U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2010, 02:53 PM
 
5,090 posts, read 5,706,114 times
Reputation: 5762
Quote:
Originally Posted by fremontfred View Post
Just because something is legal does not make it ethical. Do you also support all of those scumbag ambulance-chasing trial attorneys? How about ridiculous class-action lawsuits that drive up product costs for everyone? Are you a big fan of the Westboro Baptist Church protests? All are legal. You are taking advantage of a poorly designed system. I hope they do make you pay back whatever you have already received. I also hope you are one day able to see that what you are doing is wrong.

I think you (and others) are being much too hard on the OP. I disagree completely with the provision in the unemployment law that some states have (including apparently Nevada) which provides for the payment of benefits to people who quit their jobs to relocate with their spouses, but stating that availing oneself of those benefits is unethical is patently ridiculous. The OP isn't utilizing a loophole to gain some sort of unethical advantage, he is simply applying for benefits that the legislature has specifically authorized.

If we don't like the law as written (and I don't), then we should try to get the law changed.

And your point that he is taking advantage of a poorly designed system is as illogical as saying that someone shouldn't claim childcare credits or itemize deductions for healthcare costs and/or mortgage interest to reduce their income taxes because it just takes advantage of a poorly designed tax system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2010, 08:02 PM
 
80 posts, read 84,027 times
Reputation: 69
[quote=larryj2112;17074406]We are within our rights under the law, if not she wouldn't have been approved from the begining. Nothing was "shaddy", all details that were presented were fact and true. We provided exactly what they asked for and the state of Nevada approved her.[/quo
Are you just like all the other dead beats that know how to work the system?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 12:21 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
2,051 posts, read 2,022,462 times
Reputation: 1622
I don't think the OP went about any of this in a dishonest fashion but I don't agree with the wife receiving benefits. From the employers perspective, it's ridiculous. However, I know the OP isn't looking for opinions so I would have to say that yes, they very well may tell you to pay all the money back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 12:49 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
11,349 posts, read 19,450,513 times
Reputation: 3930
There is something here that doesn't add up (Which is always the case when a civilian tries to explain their claim. After all it is pretty hard for the Claims Examiners to explain. A regular dude hasn't got a chance.).

Unless the State has changed the law in the last couple of years since I retired, which has been in effect since about 1934, there is no way she should have qualified for UI, unless she had subsequent employment after quitting her job. Quitting to accompany a spouse has always been disqualifying, even if the spouse was military and they had no choice. I have never heard of adjudication asking for a marriage certificate and proof of job offer for a spouse in order to qualify the one who quit a job.

Then to say the employer is appealing after all this time is strange too. The employer has ten days to file an appeal on something they disagree with, just like the claimant does. Although I suspect that since ESD is probably overwhelmed with work due to the high unemployment, they might be allowing more time. But these are Federal rules that they have to follow, and as I recall, we were only allowed to slide on a small percentage of claims.

Anyway, she should not have been approved in the first place unless she had held two jobs since quitting the first one, and got laid off from both of them. So if she had two part time jobs, then filed, the job she quit would not be on her application.

BUT, since the wages the claim would be based on would come from the original employer (or employers) that she worked for during the monetary base period, they are usually going to appeal. Doesn't mean they will win. The State doesn't side with anyone. The State only follows the law. And if the State qualified her then she shouldn't have anything to worry about as long as she told the truth when filing. Just be sure to show up for the appeal. In this case I'd guess it will be done by telephone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 01:04 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
11,349 posts, read 19,450,513 times
Reputation: 3930
By the way, what we agree with or disagree with makes no difference at all. The law is the law. But you can complain to enough representatives in Carson City if you disagree with the law and try to get it changed if it make sense to do so. Just make sure you know what you disagree with, and have legal, or at least logical, reasons for changing it. We all tend to go off half-cocked on here because we don't really have the facts. You'd have to look at a lot of forms and information from the claimant, the employer, and the wage records in the State's computers to know whether you had anything to complain about. Usually, all we have here is a second, or third, or fourth hand account from someone who has not been trained in UI Law, and who usually is not the person filing for UI. Having worked for ESD, I know enough to know when the guy telling me about a claim is totally confused. First of all, it really pi$$e$ me off when the non-participant is doing all the complaining, and you never hear from the actual claimant, the only person whose business it is. It's not even the business of a spouse, and spouses tend to try to be the claimant's lawyer, and protector, without having the first clue.

Oh yeah, and everybody please stop telling people to DM me. My wife gets mad when I do this for free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 04:38 PM
 
84 posts, read 237,592 times
Reputation: 59
My wife was able to get the same thing from California, when we moved out here. It does help offset some of the moving costs. Some people have no choice with moving and that is what is there for. Jobs dont give employee spouses time to get a job in the new location or give them ample time to save up. We had only one month to move here in Nevada or not have a job. My site in California was closing and they finally offered a transfer here, but NO RELOCATION assistance. Thats the key.
We agree it is not fair for the spouse's former employer to pay the unemployment costs. It was legitimate in California. I think the OP spouse's former employer should argue with the state about this, not the former employee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 05:21 PM
 
Location: NW Las Vegas - Lone Mountain
15,757 posts, read 19,960,118 times
Reputation: 2661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz123 View Post
By the way, what we agree with or disagree with makes no difference at all. The law is the law. But you can complain to enough representatives in Carson City if you disagree with the law and try to get it changed if it make sense to do so. Just make sure you know what you disagree with, and have legal, or at least logical, reasons for changing it. We all tend to go off half-cocked on here because we don't really have the facts. You'd have to look at a lot of forms and information from the claimant, the employer, and the wage records in the State's computers to know whether you had anything to complain about. Usually, all we have here is a second, or third, or fourth hand account from someone who has not been trained in UI Law, and who usually is not the person filing for UI. Having worked for ESD, I know enough to know when the guy telling me about a claim is totally confused. First of all, it really pi$$e$ me off when the non-participant is doing all the complaining, and you never hear from the actual claimant, the only person whose business it is. It's not even the business of a spouse, and spouses tend to try to be the claimant's lawyer, and protector, without having the first clue.

Oh yeah, and everybody please stop telling people to DM me. My wife gets mad when I do this for free.
You know I got curious and researched this one through the NV and CA sites. It does not appear as a separate item on either. It appears however that both allow military relocation as good cause to quit..

******************************************

NEVADA NRS: CHAPTER 612 - UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
NRS 612.380 Leaving last or next to last employment without good cause or to seek
other employment.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person is ineligible for benefits for the
week in which he has voluntarily left his last or next to last employment:
(a) Without good cause, if so found by the administrator, and until he earns remuneration
in covered employment equal to or exceeding his weekly benefit amount in each of 10
weeks.
(b) To seek other employment and for all subsequent weeks until he secures other
employment or until he earns remuneration in covered employment equal to or exceeding
his weekly benefit amount in each of 10 weeks, if so found by the administrator.
Clarification

******************************

see...

http://www.mscn.org/download/uc50guide.pdf

It sounds to me like NV can decide Spousal relocation generates good cause...at least in the case of the military.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 02:24 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
11,349 posts, read 19,450,513 times
Reputation: 3930
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
You know I got curious and researched this one through the NV and CA sites. It does not appear as a separate item on either. It appears however that both allow military relocation as good cause to quit..

******************************************

NEVADA NRS: CHAPTER 612 - UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
NRS 612.380 Leaving last or next to last employment without good cause or to seek
other employment.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person is ineligible for benefits for the
week in which he has voluntarily left his last or next to last employment:
(a) Without good cause, if so found by the administrator, and until he earns remuneration
in covered employment equal to or exceeding his weekly benefit amount in each of 10
weeks.
(b) To seek other employment and for all subsequent weeks until he secures other
employment or until he earns remuneration in covered employment equal to or exceeding
his weekly benefit amount in each of 10 weeks, if so found by the administrator.
Clarification

******************************

see...

http://www.mscn.org/download/uc50guide.pdf

It sounds to me like NV can decide Spousal relocation generates good cause...at least in the case of the military.
I'm surprised you found that. I don't know who these people are, but it looks like they've done the research. As I said, it may have been changed since I last dealt with UI on a regular basis, and once they moved the Claims Examiners out of our office into a secret place, more or less, we didn't get all the memos. For years, we common folk at ESD lobbied for this to occur because we didn't feel like it was fair to deny benefits to a military spouse. What were they supposed to do, get a divorce and stay behind? I'm glad they are taking this view.

Note that it is discretionary. The legislature allows the Director to make the rules for how these things are to be done in most cases, and I have a feeling that the current Director is ex-military. But this is about military spouses. I don't think it helps spouses of someone who has had a job transfer, as they have other options. Like I said. Don't know. Maybe.

I still think that the OPs spouse may have had subsequent employment of a temp nature possibly. It's like I tell people. Go out and work an on-call temp job. Two call-ins = two layoffs, and that's all you have to list since they only ask for the reason you are separated from the last two jobs, and it doesn't matter if the last two jobs were with the same employer as long as he laid you off both times, or the last time you worked there, it was for at least ten weeks, earning at least as much per week as your UI benefits pay, and were laid off.

Clarification Received from the State of Nevada:
“The State of Nevada recognizes the need for families of military personnel to relocate when the
[military member’s] permanent duty station has been changed. Nevada Revised Statute 612.551
specifically addresses this situation as it pertains to a charge being placed against an employer’s
account, but the law does not specifically define that circumstance as being a quit with good cause
(NRS 612.380). Precedent and policy dictate that we do not disqualify for this reason. You may
review the revised statutes at NRS: CHAPTER 612 - UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
When reviewing a voluntary resignation, we determine whether or not there are reasonable
alternatives available prior to the separation
. In the case of a military transfer, if the [military member]
is being “temporarily” reassigned, then there is a potential for disqualification. Likewise, if the
reassignment does not require the family to move [such as Permanent Change of Station Orders
within the same commuting area.] If an individual is disqualified from receiving benefits based on a
resignation without good cause or a discharge for misconduct, the individual must either win an appeal
or return to work in covered employment, earning no less than their weekly benefit amount in each of
10 different weeks prior to becoming re-qualified. The State of Nevada pays weekly benefits in the
range of $16 weekly to a maximum of $291 weekly.”
(Source: Personal Communication, November 15, 2000 - VR8356 Department Representative)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top