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.
I am *still* trying to read it and understand it. Whew!
Yes, I know it was signed on 7-27, but I don't think it went into effect. We have gotten NO information on it, NO directive to start handling severance differently, and I would think we would have heard to start treating severance differently had it gone into effect. Again, if you'll re-read my previous post, my colleague indicated that she thinks there was something wrong with the language and it didn't really get enacted, as it appears. She thinks they're still working on it, with maybe a January effective date.
But then again, it may HAVE gone into effect and we just haven't heard. Seems sometimes we are the last to know, as the media and everyone else find out before the local offices.
This part of the text of the bill, in Section 1. c.:
Provided, however, if such payment is applicable to
less than the entire week, the claimant may be considered to be
unemployed as defined in subsections a and b of this paragraph.
seems to be the crux of the biscuit ... I interpret it to mean that if you received severance pay (now being called separation pay - is there a difference?) that covers a partial week, then that partial week can be considered a week that you are unemployed.
Nowhere in this bill, as my little brain reads it, does it say you will get unemployment benefits for entire weeks where you receive severance (now called separation) pay.
That leads me to ask ... currently (well, before Oct 1, 2009) if you receive severance pay, for example, for 3 weeks and 2 days, then are you considered employed for 4 weeks (that partial week being the 2 days worth of severance/separation pay)?
This afternoon the colleague with whom I've discussed this shared with me a "draft" memo (one that will be sent out sometime soon) from our Regional Claims Specialist. In it, she states that SEVERANCE Pay will no longer be reportable, no longer be an issue. However SEPARATION Pay will continue to be reportable and will not allow payment of UI for the period which is covered by such separation pay. So it seems that it HAS gone into effect despite what I had said earlier. We just weren't told of any such official change until now.
There IS a difference between the definition of the two. SEVERANCE pay is that which a company gives an employee upon their layoff, sort of like a consolation. SEPARATION pay is bonus or vacation time accrued that is paid out to an employee upon their separation from employment.
This afternoon the colleague with whom I've discussed this shared with me a "draft" memo (one that will be sent out sometime soon) from our Regional Claims Specialist. In it, she states that SEVERANCE Pay will no longer be reportable, no longer be an issue. However SEPARATION Pay will continue to be reportable and will not allow payment of UI for the period which is covered by such separation pay. So it seems that it HAS gone into effect despite what I had said earlier. We just weren't told of any such official change until now.
There IS a difference between the definition of the two. SEVERANCE pay is that which a company gives an employee upon their layoff, sort of like a consolation. SEPARATION pay is bonus or vacation time accrued that is paid out to an employee upon their separation from employment.
Wow! This is huge! Co-workers who were laid off the same time as me (November 2008) had worked for the firm for ages, and they received something like 4 months severance pay. So if this had been in effect back then, or if they had been laid off on Oct. 2nd, 2009, they would have been able to keep that big chunk 'o money and get unemployment too?
I bet some of them are going to be really pissed off - people being laid off now will get a lot more in the long run than people laid off before Oct. 1st, 2009.
So how can the state of NC rationalize this, when they are already borrowing money from the feds to keep unemployment bennies going? By that I mean - if the state could previously make a person wait through their umpteen weeks of severance pay (plus that one waiting week) before starting to collect unemployment benefits (as they could prior to this bill going into effect), the state doesn't pay out as much money.
And what about the poor guys/gals who got laid off on Sept. 15th, for example, who received severance pay? Are they going to have to wait through their severance pay period, while the lucky ones who got laid off on Oct. 2nd will be eligible after just one waiting week?
Wow! This is huge! Co-workers who were laid off the same time as me (November 2008) had worked for the firm for ages, and they received something like 4 months severance pay. So if this had been in effect back then, or if they had been laid off on Oct. 2nd, 2009, they would have been able to keep that big chunk 'o money and get unemployment too? Yes, as far as I'm understanding it!
I bet some of them are going to be really pissed off - people being laid off now will get a lot more in the long run than people laid off before Oct. 1st, 2009. Honestly, if you think about it, being able to claim UI while collecting severance will not get anymore in the long run than before. Before, people had to wait for their UI until their severance period passed. This was, in effect, a longer period of time, then, that they would have their UI benefits PAST when they had their severance. Now, their UI can start right away so when their, say, 4 months of severance runs out, and they've already been collecting UI for 4 months, they've got only 8 months of UI left...whereas before after their 4 months of severance ran out, they would have their full 12 months of UI left.
So how can the state of NC rationalize this, when they are already borrowing money from the feds to keep unemployment bennies going? By that I mean - if the state could previously make a person wait through their umpteen weeks of severance pay (plus that one waiting week) before starting to collect unemployment benefits (as they could prior to this bill going into effect), the state doesn't pay out as much money. Not sure how they can rationalize it, how does the state rationalize a lot of things?
And what about the poor guys/gals who got laid off on Sept. 15th, for example, who received severance pay? Are they going to have to wait through their severance pay period, while the lucky ones who got laid off on Oct. 2nd will be eligible after just one waiting week? Not sure, but I believe the new rules would take effect for claims that begin after a certain time (Oct 4). Anything before then would have to go by the old rules for the entire length of the claim. Not sure on this, but that's how I would enact it!
I will say, too, that today we got an official memo of a few legislation changes that were also on that same "draft" memo that I had spoken of on a previous post. Interestingly enough, the new severance rules were not on this official memo!! Not sure what this means either!
My unemployment benefits has been exhausted but i was eligible for EB, i moved and just recently updated my address so i'm not sure if i recieved a letter, do i have to reapply or no more benefits?
My unemployment benefits has been exhausted but i was eligible for EB, i moved and just recently updated my address so i'm not sure if i recieved a letter, do i have to reapply or no more benefits?
If your benefit year ended, then yes, you'll need to re-apply for a new benefit year. If that new benefit year will not set up for a new regular UI claim, then they'll set you up to be able to go back and draw the remaining extension on your previous claim.
If it's just that your regular UI has ended and you are eligible for extensions, then all you need to do is keep certifying each week as you have been and your extensions will kick in automatically.
If you did not get a letter, though, how are you certain you're eligible for EB? Not everyone is, even though they may be eligible for the first two extensions. EB is a whole different ballgame; although the monetary eligibility requirements for EB is the same as for EUC08, if you have any disqualifications of any kind on your claim, even if adjudicated in your favor, you will not be eligible to receive the EB.
Well i didnt recieve a letter but i went to view my claim online and notice that i was eligible for EB benefits. I recieved one payment last week but now my benefit year has ended on the 24th. I've been looking for work continuosly but have not had any luck.
Well i didnt recieve a letter but i went to view my claim online and notice that i was eligible for EB benefits. I recieved one payment last week but now my benefit year has ended on the 24th. I've been looking for work continuosly but have not had any luck.
Ok, if your benefit year has ended, then yes, you'll have to open a new benefit year. If you can set a new regular UI claim (if you have enough wages in the base period to do so), then that's what will happen, and any extension money you had left on your old claim will just be lost. If you don't have enough money in the base period to set up a new regular UI claim, then they'll establish a new benefit year for you to go back and get the remaining extension money on your old claim.
Keep in mind that if you can set up a new regular UI claim, your weekly benefit amount may likely be higher or lower than your last claim, as it's calculated by taking the high quarter of wages in the base period and dividing by 26. Also, with a new regular UI claim you will have to re-qualify for extensions when the time comes. The formula to qualify is that your total base period wages must be equal to or greater than 1.5 times the high quarter of wages in the base period. Simple example is:
High quarter of wages: $10,000. Which means that your total base period wages must be equal to or greater than $15,000 to qualify for extensions.
Currently, the base period is 3Q2008, 4Q2008, 1Q2009 and 2Q2009. You must have wages of at least $4,550 spanning over at least two quarters in the base period in order to qualify for a new regular UI claim. Wages in just one quarter of the base period do not meet the requirements, even if it's $1 Million. You have to have wages in at least TWO quarters of the base period to set a regular UI claim.
Best of luck!
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.
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.
unemployment benefits
