nd time,5years. 3rd time. jail time. There are to many honest people out there to have to suffer for the deeds of a few.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
the government has our interests in mind. What would we ever do without its involvement in every aspect of our lives? Why we would turn into a free country or something!
Employers like to assign a prospective layoff a small fund to oversee, and then claim that funds are missing. Some will not bother assigning the fund, but claim that the worker has access to petty cash.
Other employers will have one of their house pets harass the soon-unemployed. Boss man will tell the layoff to "ignore" the problem. When layoff defends him/herself, layoff is fired for failing to follow proper procedure, for insubordination, or for failure to conduct self properly.
Get your digital recorder out if the boss calls you into the office or if a fellow employee starts riding you. Document everything, request performance reports from HR, and call your lawyer.
Comments are closed on this entry