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 don't understand how people are supposedly not going back to work when called back because they make more on unemployment... I thought a person loses unemployment payments if they refuse employment that they're offered?
only if the employer takes the extra step to contact unemployment and tell them you declined. once they get the go ahead from your employer there is no further contacting them .
I don't understand how people are supposedly not going back to work when called back because they make more on unemployment... I thought a person loses unemployment payments if they refuse employment that they're offered?
I'm sure this is state dependent, but in CT a person can refuse employment or an offer to be called back to previous employment if they are or someone in their household is in a high risk category. This order is good until September 9th I think.
I don't understand how people are supposedly not going back to work when called back because they make more on unemployment... I thought a person loses unemployment payments if they refuse employment that they're offered?
That assumes the employer bothers to report it because the employee sure isn't. And there are exceptions carved out for those with elevated covid-19 risks.
Some of those choosing not to return to work are being replaced. It's a game of chicken with the employer that ends badly for the employee in a about a month.
I agree. Paying unemployed people MORE than their regular income is not a good idea.
Well that wasn’t the point I was making. I would agree with you in normal circumstances but purely as an economic stimulus the current situation doesn’t bother me really. My point was though if you wanted to keep it in your terms.
Normal monthly income 3000
UE benefits 3000
New job offer of 2800 a month
I’d like a structure that gets you at least 200.00 a month for say 3 months if you took the lesser paying job. I wouldn’t even be opposed to say a +400 scenario which puts you at 3200 for 3 months. The unemployment cost is reduce substantially by you taking the 2800/month job and I’m fine incentivizing it
Why? As opposed to June or August. Why would employers be motivated to convert furloughs to layoffs in July?
It has to do with things like the amount of days notice required with large mass layoffs ....there are minimums like 30 days notice required so when corporations realize they will permanently be cutting staff they can’t just do it.... the number of days depend on state and mass numbers .
Many had a wait and see posture and it took a few months to realize they will be going from furlough to lay-off .
But it looks like July and august are going to see a lot of employees cut permanently
It has to do with things like the amount of days notice required with large mass layoffs ....there are minimums like 30 days notice required so when corporations realize they will permanently be cutting staff they can’t just do it
What difference does it make if the employees were already on furlough and not being paid? Your answer still doesn't answer my question about why July? Why weren't they swamped in May preparing 30-day notices to be delivered in June? Most of them enacted the furloughs in March and April.
That extra $600 is supposed to stop at end of July anyway, so what's the point?
Yep. No need for another incentive. Some political types wanted to extend the beefed up unemployment benefits, but (and, thankfully not, in my view) that has not happened. The program will end in a month regardless.
Well that wasn’t the point I was making. I would agree with you in normal circumstances but purely as an economic stimulus the current situation doesn’t bother me really. My point was though if you wanted to keep it in your terms.
Normal monthly income 3000
UE benefits 3000
New job offer of 2800 a month
I’d like a structure that gets you at least 200.00 a month for say 3 months if you took the lesser paying job. I wouldn’t even be opposed to say a +400 scenario which puts you at 3200 for 3 months. The unemployment cost is reduce substantially by you taking the 2800/month job and I’m fine incentivizing it
It would be very difficult to administer a program like that. If a lessor paying job is all that's available so be it; if the taxpayers start subsidizing wages with a "bonus" what incentive do business owners have paying market wages?
Back in 2009 all the federal government (aka taxpayers) did was extend state unemployment benefits for two years. I expect the same this time. There were no provisions for supplementary income for the unemployed. Why should it be different now?
It is going to be a long journey back to where we we were in 2019.
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.
