U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-13-2010, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Boone, NC
1,155 posts, read 3,147,923 times
Reputation: 282

Advertisements

Just a heads up - I learned upon my return to work today after being gone all last week and two days the previous week that the 6x rule (must have worked and earned at least 6x the average weekly wage, or $4,557, during your current benefit year to qualify for a subsequent benefit year and another round of regular UI) should have been applied to ALL subsequent benefit year claims established in 2010, not just those starting on or after May 16th as previously enacted. This was neither an ESC nor a DOL error. It was just something that should have been done that wasn't, and DOL informed ESC of it recently. So some folks that established subsequent benefit years between Jan 1st and May 16th who at that time would not have met the 6x rule may be receiving overpayment letters, as they may have received more benefits than they were entitled to. As always, though, a waiver of overpayment request can be filed with your local office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2010, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Blue Ridge Mountains, NC
18 posts, read 32,426 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdljr View Post
If you cash out a 401K in a lump sum, you would report the gross amount of your cashout ONLY the week that you receive it. It affects that one week only, not each week.
Thanks for your help. I was afraid that since the gross amount will be larger than my weekly benefit amount that it might cause me to be ineligible for benefits for an equivalent number of weeks. So if I understand correctly, reporting it on my weekly certification will prevent me from receiving a benefit payment for that one week only, and the following week(s) will return to normal?

Thanks again for the info
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2010, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Boone, NC
1,155 posts, read 3,147,923 times
Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by squareWave View Post
Thanks for your help. I was afraid that since the gross amount will be larger than my weekly benefit amount that it might cause me to be ineligible for benefits for an equivalent number of weeks. So if I understand correctly, reporting it on my weekly certification will prevent me from receiving a benefit payment for that one week only, and the following week(s) will return to normal?

Thanks again for the info
Yes, that's correct, just that one week only if the lumpsum payout that you report is more than your weekly benefit amount.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2010, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Blue Ridge Mountains, NC
18 posts, read 32,426 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdljr View Post
Just a heads up - I learned upon my return to work today after being gone all last week and two days the previous week that the 6x rule (must have worked and earned at least 6x the average weekly wage, or $4,557, during your current benefit year to qualify for a subsequent benefit year and another round of regular UI) should have been applied to ALL subsequent benefit year claims established in 2010, not just those starting on or after May 16th as previously enacted. This was neither an ESC nor a DOL error. It was just something that should have been done that wasn't, and DOL informed ESC of it recently. So some folks that established subsequent benefit years between Jan 1st and May 16th who at that time would not have met the 6x rule may be receiving overpayment letters, as they may have received more benefits than they were entitled to. As always, though, a waiver of overpayment request can be filed with your local office.
Does this mean that those affected by this will have their current (subsequent) benefit year halted immediately and told to re-pay what they have already received during the year? I began my 2nd benefit year at the end of February and did not earn 6x the avg. wage during my first benefit year, so I believe I will be among those affected by this ruling. I thought because I still had enough wages in my base period that I had met the necessary requirements to establish the subsequent benefit year. This could be bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2010, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Blue Ridge Mountains, NC
18 posts, read 32,426 times
Reputation: 15
I have another question about this revised eligibility for creating a subsequent benefit year claim - if it is determined that I was indeed setup on a new benefit year in error, could they then "pull forward" the remaining unused extension from my initial benefit year and apply that retroactively to what I have been paid under this subsequent year? Don't they "pull forward" unused benefits from the first year if one is ineligible for establishing a brand new claim?

My initial benefit year ended 2/28/10 and I was about 2 weeks into Tier 2 of EUC at that time, so there should hopefully be something left to "pull forward".

Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2010, 12:21 AM
 
5 posts, read 8,076 times
Reputation: 10
Angry Someone needs a good strangling!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdljr View Post
Just a heads up - I learned upon my return to work today after being gone all last week and two days the previous week that the 6x rule (must have worked and earned at least 6x the average weekly wage, or $4,557, during your current benefit year to qualify for a subsequent benefit year and another round of regular UI) should have been applied to ALL subsequent benefit year claims established in 2010, not just those starting on or after May 16th as previously enacted. This was neither an ESC nor a DOL error. It was just something that should have been done that wasn't, and DOL informed ESC of it recently. So some folks that established subsequent benefit years between Jan 1st and May 16th who at that time would not have met the 6x rule may be receiving overpayment letters, as they may have received more benefits than they were entitled to. As always, though, a waiver of overpayment request can be filed with your local office.
Wow, tell me it ain't so! I missed the May 16th cutoff date by only 3 weeks and therefore didn't qualify for a second year. Since the unemployment rate hasn't improved, but appears to be getting worse by the month, I was actually hoping our government leadership might lift the 6x rule. I didn't think it was very fair to enforce it on May 16th with almost no notice anyway. Especially when the guidelines told us it was acceptable to focus on finding a replacement job at, what is it, I think something like within 20% of our old payrate. And, now they are making the 6x rule retroactive to Jan 1st? Insanity! Someone has their head stuck in a very dark place and they need to understand these benefits are the last and only means of survival for many people. Someone needs a good strangling! While this change doesn't affect me - as I said, I already didn't qualify for a second year - I can still offer my opinion...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2010, 01:35 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,022,163 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdljr View Post
Just a heads up - I learned upon my return to work today after being gone all last week and two days the previous week that the 6x rule (must have worked and earned at least 6x the average weekly wage, or $4,557, during your current benefit year to qualify for a subsequent benefit year and another round of regular UI) should have been applied to ALL subsequent benefit year claims established in 2010, not just those starting on or after May 16th as previously enacted. This was neither an ESC nor a DOL error. It was just something that should have been done that wasn't, and DOL informed ESC of it recently. So some folks that established subsequent benefit years between Jan 1st and May 16th who at that time would not have met the 6x rule may be receiving overpayment letters, as they may have received more benefits than they were entitled to. As always, though, a waiver of overpayment request can be filed with your local office.
OMG!
and I thought my week couldn't get worse so far!
When this was their mistake or it was somebody's HUGE mistake anyway!!!
I also barely qualified for a 2nd benefit year and round of UI Feb 6th !
I even went to look at their screen, because I relally thought I should've had a pullforward , but barely passed the (then) formula!??????
I really want to know how they will fix this, are they just going to send us an OP letter and not give us anything weekly??? I made more weekly last year and could have resumed in the 3rd week of tier 2 at my old rate.
Did you tell us that you can get a dummy year setup and if you pullforwarded that 1st year amount you could also get EB?...
Which brings up the problem that not only did they give me UI mistakenly, they also provided me with a round of EB until the euco8 kicked in after the senate vote.... what a mess and how sickening!!!!!

However,
I want to thank you for letting us know about all of this., I'd be having a major heart attack had I gotten a letter without warning, whew!
Hope your vacation was good and restful, sounds like there will be a mess a the local offices now!
I'm hoping to have no break in benefits weekly until this is figured out and I'm also sitting down with my calculaor and trying to add up what they've paid me so far, VS. what they would've owed to me on my pullforward!
Thanks for passing on the info.,
(KC)

Last edited by KC~Carolina; 09-14-2010 at 01:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2010, 01:58 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,022,163 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdljr View Post
KC and Deerest...thanks so much for helping to answer questions while I was gone on vacation, I really appreciate your help! I returned home Saturday night but didn't get on the board yesterday. Back at work today, both at the office and here! I didn't want my vacation to end, but all good things must, I suppose!

Thanks again.
Glad you had a great time!
Hope I didn't mess anything up? ha!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2010, 03:27 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,022,163 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by squareWave View Post
Does this mean that those affected by this will have their current (subsequent) benefit year halted immediately and told to re-pay what they have already received during the year? I began my 2nd benefit year at the end of February and did not earn 6x the avg. wage during my first benefit year, so I believe I will be among those affected by this ruling. I thought because I still had enough wages in my base period that I had met the necessary requirements to establish the subsequent benefit year. This could be bad.
Same here.... this could be very very bad!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2010, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Boone, NC
1,155 posts, read 3,147,923 times
Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by squareWave View Post
Does this mean that those affected by this will have their current (subsequent) benefit year halted immediately and told to re-pay what they have already received during the year? I began my 2nd benefit year at the end of February and did not earn 6x the avg. wage during my first benefit year, so I believe I will be among those affected by this ruling. I thought because I still had enough wages in my base period that I had met the necessary requirements to establish the subsequent benefit year. This could be bad.
To answer all of everyone's questions about this, I honestly am not sure how it is going to play out, other than if you hadn't met the 6x rule between Jan and Mar but did get a subsequent benefit year set up for you with regular UI (because you had enough wages in the base period), they are going to be running programming to make some adjustments to claims. What I have received in my email is that this affects 40,000 claims. And anyone that got something that shouldn't have will be getting overpayment notices. However, as said before, you will be able to go to your local office and request a waiver of the overpayment.

They were supposed to run the programming to make the adjustments last week, it was delayed until this week, and then I received another email late today that it has been delayed again. So not sure exactly when they'll run the programming, or what it will mean for folks. Will it mean that instead, folks' claims will be switched to be drawing unused extension money from the previous benefit year? Maybe. And some folks may not have had that many weeks of unused extension money left and received more weeks of new, regular UI than they had left of the unused extension money.

Yes, it may be a mess. But hopefully not.

If I hear anything else, I'll be sure to letcha know.
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:



Over $104,000 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 > North Carolina
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top