Voluntary Severance Package how it works with uc in pa (payment, UI)

[JAS987]

Not sure how that works. Is a check sent for the first 26 weeks, then do you have to reapply for the remaining weeks?

[JAS987]

Or is it extended benefits automatically. Hopefully I get to that point.

[Chyvan]

With most states, UI is based on a total dollar amount. It works out to an amount per week X 26 weeks. However, if you're a part-time worker, or like you, have a pension offset, you can't collect 26 full UI checks. So you'll get 49 partial UI checks. You'll apply for them just like you would any other UI check. It's just that it takes you longer, and that means you run the risk of getting a job that turns off the tap, refusing work, going to jail, dying, or just any other bad luck. You can still collect your entire claim

[JAS987]

Thank you

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by DupontCoalKracker

You can estimate it fairly closely if you don't have peak season overtime or a quarter where you get a large bonus. $63k a year works out to about $1,210 a week. $24,200/$1,210= 20 week delay in receiving UC benefits.

Originally Posted by JAS987

Because I am now collecting my pension, funds are needed, if approved for UC benefits would be $303 not $573.00 which is fine.

Has the company paid your severance? If so, WHEN, exactly?

Originally Posted by DupontCoalKracker

JAS, you may already be aware, but a pension offset in your benefits will lower your weekly benefit rate, the total value of your claim is still $14,898. Instead of taking 27 weeks to exhaust your claim it would take 49 weeks.

Originally Posted by JAS987

Not sure how that works. Is a check sent for the first 26 weeks, then do you have to reapply for the remaining weeks? Or is it extended benefits automatically.

Originally Posted by Chyvan

With most states, UI is based on a total dollar amount. It works out to an amount per week X 26 weeks. However, if you're a part-time worker, or like you, have a pension offset, you can't collect 26 full UI checks. So you'll get 49 partial UI checks. You'll apply for them just like you would any other UI check. It's just that it takes you longer,

Except that there aren't that many weeks remaining in OP's benefit year after the 20 week severance delay, and OP is not going to qualify for a second year claim because of an unbalanced quarter due to the severance - even if he works.

With OP applying before the end of September, his base year is April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016. The first 20 weeks are not paid because of the severance. Therefore, 32 weeks remain in the benefit year to collect the 49 weeks. Because of the unbalanced 9/30/2016 quarter, it is highly unlikely, even if OP works, that OP will qualify for a 2nd year claim.

Which means, 17 weeks remain uncollected.

So, DuPont CK, assuming OP was paid his severance before the end of September, what about if OP withdraws the claim and appeal, lets the matter die, and reapplies middle or end of December? Base year would then be July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016 which would still exclude the unbalanced quarter and use up at least 13-15 weeks of the severance - which means, with a new benefit year expiring December 2017, OP would be able to collect another 13 weeks, at least, of the monetary award.

[Chyvan]

I wasn't getting technical enough. Between severance, a denial, and now pension, the complexity has exceeded my capabilities to make the best decision.


Ariadne22, I think you might have come up with a way to mitigate. Let quarters age out.


OP may not be able to cancel because a "decision was rendered."

[DupontCoalKracker]

Ariadne and JAS, I overlooked the math here, and he would be leaving quite a bit of money on the table between the 20 week severance delay and the pension offset. He should not withdraw the appeal, and should not cancel the claim YET. He can cancel that claim later as long as he has not received a benefit payment from it. His appeal hearing will take place and a decision issued well in advance of his 20 week severance delay period ending.

JAS indicated his last day of work was 8/24, which was a Wednesday. Depending on his earnings for that week, he actually could have applied for benefits that week. If you wait to open the claim, UC must count the weeks you waited when you could have filed towards the total duration of the severance delay. At a minimum, he was eligible to apply with the week beginning 8/28, but I don't believe he applied until the week beginning 9/4. Starting the 20 week delay on 8/28, if he waits until the week beginning 12/18/16 and faxes in his written request to cancel the original claim and then files the new claim on Sunday 12/25, he will have served 18 weeks of the 20 week severance delay. He will have two weeks delay on the new claim and should have 50 weeks to empty the claim, which should take him 49 weeks due to the pension reduced weekly benefit rate.

If he is approved for benefits after the referee hearing and the severance and pension determinations have already been handled on the original claim, all of those determinations would carry over to the new claim under "res judicata", as in UC nor the claimant gets a second bite at the apple because those issues were adjudicated on the original claim and there is no new separation, but rather the claimant is just exercising his right to cancel the original claim and file a new claim after a "quarter change" which just happened on 10/2/16 and to ensure he doesn't screw himself out of benefits.

To pull this off, he needs to make sure he doesn't claim and receive any weeks of benefits on the original claim, which shouldn't be too hard. He also needs to speak to a UC interviewer the week of 12/19 to 12/23, state he wants to cancel the claim and fax a signed and dated later to whichever UC Service Center he was speaking with and then filing the new claim the week beginning 12/25.

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by DupontCoalKracker

He should not withdraw the appeal, and should not cancel the claim YET.

He can cancel that claim later as long as he has not received a benefit payment from it.

If he is approved for benefits after the referee hearing and the severance and pension determinations have already been handled on the original claim, all of those determinations would carry over to the new claim under "res judicata", as in UC nor the claimant gets a second bite at the apple because those issues were adjudicated on the original claim and there is no new separation, but rather the claimant is just exercising his right to cancel the original claim and file a new claim after a "quarter change" which just happened on 10/2/16 and to ensure he doesn't screw himself out of benefits.

To pull this off, he needs to make sure he doesn't claim and receive any weeks of benefits on the original claim, which shouldn't be too hard.

He also needs to speak to a UC interviewer the week of 12/19 to 12/23, state he wants to cancel the claim and fax a signed and dated later to whichever UC Service Center he was speaking with and then filing the new claim the week beginning 12/25.

DCK, thanks so much for the detailed response.

[JAS987]

Wouldn't it be easier if the uc would just have the remaining funds be extended into the following year, without having to go and cancel the original claim just to file a new one. Why do they not have an automatic extension. Why do they not use a possible tier when if a claim is approved after an appeal so the claimant can receive all the funds due him or her. If a claim is cancelled and redone , could you end up in the 49.5 rule that you have too much money in one quarter due to severance which could cancel out the new claim? I understand that with a severance and a pension it changes the format of how the payments are done but if an appeal is also in the mix , it would be nice if that would extend the timeline of the benefits.

[JAS987]

I went to a base period website and I entered my filing date for december 2016 and saw my quarters as :4th quarter would be jul-sept 2015: quarter 3 is oct - dec 2015 : quarter 2 is jan -mar 2016 and quarter 1 apr-june 2016, /// jul -sept 2016 excluded. Thank you for your input DupontCoalKracker.