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.
Note: This article has received so much traffic in a few short minutes, that we have had to move to a text-only version of the page. Commentary: Best Chance For Unemployment Extension (Including Tier 5) Is A Standalone Bill
If America's long-term unemployed have learned one thing in the past few months, it's that given the chance, a number of Senate Republicans are likely to stand in the way of extending unemployment benefits.
Some of the reservations have to do with fiscal policy, some of it has to do with pure political calculations. But time and time again, a few Senate Republicans have continued to throw legislative roadblocks in front of any bill that hopes to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of Americans who have been unemployed for longer than six months.
The opponents of unemployment extensions have succeeded in part because the extensions have been rolled into "jobs" bills that include all sorts of tax breaks and other stimulus ideas. That mix of ideas not only increases the overall costs of the bill, but it makes it much easier to oppose the bill on grounds that have little to do with unemployment. Opponents have been able to block passage by arguing that they're not saying "no" to the unemployed. They are saying no to COBRA help, or Medicare rembursement changes or any other part of the bill that is politically easier to oppose.
I've spoken with a number of legislators and staffers over the past few weeks and an idea has been percolating in the Senate hallways that makes a lot of sense to me. Create a bill with nothing but an unemployment extension in it. Extend the filing deadlines through the end of the year, add an additional 13 weeks of benefits for those people who have exhausted their coverage and include a statement that "because the economy is improving, we believe this is the last extension we shall need."
While the plan would involve passing the bill through the House and the Senate, in some ways it is not just a helpful bill for the unemployed, but also for Democrats. The bill would force Republicans to vote yes or no on extending unemployment benefits. And many people I spoke with thought that prospect would encourage some Republicans facing difficult challenges in November to support the bill.
So this might be the time for a renewed effort by the unemployed to reach out to the media and their legislators. Citizen-organized efforts in the past few months have convinced many in the media and on The Hill that the need exists for extended unemployment benefits. Now is the time to show them a way to get the job done.
Being a 99er is like having everyone and everything you care about hanging over a bottomless pit. Suspended only by rope off dollar bills that you managed to twist together in better times. Every day you wake up you can see the rope slowly terning into a string, then a thread, and then???????????
I'm 52 and when I go in for a job interview and there is a 28 to 35 year olds --they look over me---I have experience and am gun ho but after over 2000+ faxes,resumes,applications with very few interviews--no cup of tea for us 99ers---I want to work if work is offered---what about us!!
"Take a look at the C (http://www.house.gov/house/House_Calendar.shtml - broken link)ongressional calendar (http://www.house.gov/house/House_Calendar.shtml - broken link) today and it would appear the House has decided to stay and work through August 6th like the Senate. Hmmm, could it be because they know something we do not about possible legislation to help the 99ers?
I wanted to know for sure, so I called Pelosi's office to find out. Seems they just neglected to update the Congressional online calendar. Bummer. You would think they could manage to take the time to make sure their information was up to date, but such is not the case.
According Ed Schultz, Debbie Stabenow (MI) and Chuck Schumer (NY) are trying to get something passed in the Senate to help those not helped by HR 4213.
Congressman Jim McDermott (WA) says if the Senate can just pass a bill to help the 99ers, it will surely sail through the House, as "there is nobody that wants to do more for the 99ers" (than the House) - see video below.
Ed announced on his radio show yesterday about a possible bill coming out of Schumer's office, asking Stabenow why he (Schumer) cannot get more support to introduce the legislation. To that Stabenow responded that she too was working on a bill for the 99ers.
If any of this is true, should the Senate miraculously pass 99er legislation in the time they have before they adjourn on August 6th, we might be in good shape. But unless they pass it in less than 7 working days, there will be no one home in the House to vote it through, so the President can sign it into law, until the middle of September. So much for The Fierce Urgency of Now.
I believe Mr. McDermott is fully aware of this point. If there is anyway the Senate can get a Tier 5 bill passed, it would behoove the House to stay in session until the job is done - before they take their summer break. Their reelection campaigns can wait until all urgent business for the American people is completed.
Mr. McDermott, if it is really true (and not just lip service) than"there is nobody that wants to do more for the 99ers" (than the House), you may want to talk to the Speaker (Pelosi) and see to it that the House stays until a Tier 5 is finally passed to help the 99ers.
Remember that it only took Congress 3 days to help out Haiti and a week to send aid to Greece. They certainly have no excuse not to do the same for their fellow Americans."
We should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in any at-will employment state. Petitioning our state representatives to government could solve this issue and allow our federal Congress to simply pay the debts of the several states providing for their general welfare.
We should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in any at-will employment state. Petitioning our state representatives to government could solve this issue and allow our federal Congress to simply pay the debts of the several states providing for their general welfare.
I'm not sure what you mean by this - do you mean if you are let go for ANY reason apart from misconduct (or no reason, as in at-will) that you should automatically qualify for UE - or do you mean if the employEE exercises their right to leave employment for any (or no) reason as it's an at'will state, then they should still qualify for UE? Or both?
Both, because at-will employment is not for-cause employment. A person can quit or be fired upon proper notice without cause or liability under at-will employment doctrine, subject to public policy.
There is no basis for any at-will employment state to require for-cause criteria to qualify for unemployment compensation because it constitutes a liability that was not present under an at-will employment relationship. For-cause employment must usually be proved by the party claiming such an employment relationship existed. EDD should be required to prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in order to deny benefits in any at-will employment state; if they are claiming any form of liability (A cause or reason for quitting or being fired: for-cause criteria.)
An at-will employment relationship can also be considered a contractual obligation that should not be impaired by any State subject to our federal Constitution due to the denial and disparagement of that specific States' right in Article 1, Section 10.
Quote:
CA labor code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
The federal at-will employment doctrine:
Quote:
At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:
“ any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1] ”
Several exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee.
As a means of downsizing, such as closing an unprofitable factory, a company may terminate employees en masse. However, there are legal limitations upon the employer's ability to terminate without reason.[2]
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Quote:
Article 1, Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Quote:
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Our federal government is delegated the power to pay the debts of the several United States providing for their general welfare, in Article 1, Section 8. There should be no reason for political grandstanding over something that should be accomplished as a matter of routine human capital infrastructure that provides for the general welfare of our economy, republic, and populace.
Well, as it stands at the moment, anyone that is let go for "no reason" can claim for UI as it was through no fault of their own - but I really think you're pushing it to expect that an employee should be able to leave for any or no reason and still be entitled to be paid UE compensation. An employee has the "right" to leave but shouldn't expect to be compensated for having no employment in that case.
UE is meant to be a safety net not a hammock - sorry. UE is for people who WANTED to keep working but were let go.
Scroll Up 99ers for some new posts about Debbie Stabenow ( D ) is going to try and help the 99ers ....
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.
