U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2013, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
23,348 posts, read 49,460,483 times
Reputation: 17888

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
How come last year Congress allowed Pennsylvania, Indiana, Arkansas and Rhode Island to cut their weekly benefits and also approved a variance so residents would continue to receive extended Federal benefits? North Carolina sought the same exception to the federal law two months before voting to change unemployment benefits, but never received a response.
Because NC was OVER THE TOP in its changes. See below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
Yes, NC reduced weekly payments for those collecting the maximum benefit from $535 to $350 causing the benefit to fall from the highest in the Southeast to comparable with neighboring states. But, NC is not culpable in ending the Federal Extended benefits. That falls squarely on the Federal government who refused to give NC the same consideration it extended to 4 other states.
The blame does NOT fall on the federal government. If there was "no response" it was because the NC Congressional delegation behind the scenes orchestrated no response.

You are probably getting your information selectively from this:

North Carolina Dropped From Federal Unemployment Program

However, the devil is in the details.

No other state cut benefits to the extent of NC - AND - cut length of time benefits could be paid, as well - AND - further tied that length to UE rate. This was all NC's doing.

The PA changes were fairly minor, comparatively speaking - raising minimum earnings to $100/wk, instead of $50 (NJ already requires $143); partial benefit credit reduced to 30% (still relatively generous) instead of 40% (in CA it has always been 25%, in NJ it's 20%; 49.5% of base year wages must be paid outside of high quarter (not that drastic - many states alrady require 12 months wages for a full benefit - which PA still does not) - and max wkly benefit of $573 remains unchanged.
Quote:
NOTICE: UC Changes as of January 1, 2013

In accordance with Act 60, changes to UC law are going into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. These changes will affect claimants with an AB date on or after Jan. 6, 2013. Several of these changes will affect a large number of claimants.
Some highlights of the changes:
  • A claimant now must have a minimum of 18 credit weeks in order to be eligible for any amount of benefits. A credit week is now defined as a week in the base year in which the claimant was paid at least $100, whereas previously it was $50.
  • The minimum weekly benefit rate is now $70.
  • A Partial Benefit Credit is equal to 30 percent of the claimant’s weekly benefit rate, rather than the previous 40 percent.
  • 49.5 percent of a claimant’s total base year wages must be paid in one or more quarters other than the high quarter for a claimant to be eligible for benefits.
  • For calendar year 2013 – 2019, the maximum weekly benefit rate will hold at $573.

The Official Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Website – www.uc.pa.gov
NC went over the top with way too drastic of an overhaul. Had it implemented possibly the reduction in weeks - which FL and MI did but neither reduced max benefit - OR reduced max benefit 20% instead of 33% without limiting weeks to as few as 12, it might have had a better chance of approval. Frankly, I don't think NC wanted approval - it wanted the unemployed to get off the rolls and leave the state.

Please provide the specifics of the Arkansas, Indiana, and Rhode Island changes. I venture to say NONE approach the drastic overreach of NC or affect claimants even remotely as negatively as do NC's.

Last edited by Ariadne22; 07-02-2013 at 01:42 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2013, 01:52 PM
Status: "Bartlet, er Biden, for America!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
31,221 posts, read 68,718,970 times
Reputation: 37105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredC View Post
So then, how will this effect the local economy?
I suspect it will yield a fair bit of emigration.
Probably in numbers close to what the immigration has been the last few years.

The question is how much of these will be the low/no skilled unemployed
how many the older unemployed and how many the under-employed.
There's a fair mix of each available and affected by the change.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 10:49 PM
 
1,359 posts, read 2,092,662 times
Reputation: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Frankly, I don't think NC wanted approval - it wanted the unemployed to get off the rolls and leave the state.
This is basically what's going on. NC's governor - depending on who you ask - is either hoping the unemployed will leave the state or using the unemployed as a bargaining chip to get the federal government to forgive some or all of NC's UI debt to the federal government. Either way, it's sick.

You couldn't pay me to be a worker in NC right now, as conditions there for workers are ridiculously bad now.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 11:27 PM
 
14,508 posts, read 25,466,476 times
Reputation: 2562
I really hope you don't believe this. AZ did the same thing when extended benefits were on the chopping block. The state was given the opportunity to change the lookback from 2 years to 3 years. It was voted down, and on the AZDES website, it said that because of the US DOL that the state was no longer authorized to pay extended benefits after July 2011. They completely left out the part that the legislature failed to pass the required legislation. The governor, Jan Brewer, even said that if the lookback provision was passed that she'd immediately sign it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
That falls squarely on the Federal government who refused to give NC the same consideration it extended to 4 other states.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 11:57 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
23,348 posts, read 49,460,483 times
Reputation: 17888
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaiunmei View Post
This is basically what's going on. NC's governor - depending on who you ask - is either hoping the unemployed will leave the state or using the unemployed as a bargaining chip to get the federal government to forgive some or all of NC's UI debt to the federal government. Either way, it's sick.

You couldn't pay me to be a worker in NC right now, as conditions there for workers are ridiculously bad now.
Heh - along that line, got an anonymous rep on my earlier post today, which says:
Quote:
Off the rolls and leaving the state..... works for me.
As you said, that pretty much sums up the prevailing climate for the unemployed in NC these days.

Last edited by Ariadne22; 07-03-2013 at 12:07 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
23,348 posts, read 49,460,483 times
Reputation: 17888
This, from USDOL, posted yesterday:
Quote:
North Carolina EUC08 Agreement terminated.

Recent changes to North Carolina's Employment Security Law (effective June 30, 2013), which reduce the amount of an individual's benefit entitlement, violates the EUC "non-reduction" rule, thus, the EUC Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Secretary of Labor is terminated. The EUC program (all four tiers) ended in North Carolina effective June 29, 2013.

Office of Unemployment Insurance, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor
Non-reduction rule:
Quote:
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) Non-Reduction Rule
• The non-reduction rule concerns methods of calculating WBAs that result in the reduction of the average WBA that would otherwise have been payable in a state.

• Amends prior law to limit the applicability of the non-reduction rule to state law enacted on or after March 1, 2012 and “holds harmless” states with state laws enacted before March 1, 2012 that violate this rule.

http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/p...eet_EUC&EB.pdf
33% cut to NC WBA is the reason for NC's loss of EUC.

Last edited by Ariadne22; 07-04-2013 at 04:31 PM..
Rate this post positively 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 > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top