It's the Luck of the Draw: States Have Shocking Differences in Unemployment Benefits
By Susie Madrak Tuesday Jun 23, 2009 2:00pmYep, it's grim trying to get by in the states that give decent unemployment benefits. Imagine if you lose your job, and have the bad luck to live in one of the states that pays a pittance. Meanwhile, the Republicans scream about the "nanny state" and "being on the dole," even mocking job retraining programs:
Fred Wright and Tyrone Gatson live about 55 miles apart and worked as technicians for poultry producer Pilgrim's Pride Corp. until they were laid off last month.
But Mr. Wright, who lives and worked in Arkansas, is eligible for nearly twice as much in unemployment benefits as Mr. Gatson, who lives in Louisiana and worked at a different Pilgrim's Pride plant in that state, just over the border from Mr. Wright. Under Arkansas's more generous system, Mr. Wright can get $431 in weekly benefits, compared to Mr. Gatson's $284. He is also eligible to receive benefits for three more months than Mr. Gatson.
The differences highlight the inequities of the U.S. unemployment-insurance system, a complex patchwork of government programs guided by Washington but administered principally by the states. [See interactive map here.]
Economists say jobless benefits soften the blow of recessions by offering laid-off workers money for necessities like food and housing while they seek new jobs. The programs also prop up consumer spending, reducing the spread of layoffs in hard-hit areas. As the recession drags on, more Americans are relying on unemployment checks -- 6.7 million in the week ended June 6 -- than at any time since the Department of Labor began collecting the data in 1967.
Unemployment benefits are financed by state and federal taxes on employers; in general, employers pay higher taxes as more of their former workers tap benefits. States set most of the rules based on their own fiscal and policy choices, creating a maze of regulations to determine who qualifies for jobless benefits, how much money they get, and for how long.
Some students of the system say the inconsistencies weaken the safety net and allow many women, low-wage earners and part-timers to slip through. "Too many states are very stingy about paying out adequate unemployment benefits," says Maurice Emsellem, policy co-director at the National Employment Law Project, a research and employee-advocacy group. "Sometimes there's no rhyme or reason to it."
Login or Register to post comments.
i just hope obama leads a bi-partisan effort to bring back the poor house!
.
My company today layed off 8 of our guys, and told us there was more to come, probably many more. I'm down to 4 days a week, with most of those days being part days. The sh*t is really hitting the fan. I've been in construction my entire adult life, and have never ever had any company I've worked for lay off in June. Ever. Talking to contractors I work for, they all have similar stories. They've never seen anything like this. Oh and to be an equal opportunity p*ssed off liberal, my supposed government supplied a nice big bailout package too. So where is it?
This sounds like something you should ask your governor about. He or she would be the one to know.
government passes the money down to provincial or state level, the money disappears into a hole. Kind of like what is happening in the US at state level. Our provinces are running deficits just like the states are. They don't have the money for shovel ready projects, and when the feds give them money, they use it, but not for job creation but to shore up their own finances. It's been this way forever. Just as is being seen in the US right now. I work construction Patricia. Shovel ready means construction. It's dead. D.E.A.D.
√
When you lose your job it's a recession.
When I lose my job it's a depression.
Our government has been staffed with anti government assholes for years. They have been dismantling every facet of government and privatizing services for their cronies.
Here in Milwaukee they want to sell the best water supply distribution network in the entire world to a private company.
Get this.
The water dept. makes 70-90 million a year
The city wants a 99 year lease for the dept and they will get a 500 million lump sum.
As is it makes the same amount of money in 7 years.
America is packed with fucking retards. They vote these stupid clowns in with the snake oil.
seems rampant in all levels of government here too. My town pays a staff of 3 all summer to water the plants on main street 7 days a week. They get paid almost $18 an hour. Problem is they only hire their children, their children's friends, their buddies friends, etc. I'm sure it's that way all up that political foodchain.
As for water, Nestle's and Ice River Springs, pretty much control 100% of the bottled water market in Ontario, to the point that people are getting downright scared as tractor trailer loads leave every 20 minutes from their plants. Destination? The US.
one question, is that 70-90 mil gross or net? When Indiana leased the toll road a few years back, there was a similar argument about it. They were grossing x amount of money, and the lease would only pay a quarter of what the state would of made off it in that time. But after maintenance and manpower the net was in the red.
Why are all the poster at WSJ such greedy selfish cocksucking douchebags?
the sound of one teabag dunking...
Their MBA's were earned by taking douchebag classes. The cocksucking, now that's something they must have learned in the dorms. That greedy-selfish thing, though, is hereditary.
√ ;)
Forced altruism by a fascist gov't is just as immoral as greedy individuals/companies.
like laws prohibiting murder and thievery?
paaalease...
World domination by a fascist gov't working hand-in-hand with greedy individuals/companies is immoral. But you were close.
:P
Amended: Thanks Susie, by the way... do we have any numbers, from the, so called Red states?
You can click on any state.
I errantly overlooked your link, thanks for the additional assistance. √
employees are handed a guidebook before unemployment.
It's always after and unemployment doesn't want the public to learn how to work the system.
Unemployment insurance is really the employers insurance Not ours.
When you or I apply for UI, we are making a claim against the employer, holding them monetarily liable for loss that we incur by becoming unemployed.
No one stands by, making sure that we have jobs, interviews or enough peanut butter. It's us the applicants and UI respondents of state correspondence. Don't push the pellet button and its - go to bed with hunger pangs.
In most cases the employer must be determined to have been At Fault for us having job loss unless health, layoff or other reasons qualify for an award.
States have the audacity to call UI an Award because we are essentially suing our old employers to be awarded a State Benefit.
Even so, an employees weekly benefit amount is kept (by some states) low in order to encourage the beneficiary to find new work.
It would be very interesting to hear some common horror stories (networking) about UI here on C&L. Anyone have an old employer blacklist their job search efforts because they had qualified for bennies? I think so.
States hold seminars and have help lines for employers to determine stop-loss strategies in order to win unemployment hearing determinations and other common employee claims problems That Cost The Employer Money when their employment insurance rates go up if you or me win an "award".
This is I believe, some of the reasoning behind politicians cracking the "freeloaders" whip at times like this so we'll work against each other.
We don't ask questions when we're busy fighting amongst ourselves.
We moved from Indiana to Ohio last summer. I got a job right away, but I was layed off in December 08. I filed for Ohio U.E. benefits right away and everything was fine. Then after being layed off 6 weeks, I got a call from a "special claims processor" from Ohio U.E. office. She told me I had the right to file with Indiana and would get $25 more per week if I filed with Indiana.
Of course that would make sense to file with Indiana and I followed her instructions to the letter. However, Indiana would not count any of my time from when I was first laid off until I filed a claim with them six weeks later.
After I was awarded Indiana U.E., Ohio then sent me a letter telling me I had to pay them back for six weeks of unemployment. I told Ohio what their U.E. personnel told me to do and that Indiana wouldn't count any of the first six weeks I was layed off; Ohio said, "that's not our problem, you owe us six weeks U.E. regardless if Indiana paid you or not for those six weeks."
To make matters worse, it is next to impossible to get a human on the telephone and U.E. offices are few are far between. Also you only have 10 days to file an appeal. When calling the State of Indiana U.E. central claim number, if all the U.E. operators are busy the phone system tells you to call your local office then hangs up on you. Then when you call your local office, if all operators are busy the phone system tells you to call the state number then hangs up on you. To go to an Indiana claims office you are looking at a 4-6 hour wait standing outside just waiting to get inside the door. Ohio central claims telephone number is not much better with wait times on hold usually around 45 minutes to over an hour before your turn, but at least they don't hang up on you.
When I called the "special claims" officer back, that first called me, she told me there was nothing she could do as they just had a big lay off of U.E. people because the Ohio U.E. fund was almost broke and those Ohio U.E.employees left could not work any over time no matter what.
She said their work load has went up from 2,000 claims per week/ per U.E. employee to over 15,000 claims per week/ per U.E. employee. She said she was sorry but she couldn't help me.
Long story short, we decided to be done with the mess, and paid Ohio their money back and chalked it up to school of hard knocks.
I know that the law generally favors employers but are they bound to honor contracts in cases of severence?
employer and employee is a separate issue than what UI claims guidlelines allow.
The only obligation is the enforcement of such a contract within a separate venue.
However, using this as an example of State versus private party duress agreements:
One of my worst employment experiences was the day that us underlings were handed a contract that required us to allow and pay for arbitration hearings if we have a gripe against our paycheck writers (employer).
First I refused to sign, then I allowed myself to be fired, subsequently claimed against them and was awarded.
Since then though I was referred to as that "incompetent employee" or other remark when reference calls were made to them from perspective employers.
I know I know - sue the bastards, But
I don't always do as I'm told so in response I got out of the line of work I was in (saturated by low wage newcomers in PC service support) and learned to use the tricks made on me to prevent tricks made on my new future.
The dogs could only chase me into the dawn.
Bobby Jindal turned down part of the stimulus money that was specifically for unemployment benefits and I never read where the legislature made Bobby accept the stimulus money.
Maybe that is the reason Arkansas unemployment is so much high and longer.
because if you'll look at several years old UI Guideline postings online for these states, they were probably as proportionately tilted back then as now.
Some of these politicians win partisan brownie points for turning their backs on Barack while still claiming sound fiscal practices during their re-elections.
Bringing back that brief period of "No New Taxes" in order to leverage public opinion against the Dems is what these weasels want.
It's a jungle out there.
Conservatives want a nanny state for Halliburton, big oil, the defense contractors and the super rich.
...listening to an employed (or rich) Republican talk about unemployment benefits.
since Canada has a federal unemployment program with uniform standards. Oh! The bureaucracy needed to manage the program is also much less than in the US.
But, what do we Canadians know?
Unemployment benefit policies shouldn't be laid out on a state by state basis. These policies should be determined at the county level. Local government decisions are always more responsive and proper than decisions made at higher levels of government. The more power is concentrated at the upper levels, the closer we are to tyranny.
Login or Register to post comments.