Quote:
Originally Posted by GWhimsy
"aged out of the lookback"??? Well, I don't know what that means.
|
Lag earnings from your original employer not used in your earlier claim and still available to calculate a new claim benefit -
provided you have also worked. Each quarter past your bye wherein a new claim is not establish loses a quarter of those lag earnings. Thus, if your new claim is established a quarter or two past your bye, some portion, or all, of those lag earnings are no longer in the lookback.
To explain:
When your claim was established in September 2011, CA used earnings April 2010-March 2011 to establish your first claim. Your earnings April-Sept. 2011 were unused and are considered lag earnings, provided a new claim is established at your bye.
If CA found you eligible for a new claim three months after your bye, in December 2012, it considers lag earnings earnings July 2011-June 2012. At that point, only lag earnings July-September 2011 remain in the lookback. Lag earnings April-June 2011 have now aged out of their lookback.
If CA finds you eligible for a new claim in March 2013, it considers lag earnings October 2011-September 2012. At this point no lag earnings remain in the lookback.
Thus, any new claim will be based solely on your part-time earnings and provide a benefit lower than your current claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWhimsy
However, I have seen numerous posts here and elsewhere in which folks complain that their state unemployment automatically takes them off EUC for a new claim based on new earnings and that the new claim is often substantially lower than the original. I assume that's what you're referring to.
|
This is true. However, you implied a new claim might be preferable because you are worried about EUC 10-11% benefit cut.
Quote:
I don't like the look of these fed cuts for EUC. Thanks again.
|
In your case, a new claim will most probably provide a lower benefit and would not solve the 10-11% benefit cut. That was my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWhimsy
However, I thought that was only true if you had at least one week in which the the total amount earned minus 25% was greater than your weekly allottment.
|
You are confusing CA's partial benefit rate on payment of existing claims when you have worked. CA's PBR has nothing whatsoever to do with new claim deferral.
DNCP (Calfornia) deferral on payment of new claim benefits is based on the new claim benefit being 25% or $100 lower than earlier benefit. In that case, you continue to receive benefits on the older, higher-paying claim until EUC is exhausted before collecting on the new, lower-paying claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWhimsy
It's also worth noting that I only went to tier 3 a couple weeks ago and there was no change.
|
That's because your new part-time earnings have not yet turned up in CA's monetary determination process. Those earnings
will turn up, either in April or when you move to Tier 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWhimsy
Out of curiousity, when I received my first "new claim" back in september (the claim cancelled out by section 1277), the amount I would have received per week was listed as a bit higher than my original claim. Would that have been a mistake or do claim amounts change (for the positive) for no particular reason?
|
The September "invalid" claim was based on lag earnings CA turned up from your first claim. One of the available quarters was higher than the highest quarter used to establish your original claim. Since you hadn't worked and did not have new earnings, those lag earnings could not be used to establish a claim.
If CA finds you eligible for a new claim in April or May, or whenever you transition to Tier 4, it will be using your part-time earnings and any lag earnings which might remain going back to January 2012. Since you were laid off in September 2011, there will no lag earnings available in that period from your first employer. Thus, any new claim will be very small and based on your part-time earnings, only.