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 10-01-2010, 04:33 PM
 
18 posts, read 27,044 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by deerest View Post
check the news folks. Gov has forgiven the OP, ordered no repayment checks you have written be cashed, & no further checks docked.

Just read it online at WRAL.com.

Yabba Dabba Doo!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-01-2010, 05:43 PM
 
407 posts, read 599,312 times
Reputation: 48
Well not good news for me, and those like me who are now going to go from having 13 weeks of EB left
to going back to having 6 weeks of Tier 4 left and NO Eb funds waiting....

we get the shaft from this!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2010, 06:01 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,020,887 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA11 View Post
Well not good news for me, and those like me who are now going to go from having 13 weeks of EB left
to going back to having 6 weeks of Tier 4 left and NO Eb funds waiting....

we get the shaft from this!
so I'm wondering though...
If we don't have to pay back any money., that doesn't mean we're still qualified for a 2nd year, since I'm supposing that the 6x rule is still enforced...?.
So am I correct in my thinking that they'll stick us somewhere in year one if we were actively collecting benefits in a 2nd year that we were unqualified for????
I'm confused with how this plays out, any thoughts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2010, 06:15 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,020,887 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA11 View Post
Well not good news for me, and those like me who are now going to go from having 13 weeks of EB left
to going back to having 6 weeks of Tier 4 left and NO Eb funds waiting....

we get the shaft from this!
But if you still werent ever supposed to have a 2nd year of UI, then you would be approved for EB in year one .,since you should've always been in year one with a pullforward Vs. yr 2 anyway!

Why would'nt you still get your EB?
She's only taking away the OP's but never said anything about the earning's rule being taken back.
I can't see them reversing all of that., maybe just dropping further OP's....?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2010, 07:26 PM
 
Location: NC
776 posts, read 1,524,276 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC~Carolina View Post
But if you still werent ever supposed to have a 2nd year of UI, then you would be approved for EB in year one .,since you should've always been in year one with a pullforward Vs. yr 2 anyway!

Why would'nt you still get your EB?
She's only taking away the OP's but never said anything about the earning's rule being taken back.
I can't see them reversing all of that., maybe just dropping further OP's....?
I dunno...it's all so confusing.

They're making it so we are all not penalized for the weeks we were receiving benefits in error. They're going to somehow make up that $28M hole they dug for themselves.

So...what could that mean for us?

Well...there would then be no reason for them to drain our remaining EUC money, like they've done. That money was gone to be put towards their $28M error. So technically, that's got to come back to us. If they find another way of recouping the $28M to clean their balance sheet, AND take that EUC money from us, well, then they'd be taking in alot more than $28M.

So say they put us back to where we were (most were in EUC). Since we were incorrectly approved for those 13 weeks, (per jdljr), we are ineligible for EB. But had the NCESC not screwed up, we would've gotten EB and most could potentially have gotten more weeks. If they decide to give us full EB after we finish out Tier 4, well, then we wouldn't be 99'ers, alot of us would be like 109'ers or 112'ers or something. That's under the assumption they'd approve us to draw the remaining EB funds in our THIRD year.

The best thing to do for people in my (and CA11's) position, is to put us right back where we were...Tier 3, 4, whatever. Reverse alllllllll of the crap they've done this past week. BUT, waive the EB ineligibility rule for those who were improperly approved for 2nd year regular UI. We would then be entitled to over 99 weeks of benefits, but we would need to be approved for a third year...so make a specific condition that we would not be able to draw our remaining EB in our third year. If by very minuscule chance that Congress passes Tier 5 benefits...we could then draw that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2010, 08:16 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,020,887 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frrrunkis! View Post
I dunno...it's all so confusing.

They're making it so we are all not penalized for the weeks we were receiving benefits in error. They're going to somehow make up that $28M hole they dug for themselves.

So...what could that mean for us?

Well...there would then be no reason for them to drain our remaining EUC money, like they've done. That money was gone to be put towards their $28M error. So technically, that's got to come back to us. If they find another way of recouping the $28M to clean their balance sheet, AND take that EUC money from us, well, then they'd be taking in alot more than $28M.

So say they put us back to where we were (most were in EUC). Since we were incorrectly approved for those 13 weeks, (per jdljr), we are ineligible for EB. But had the NCESC not screwed up, we would've gotten EB and most could potentially have gotten more weeks. If they decide to give us full EB after we finish out Tier 4, well, then we wouldn't be 99'ers, alot of us would be like 109'ers or 112'ers or something. That's under the assumption they'd approve us to draw the remaining EB funds in our THIRD year.

The best thing to do for people in my (and CA11's) position, is to put us right back where we were...Tier 3, 4, whatever. Reverse alllllllll of the crap they've done this past week. BUT, waive the EB ineligibility rule for those who were improperly approved for 2nd year regular UI. We would then be entitled to over 99 weeks of benefits, but we would need to be approved for a third year...so make a specific condition that we would not be able to draw our remaining EB in our third year. If by very minuscule chance that Congress passes Tier 5 benefits...we could then draw that.
woosh!
What a headache!
I guess I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that it's NOT our fault that from January on they (mistakenly) gave us a 2nd year., so if that never happened all of us that recieved the max benefits would have had EB unless we had a disqualifuication.
The fact that we collected UI has been reversed and what they're saying on the site is we won't have to pay OP's if we accrued them between
Jan-May... lol!
so funny that mine was supposedly in Sept?
So whatever, it's been paid off now.
If they keep me in year one at my higher rate and I'm at the end of tier 4 instead of the beggining of it, I better as heck still have EBcoming up.
They want to pretend year 2 never happened, so if it didn't happen I better see 20 weeks of EB, or at least until my year ends in Feb..?!???!!! Same thing with you., you we'rent supposed to be in year 2, so you should be able to collect EB even without the OPs, Because they're not changing back the 6x's rule to establish a new year, only the fact that we're overpayed because of it.
I mean, you should still get EB even if payments aren't coming out of it, am I right...?
BIG HEADACHE!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2010, 08:20 PM
 
193 posts, read 257,358 times
Reputation: 16
IM SO CONFUSED!!!!!!

I got a letter today.... a wage transcript. This makes me think I did qualify for my yr 2.

My 1st yr was from 2/27/09-2/27/10. My last pay check was JAN. 09.

The transcript had q4 of 09, q1,2 and 3 of 10.. which I did get wages from..my last job BUT it was BEFORE i started my 1st yr.

BUT it said BASE PERIOD 10/01/08 to 09/30/2009. IM SO CONFUSED!!! If this is my base period, then did I qualify for my 2nd yr at a lower rate??? even though I haven't worked since q1 of 09????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2010, 08:27 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,020,887 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frrrunkis! View Post
I dunno...it's all so confusing.

They're making it so we are all not penalized for the weeks we were receiving benefits in error. They're going to somehow make up that $28M hole they dug for themselves.

So...what could that mean for us?

Well...there would then be no reason for them to drain our remaining EUC money, like they've done. That money was gone to be put towards their $28M error. So technically, that's got to come back to us. If they find another way of recouping the $28M to clean their balance sheet, AND take that EUC money from us, well, then they'd be taking in alot more than $28M.

So say they put us back to where we were (most were in EUC). Since we were incorrectly approved for those 13 weeks, (per jdljr), we are ineligible for EB. But had the NCESC not screwed up, we would've gotten EB and most could potentially have gotten more weeks. If they decide to give us full EB after we finish out Tier 4, well, then we wouldn't be 99'ers, alot of us would be like 109'ers or 112'ers or something. That's under the assumption they'd approve us to draw the remaining EB funds in our THIRD year.

The best thing to do for people in my (and CA11's) position, is to put us right back where we were...Tier 3, 4, whatever. Reverse alllllllll of the crap they've done this past week. BUT, waive the EB ineligibility rule for those who were improperly approved for 2nd year regular UI. We would then be entitled to over 99 weeks of benefits, but we would need to be approved for a third year...so make a specific condition that we would not be able to draw our remaining EB in our third year. If by very minuscule chance that Congress passes Tier 5 benefits...we could then draw that.
YOU know if they do that, I really can't see them opening a third year for anyone to draw EB.
I think after year 2, without any other wages to establish a claim that will be it.
So if EB will take me to that point or after my class is up Nov 16th , say I land a job, I'll be happy.
I won't be happy if they tell me no EB because of getting the 2nd year started because of they're ERROR!.,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2010, 08:36 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,020,887 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmchic00 View Post
IM SO CONFUSED!!!!!!

I got a letter today.... a wage transcript. This makes me think I did qualify for my yr 2.

My 1st yr was from 2/27/09-2/27/10. My last pay check was JAN. 09.

The transcript had q4 of 09, q1,2 and 3 of 10.. which I did get wages from..my last job BUT it was BEFORE i started my 1st yr.

BUT it said BASE PERIOD 10/01/08 to 09/30/2009. IM SO CONFUSED!!! If this is my base period, then did I qualify for my 2nd yr at a lower rate??? even though I haven't worked since q1 of 09????
Your benefit date is almost the same as mine by about a week.
If you haven't worked since the first quarter of '09, then there would be NO way you could qualify for a 2nd year.
I also worked up til Feb '09 (start of first benefit year) and also 10 days in Jan and march of this past year, but it wasn't enough income in the right quarters ect.. to even come close to qualifying me for a 2nd year
(since the6 x time rule is enforced)...
Did you have temp. or part time work anytime after that period???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2010, 08:40 PM
 
193 posts, read 257,358 times
Reputation: 16
nope none. but the base wage period is what i dont get. i actually left my job Nov 29th of 2008. the only reason I had wages in q1 was because of a vacation check.
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. The time now is 12:56 AM.

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