If you received $1,000 bi-weekly/$2,000 per month in

unemployment insurance, would you take a job that pays less than that before your benefit runs out?

Saw something on the news here in California about a man who said he turned down a job for now at COSTCO, because it pays less than what he's getting in unemployment.

The Costco job, at $11 per hour comes out to #1,760 per month .. more than $200 less than he's getting from the state.

He said he'd rather spend the days looking for work that pays better.

I can't say I blame him. :shrug:

Nobody can live on that...

Here in Georgia it is $325. Of course, no one could live on $275 weekly in Florida. But in Georgia, it is possible to live on $325 because I know several people who are doing it. It's hard, but doable.

I'd say. I don't know how people do it.

In Nevada, the max on UI is a mere $393, and I could never survive given the outrageous rent if I had taxes taken out, so I am going to pay through the nose at the end of the tax year.

effect.

I don't know how many states have adjusted their unemployment benefits payout, but in California, it's jumped from the $450 (aslisted in the article) to $500 per week.

Date: March 3, 2009 News Release No: 09-10

Californians Receiving Unemployment to See Additional $25 in Federal Economic Stimulus Money Added to Benefit Checks

SACRAMENTO – The state Employment Development Department (EDD) today began sending recipients of Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits an additional $25 a week in payments authorized and paid for by federal economic stimulus legislation signed into law in Washington D.C. two weeks ago.

The extra $25 is being added automatically to weekly benefit amounts so UI claimants do not need to contact EDD. The first eligible week for the stimulus payments ended February 28 and claimants are receiving the additional benefits this week.

It’s estimated that close to a million unemployed workers in California are currently collecting regular UI, federal extension, or Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) benefits. Over the next two weeks they will see an extra $25 - $50 on their benefit checks depending on whether their two-week certification period began before or during the first eligible week for stimulus payments.

UI recipients will receive the supplemental $25 per week payments added to their regular benefit checks regardless of the amount of their regular weekly benefits. Current benefits range from $40 to $450 a week, depending on their prior earnings when employed.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/About_EDD/pdf/nwsrel09-10.pdf


To make it perfectly clear: if you got $50, it's a one-time "catch-up" payment.

The increase is $25/wk. $475, max.

so generous i'm sure it would stop someone used to making much more than that from taking work when the ue rate is over 10%.

Then I'm not sure why the guy said he was getting $500.

500 dollars seemed like a lot more than most states paid.

insurance.

Let's see, in 2002 I was getting a little over $300 a week, and that was 7 years ago. It's unbelievable that they think people can live off that in Florida (or anywhere else, for that matter).

is that they would have to raise it to some (higher) federal level, and keep it there.
That is one of the objections that many of the southern governors (but not Crist) have.

he was employed. I recon it would depend on what job he was looking for, his age, his education...etc etc etc!

What are the health benefits? Are there matching 401k funds available? An FSA account?

With jobs so hard to come by, I think this guy is a major asshole, seriously. The unemployment will run out eventually; there are likely raises involved with taking a job like this, not to mention the afore-mentioned benifits.

Total compensation is key.

to work for. Their employees can actually afford the employer based health insurance!

The people there seem pretty happy, and they get to move large quantities of stuff around, drive forklifts, etc.

even when the person was having a very bad day (like in the pharmacy when 2 people had called in sick). People seem genuinely pleased to be working there.

Knowing they're not being robbed by a CEO is probably part of it.

He works front end, and not only has to quickly and gently throw place people's items in their cart .. he has to spend hours gathering and pushing rows of shopping carts in the parking lot.

He's up to a "whopping" $12 per hour now, and still has to depend on his parents to send him Target and grocery store gift cards now and then to help exist.

The store is always packed, too.. I would hate that job.

now the government is paying 60% of that thanks to the stimulus package.

He's totally breaking the law?? I don't know whether it's a law that you have to accept any work you're offered or whether it's "just" being dishonest.

So you're saying you'd accept the lesser paying job?

And BTW, with the way the economy is ... many companies have frozen salaries, which means no raises.

Not defending him .. just presenting facts.

especially if his last job had a high-priced plan.

he's free to make his own choices- but i'd think twice about passing it up, unless he's confident that he can get something comparable or better before his unemployment runs out

It is rather dishonest, however, to apply for a job knowing full well what the pay is and then turning down said job.

Do you know what 40% of the cost of health care benefits are?

to make a concerted effort to find work--ANY work, so that basically means you have to apply for any work that you can do.

There's nothing dishonest about it.

In California, it would be cause for you to lose your benefits, plain and simple.

You eligibility ends when you are offered a job. That is IF they find out about it.

You are given a time (usually about 1/3 of the length of your claim) during which you can turn down any job that pays less than your highest base period job or uses less than the highest skill you used in your base period.

Federal law.

The trick is not to get offered jobs you don't want.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/UIBDG/Suitable_Work_SW_5.htm

can't imagine it didn't have one in 1994 but I don't know for sure. I work in the unemployment office in Utah and we've had a suitable work law forever.

An Administrative Law Judge decided that the position I had turned down was suitable for me because once upon a time much earlier in my career I had done similar work, and neither he nor any of the appellate swine would hear otherwise from me.

The jackass ALJ left the door open to a busy hallway during my "hearing". He also answered the phone several times, and allowed someone to walk in and interrupt a few times more.

in fact, I'm the last level appeal for unemployment claims (I review the decisions of the ALJs) and you want ppl like me in this position. I award benefits whenever I can under the law. Most of our office is like that. (Dems, liberals). Who'd of thunk in Utah.

If California (or any state) does that too often they will get sanctioned by the feds. The feds review a sample of our decisions quarterly and if we don't pass, we get threats (we've always passed).

:rofl:

Thanks for the reply, and it's good to hear there are some decent people in government somewhere.

sometimes I wanna say "listen, I'm a godless commie pinko, if I could help you, I would." But I don't.

Same in California.

and I ended up living under a bridge with no job.

It happened to me once. I got penalized several weeks of UI benefits because I turned down a job and was foolish enough to disclose to the EDD that I had done so.

I appealed the decision, and lost, lost at appeal, and lost on final appeal.

But the EDD was so poorly managed, they sent me my checks anyway. I never paid them back, they never asked for it back, and I'll be damned if I ever answer that question (Were you offered any work this week?) honestly again.

first place? LOL

You sign the form, affirming under penalty of perjury that you are telling the truth.

My policy going forward since that incident has been to make sure that any place I don't want to work does not actually extend me a written offer of employment. There are plenty of ways to get them not to.

they have to find you, and it has to be suitable work (if you're a lawyer, they can't force you to take a job as a pizza delivery person until near the end of your claim period, you can hold out for a time). Fraud penalties are as much as 100% of the benefit amount which means you pay back double what you got. You're better to admit you turned down the job and argue it was not suitable work.

I haven't had to use any kind of deceit. I just make sure I don't interview my best for any place where I get a bad feeling or the money isn't worth it.

You're better to admit you turned down the job and argue it was not suitable work.

That is precisely what I did in 1994 - The work wasn't suitable, the pay was substantially lower than my previous position. I still got penalized.

I do not expect someone accustomed to making a decent salary as an IT person to accept a job cooking at Whammy Burger.

you are clever, you can buy a house you can't afford and when faced with foreclosure get the sucker who is working hard each day and living in substandard housing to pay off your debt.

I wish that was sarcasm but I've met several people who fit that description.

:hi:

:shrug: To get that, one's earnings had to be a lot higher than that ... for a decent length of time, too.

eventually the benefits will run out, and he may not be able to find work at all. Take the available job and look for a better one.

Your UI claim remains open while you are working.

You're not allowed to turn down work while on unemployment.

I can't say for sure what their policy would dictate now, but in 1994 they would cut you off for turning down ANY job that paid state minimum wage or higher.

something to that effect. So it most certainly would constitute fraud if he lied in answering that question.

The guy's a liar anyway because it's impossible to get 2000 dollars a month on unemployment in California.

some people.

So I won't judge .. especially since most people on unemployment have helped pay for the benefit through payroll deductions.

You can't collect until you have worked. Your benefit is based on what you earned during your best quarter of the year that ended six months prior to your filing date.

since I don't know how it works in other states.

But thanks for the clarification!

You can bet he will be called to a hearing asap.

Where there's a will, I guess there a way for the state finding out who he is.

And if they try to get it from the reporter, that could turn into a big court case of the reporter promised the man she wouldn't use his name.

You can get in serious trouble for turning down a job while on unemployment.

However, as they say, looking for a job is a full time job.

One could argue, if you only have time to look for work on your two days off, it might take you many times as long to find employment instead of searching five days a week.

And the quicker you find work, the faster you're off unemployment, saving the state money.

Dude could work evenings and job search during the day. It can be done.

Another thing is that it is good to get off of unemployment as soon as possible, before you exhaust your benefits... because if you need them again before they've replenished, you're pretty fucked.

if you start unemployment (say today 3/31) and you're on it for only two months, and have a lot of case left under your eligibility ... you'd have to wait until 3/31/10 to file again.

If COSTCO laid you off in June .. you'd not have unemployment until spring of 2010.

Maybe that was part of his thought process.

As for working nights .. yea I suppose that's an option if you're offered that flexibility. I don't know how it works.

If you take the first job offered and get laid off within a couple months, you're completely SOL??

WOW, if so, that's obscene.

I'd like to see that somewhere.

but i could be mistaken

At least in Oregon it was that way.....

Just curious.

In NYS the Max was 409 -- before the stim increase, here in Georgia it is 330 (with the stim increase)

It might be an aside, but it seems as those states that have higher income taxes actually have higher unemployment insurance payments.

payout is $475 per week (up $25 from $450 thanks to stimulus).

I don't know where the guy on the news came up with the $2,000 figure, unless he was rounding up.

unemployment office, and the lower paying job at least offered a chance for advancement.

Didn't see it on their page but along with everything else if he's eligible for employee discounts on food & in-store merchandise he'd make up that difference easily oh well...each to his/her own http://www.costco.com/Service/FeaturePageLeftNav.aspx?ProductNo=10045087

You do not have to accept a job that pays less than 70% of your gross income of your old job. If I was on UI in MI, I would not take a job paying less than this percentage unless I was nearing the end of benefits OR I really wanted the job for particular reasons.

There are other reasons you can turn down jobs as well. Call it what you want, but I won't take a McJob unless I damn well have to...

Until your benfits are about to run out. That's how I would proceed anyway.
I suppose though that it is possible that he applied to be a manager or something and was offered an entry level, low skill job instead.
If he made much more than that before, it is probably hard psychologically to work for that. I know that I have a dollar amount in mind that I'd either have to be ridiculously desperate to work for or that the job actually was more like a hobby and I didn't really need the money.

Here's my "unsuitable job" story that led to me getting sanctioned by the California EDD. I'll keep it short 'cause I'm on a tight schedule.

After getting laid off of a position in which I was a network and Novell NetWare systems administrator, I saw a job posting for a NetWare admin at a small business in San Diego. The company wrote software for use by police officers in the field, using laptop computers to create incident reports, arrest forms, etc. I sent them my resume with a nice cover letter.

I showed up 15 minutes before my scheduled interview. There were two other men already there, waiting to be interviewed. The guy who owned the company had scheduled interviews for three people at the same time. The three of us exchanged glances, shook our heads, and chuckled quietly. One of them said "That's Strike One."

We agreed to interview in the order in which we had arrived, so I was last.

During the interview, it became clear that the owner must have had two people up and quit on him - A systems administrator and an administrative assistant. Probably both family members from what I could glean. The job I was interviewing for would not be just taking care of computer systems. Other duties included faxing, filing, taking dictation (!), greeting visitors, and answering the main office phone. The guy wanted a receptionist who knew NetWare.

My bad feeling became worse when the guy mentioned that his son had applied to go to the University of Southern California as an undergraduate, but he had refused to allow it because USC was "too liberal".

I told the guy that I was a Democrat, that he had unreasonable expectations for the position, and that he was wasting my time. I stood up and walked out. I did not send a thank-you letter or follow up in any way.

Much to my shock, I received in the mail an offer of employment from him a few days later. The pay was ridiculously low. I did not respond.

When I filled out my Continued Claim form, I answered honestly that I had received an offer of employment and refused it. The EDD promptly cut off my benefits. I filed an appeal, which started my benefits back up (they pay you until all appeals are exhausted). But the stream of paperwork for benefits with an outstanding appeal was a manual process, separate from the semi-automated forms used for a standard continued claim.

At the end of the process the EDD declared that I was to be sanctioned and penalized five weeks of benefits, or about $1,300. But a few days after receiving that letter, I got an offer of employment that was acceptable. I took it, and stopped my UI claim. They never came after me for the money that I supposedly owed them.

I don't feel bad about keeping the money. The appeals process was a joke. I felt I was entitled to refuse that job.

"If you received $1,000 bi-weekly/$2,000 per month in unemployment insurance, would you take a job that pays less than that before your benefit runs out?"

Absolutely. I'd feel much more honorable and honest about myself were I to continue looking for work after I'd found and begun an entry-level position rather than lying.

And that's precisely what happened when I was fired in Jan of 2002-- I collected UI until I found the first job to hire me a month later, was hired on (for much less than my UI was), kept looking for work after being hired on, and found one-- still here too. On the other hand, except when I was much younger (and hence, much more stupid), I haven't really considered myself "too good" for any honest work.

for you could NOT live on it, and minimum wage jobs pay far less than UI maximum. If you can't make it on low wages, you either have to apply for a second job or quit, or somehow find something paying more, which takes a lot of time and energy.

And remember, if you quit, you are ineligible for UI.

I *did* take minimum wage work-- three months of it. Yet I kept applying for higher paying jobs-- one of which I eventually got. And I stayed honest throughout the entire ordeal-- and that was the most important thing to me.

I'm not going to judge anyone else for lying or cheating to the Unemployment Office for benefits-- but I will judge myself.

I'm also right now not applying for jobs like Costco or Wal-Mart, either. I'm sticking to professional jobs.

I'd rather have the job. EDD doesn't pay health or retirement benefits.

This guy's an ass.

the market is the guy would probably be better off taking the job than rolling the dice that he will find a better job.