Aa
Just for fun: Would you take a job that paid less than unemployment benefits?
Would you take a job that paid less than unemployment benefits? Now lets all be honest! lol
Your situation is the norm, that is the problem. I have never been on it at all, so I would not know how to act to get paid to stay home! LOL Im self employed so if I work I get paid, if I dont, I dont. NOT FAIR! lol
Here in Australia you just get paid maternity leave,it isn't classed as unemployment or disability,I believe unemployment benefits are too easy to get in Australia,we have people on unemployment for years it's ridiculous,they are called "long term unemployed"I call them "dole bludgers"very Aussie term.
I have done volunteer work for most of my life,because I chose to be a stay at home mum and did get some benefits from our government for making that choice,I decided to do volunteer work in the government sector,ie: schools,sporting facilities,Mental Health and charity work.I could choose my hours and always be there for my children.
My husband was laid off from his jeweler's position and received unemployment as our only source of income for 3 weeks...then he took on a part-time job that still remained below the limit to qualify so we received supplemental unemployment (which is less) for another month...we wouldn't have survived without it. we were on it for our daughter's first Christmas and I will forever be grateful that he had paid so much into unemployment (along with his employer)...because all of our savings had been eaten away when she was born buying big items.
But the reason I mention it is because...if your job makes SIGNIFICANTLY less than your unemployment and you're part-time (I think it has to be less than 20 hours a week), you can still qualify for unemployment....which is a bizarre system, but it helped us survive. We didn't get any government assistance either..and believe me, it was tough. But I answered "it would depend on the job" for me....because some jobs choke opportunity (like has been mentioned already by several posters) while some may be initially low-paying (like my husband's current job was) but have nearly infinite possibilities for the future...so it all depends. whatever puts food on my family's table....morals don't mean a lot when your babies are hungry.
But the reason I mention it is because...if your job makes SIGNIFICANTLY less than your unemployment and you're part-time (I think it has to be less than 20 hours a week), you can still qualify for unemployment....which is a bizarre system, but it helped us survive. We didn't get any government assistance either..and believe me, it was tough. But I answered "it would depend on the job" for me....because some jobs choke opportunity (like has been mentioned already by several posters) while some may be initially low-paying (like my husband's current job was) but have nearly infinite possibilities for the future...so it all depends. whatever puts food on my family's table....morals don't mean a lot when your babies are hungry.
Here is a summary of how it works in the US
Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law EncyclopediaThis entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
Insurance benefits paid by the state or federal government to individuals who are involuntarily out of work in order to provide them with necessities, such as food, clothing, and shelter.
Unemployment compensation for U.S. workers was established by the federal Social Security Act of 1935 (42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.). Unemployment insurance provides workers who have lost their job through no fault of their own with monetary payments for a given period of time or until they find a new job. This compensation is designed to give an unemployed worker time to find a new job equivalent to the one lost without major financial distress. Unemployment compensation is also justified as a way to provide the U.S. economy with consumer spending during an economic downturn.
The mass unemployment during the Great Depression of the 1930s led to the enactment of the federal unemployment compensation law. States had resisted establishing their own unemployment compensation plans because the first states to tax employers to fund such a plan would lose business and jobs to other states. Therefore, a federal program was needed. Much of the federal plan was implemented under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act of 1935 (26 U.S.C.A. § 3301 et seq.). A combination of federal and state taxes is levied on employers to fund state-administered programs that meet minimum federal standards. Federal funds are also used for administrative costs and to set up employment offices that attempt to match workers with new jobs.
In general, a tax on employers provides the funds to pay unemployment compensation. An employer who has more than a specified minimum number of employees is ordinarily required to file regular reports that disclose the number of employees and the amount of their wages, including tips. A standard or basic rate is charged against the employer based on the amount of wages paid. If the employer does not lay off employees, the employer will be entitled to a credit. An employer's record is unaffected if an employee quits or is discharged for good cause. An employer of eight or more persons is permitted to subtract what she pays to the state unemployment compensation fund from her federal unemployment tax.
Each state establishes which employers are obligated to pay state unemployment taxes. Ordinarily a state will require payment of the tax from every individual, partnership, or corporation that pays wages to a specified minimum number of people to do work. Certain types of employment are excluded from mandated coverage, including some agricultural labor, some charitable or nonprofit work, and some government work. In addition, individuals who are self-employed are not entitled to unemployment compensation.
Any individual who qualifies under the terms of the state unemployment compensation law is entitled to collect benefits. To be eligible, an individual must have worked for a certain minimum number of weeks and earned wages in at least the amount set by state law. Certain states will pay reduced benefits where part-time work provides only a small amount of money.
Unemployment compensation is paid for a certain number of weeks. However, during economic recessions the federal government has provided emergency assistance to allow states to extend the time during which individuals can receive benefits. The states are allowed to use money they have deposited in special accounts of the federal Unemployment Trust Fund. For a state to use this emergency benefit system, the unemployment rate usually must reach a designated percentage within the state or the country.
An unemployed worker is not required to submit proof that he needs money or that he has no other means of support. Anyone who qualifies has a right to collect benefits because payments are designed to replace part of the wages lost during temporary periods of unemployment. Severance pay does not necessarily preclude payment of benefits, but some state laws treat it as earnings for the amount of time such payments cover and do not allow payment of unemployment compensation until that time has expired. Accumulated vacation time, vacation pay, or a leave of absence also serve to postpone or prevent the payment of benefits.
Ordinarily, state unemployment compensation statutes provide benefits for those who are unemployed because of their employer's inability to provide work for them. An employee who is discharged may receive benefits unless he was discharged for good cause. Good cause for discharge usually is related to recent misconduct on the job. Misconduct in private life or during off-duty hours may constitute good cause for firing an employee if it affects the person's work. Carelessness, disregard for the employer's interest, intoxication, the use of illegal drugs, illegal work slowdowns, use of abusive language, absenteeism, and habitual lateness can be reasons for a discharge and denial of unemployment benefits. A person denied benefits may appeal this determination, first to a state administrative office and then to a court of law.
An unemployed worker is required to be available for work. This means that the person must actively seek a new job while collecting benefits. In cases where it appears that the person is not willing and able to work, she has no right to receive unemployment compensation. Workers who leave a job to find a better job or to attend school are not eligible for benefits. An individual who is too ill to work, who has no means of transportation, or who refuses to accept more than a small amount of work to avoid forfeiting retirement benefits is not regarded as being available for work. Employees who are on strike generally cannot collect unemployment compensation. However, a few states do provide some benefits. Individuals in such circumstances may qualify for other types of government aid, but they are not eligible for unemployment benefits.
A state may not discriminate because of gender or religious beliefs in the awarding of unemployment compensation. In Wimberly v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 479 U.S. 511, 107 S. Ct. 821, 93 L. Ed. 2d 909 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no person may be denied compensation solely on the basis of pregnancy or the termination of pregnancy. The Court, in Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 480 U.S. 136, 107 S. Ct. 1046, 94 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1987), held that a state may not deny unemployment benefits to a worker who is discharged for refusing to work because of religious beliefs that he or she adopted after becoming employed.
A state cannot assume that a parent who is responsible for the care of small children is unavailable for work. When a person applies for unemployment compensation, the decision to grant or deny the claim must be based on whether the applicant is actually willing and able to work but is involuntarily unemployed.
An individual who is out of work is given no guarantee that she will find an attractive and convenient job. If jobs are available, even outside the person's local area, she is required to find one. An individual is not, however, disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation merely because she has recently moved, except in cases where no employment is available in the new locality. An unemployed worker cannot decline to accept a new job because he does not like the wages or hours. A person who refuses to accept a job is no longer entitled to receive unemployment compensation if the job is reasonable and suited to his skills.
Federal law (42 U.S.C.A. § 351 et seq.) provides unemployment compensation for railroad workers who lose their jobs.
Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law EncyclopediaThis entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
Insurance benefits paid by the state or federal government to individuals who are involuntarily out of work in order to provide them with necessities, such as food, clothing, and shelter.
Unemployment compensation for U.S. workers was established by the federal Social Security Act of 1935 (42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.). Unemployment insurance provides workers who have lost their job through no fault of their own with monetary payments for a given period of time or until they find a new job. This compensation is designed to give an unemployed worker time to find a new job equivalent to the one lost without major financial distress. Unemployment compensation is also justified as a way to provide the U.S. economy with consumer spending during an economic downturn.
The mass unemployment during the Great Depression of the 1930s led to the enactment of the federal unemployment compensation law. States had resisted establishing their own unemployment compensation plans because the first states to tax employers to fund such a plan would lose business and jobs to other states. Therefore, a federal program was needed. Much of the federal plan was implemented under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act of 1935 (26 U.S.C.A. § 3301 et seq.). A combination of federal and state taxes is levied on employers to fund state-administered programs that meet minimum federal standards. Federal funds are also used for administrative costs and to set up employment offices that attempt to match workers with new jobs.
In general, a tax on employers provides the funds to pay unemployment compensation. An employer who has more than a specified minimum number of employees is ordinarily required to file regular reports that disclose the number of employees and the amount of their wages, including tips. A standard or basic rate is charged against the employer based on the amount of wages paid. If the employer does not lay off employees, the employer will be entitled to a credit. An employer's record is unaffected if an employee quits or is discharged for good cause. An employer of eight or more persons is permitted to subtract what she pays to the state unemployment compensation fund from her federal unemployment tax.
Each state establishes which employers are obligated to pay state unemployment taxes. Ordinarily a state will require payment of the tax from every individual, partnership, or corporation that pays wages to a specified minimum number of people to do work. Certain types of employment are excluded from mandated coverage, including some agricultural labor, some charitable or nonprofit work, and some government work. In addition, individuals who are self-employed are not entitled to unemployment compensation.
Any individual who qualifies under the terms of the state unemployment compensation law is entitled to collect benefits. To be eligible, an individual must have worked for a certain minimum number of weeks and earned wages in at least the amount set by state law. Certain states will pay reduced benefits where part-time work provides only a small amount of money.
Unemployment compensation is paid for a certain number of weeks. However, during economic recessions the federal government has provided emergency assistance to allow states to extend the time during which individuals can receive benefits. The states are allowed to use money they have deposited in special accounts of the federal Unemployment Trust Fund. For a state to use this emergency benefit system, the unemployment rate usually must reach a designated percentage within the state or the country.
An unemployed worker is not required to submit proof that he needs money or that he has no other means of support. Anyone who qualifies has a right to collect benefits because payments are designed to replace part of the wages lost during temporary periods of unemployment. Severance pay does not necessarily preclude payment of benefits, but some state laws treat it as earnings for the amount of time such payments cover and do not allow payment of unemployment compensation until that time has expired. Accumulated vacation time, vacation pay, or a leave of absence also serve to postpone or prevent the payment of benefits.
Ordinarily, state unemployment compensation statutes provide benefits for those who are unemployed because of their employer's inability to provide work for them. An employee who is discharged may receive benefits unless he was discharged for good cause. Good cause for discharge usually is related to recent misconduct on the job. Misconduct in private life or during off-duty hours may constitute good cause for firing an employee if it affects the person's work. Carelessness, disregard for the employer's interest, intoxication, the use of illegal drugs, illegal work slowdowns, use of abusive language, absenteeism, and habitual lateness can be reasons for a discharge and denial of unemployment benefits. A person denied benefits may appeal this determination, first to a state administrative office and then to a court of law.
An unemployed worker is required to be available for work. This means that the person must actively seek a new job while collecting benefits. In cases where it appears that the person is not willing and able to work, she has no right to receive unemployment compensation. Workers who leave a job to find a better job or to attend school are not eligible for benefits. An individual who is too ill to work, who has no means of transportation, or who refuses to accept more than a small amount of work to avoid forfeiting retirement benefits is not regarded as being available for work. Employees who are on strike generally cannot collect unemployment compensation. However, a few states do provide some benefits. Individuals in such circumstances may qualify for other types of government aid, but they are not eligible for unemployment benefits.
A state may not discriminate because of gender or religious beliefs in the awarding of unemployment compensation. In Wimberly v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 479 U.S. 511, 107 S. Ct. 821, 93 L. Ed. 2d 909 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no person may be denied compensation solely on the basis of pregnancy or the termination of pregnancy. The Court, in Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 480 U.S. 136, 107 S. Ct. 1046, 94 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1987), held that a state may not deny unemployment benefits to a worker who is discharged for refusing to work because of religious beliefs that he or she adopted after becoming employed.
A state cannot assume that a parent who is responsible for the care of small children is unavailable for work. When a person applies for unemployment compensation, the decision to grant or deny the claim must be based on whether the applicant is actually willing and able to work but is involuntarily unemployed.
An individual who is out of work is given no guarantee that she will find an attractive and convenient job. If jobs are available, even outside the person's local area, she is required to find one. An individual is not, however, disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation merely because she has recently moved, except in cases where no employment is available in the new locality. An unemployed worker cannot decline to accept a new job because he does not like the wages or hours. A person who refuses to accept a job is no longer entitled to receive unemployment compensation if the job is reasonable and suited to his skills.
Federal law (42 U.S.C.A. § 351 et seq.) provides unemployment compensation for railroad workers who lose their jobs.
Here is is unemployment. We can use it to take one year maternity leave...in fact here that is the norm. Our employer has to guarantee our job back, and we use UI to pay us to take the time off for a baby Everyone gets 50 weeks. It is the law and standard practice in Canada...in most countries actually.
I am not taking it as an attack at all. Things are a bit different here and the cost of living in all Canadian cities is actually significantly higher then most of the US. However, those are where the jobs are, so you are kind of caught unless you are in farming or something. Keep in mind though, our average salaries are higher, so there is some compensation, but overall our cost of living is still higher.
Again, no attack taken, but please understand, we are fairly intelligent people. My husband is an accountant and excellent with money and we spend an awful lot of time planning. For us to go to a smaller less expensive community, our income would drop more then we would be compensated if that makes sense. It's just the way it is here.
You are correct that UI is matched by employers, but still, I can assure you I have paid far more in then I have ever taken out. I don't think most people on UI want to be (unless it's my situation, again maternity leave), but don't have a choice. Families have to be fed.
Anyway, this is a different country, so perhaps things are quite different in the US. But that is just the way it is here.
I am not taking it as an attack at all. Things are a bit different here and the cost of living in all Canadian cities is actually significantly higher then most of the US. However, those are where the jobs are, so you are kind of caught unless you are in farming or something. Keep in mind though, our average salaries are higher, so there is some compensation, but overall our cost of living is still higher.
Again, no attack taken, but please understand, we are fairly intelligent people. My husband is an accountant and excellent with money and we spend an awful lot of time planning. For us to go to a smaller less expensive community, our income would drop more then we would be compensated if that makes sense. It's just the way it is here.
You are correct that UI is matched by employers, but still, I can assure you I have paid far more in then I have ever taken out. I don't think most people on UI want to be (unless it's my situation, again maternity leave), but don't have a choice. Families have to be fed.
Anyway, this is a different country, so perhaps things are quite different in the US. But that is just the way it is here.
adgal are you on unemployment or disability? There is a difference here unemployment is not for being off due to an illness and that is what maternity leave classified as here. If I chose to live somewhere the housing cost was that high I'd make sure I had skills that I could get a job that met my financial needs quickly. Unless there was one income bringing home $200,000 no way would I by a $400,000 house, but that is me. Please don’t take this as an attack I truly don’t mean it that way, I am just saying we always need to plan ahead and do what if thinking.
Unemployment is not something paid by the individual either it is in essence a tax on the company that the employee works for and is subsidized by the general tax paying population if the fund runs low.
Unemployment is not something paid by the individual either it is in essence a tax on the company that the employee works for and is subsidized by the general tax paying population if the fund runs low.
Its the same thing here...you can only utilize it for being laid off or job ends, not for quitting or getting fired (as long as it's for cause). It's just in addition to that we can utilize it if we have a baby. Either parent can. I am certain you don't have the maternity or parental leave option there.
It's the same rules though...you have to have paid into it for X amount of time, can only stay on it for 50 weeks maximum and can only access it according to how long you paid into it. So if I had another baby right now, I would not get another year paid. I would have to go back to work for a certain amount of time to qualify again. And regardless of the circumstances you find yourself on it, it barely pays the bills..certainly no luxery items.
I too would much rather see people accessing this until they find a job that does pay the bills. Otherwise, you know they will wind up on further social assistance simply because they cannot pay the bills.
It's the same rules though...you have to have paid into it for X amount of time, can only stay on it for 50 weeks maximum and can only access it according to how long you paid into it. So if I had another baby right now, I would not get another year paid. I would have to go back to work for a certain amount of time to qualify again. And regardless of the circumstances you find yourself on it, it barely pays the bills..certainly no luxery items.
I too would much rather see people accessing this until they find a job that does pay the bills. Otherwise, you know they will wind up on further social assistance simply because they cannot pay the bills.
I had 1 unemployment claim my whole life. One of the worst situations of my life. Briefly...was unemplyed for 2 weeks, looking for work. Nothing good was coming of it, so I wnet and applied for unemployment. As soon as I got my first check, (which by the way did little in assisting in getting the bills paid) I was interviewed for a management position with a national chain.
Interviewee explained that I was over qualified for the position, simply because of experience. I explained in detail how me being over qualified, and my work ethic would be beneficial to their company.
In short, they offered me a job making 50% of what I had made in the years prior. Essentially, it was going to cost me and my family money every day. Instead of bringing home any money, we were going to be $18 in the hole every day if I took this position. Because I declined the position, I got my benefits dropped.
Financially, I needed to pay the bills and this was going to ruin me. It was going to cost me and my wife $18 per day for me to have that job, and paying money to someone just to have a job is bull-butter.
Interviewee explained that I was over qualified for the position, simply because of experience. I explained in detail how me being over qualified, and my work ethic would be beneficial to their company.
In short, they offered me a job making 50% of what I had made in the years prior. Essentially, it was going to cost me and my family money every day. Instead of bringing home any money, we were going to be $18 in the hole every day if I took this position. Because I declined the position, I got my benefits dropped.
Financially, I needed to pay the bills and this was going to ruin me. It was going to cost me and my wife $18 per day for me to have that job, and paying money to someone just to have a job is bull-butter.
You get unemployment for being without work over here. Not sure if you can draw it on maternity leave here, someone else will probably know that better than I. However, it is generally given in the instance of layoff, or your job ends, not if your fired. So thru no fault of the workers own and in a recession where masses of jobs have gone overseas, leaving a large group of people unqualified for certain positions that are hiring and then the mcdonalds type of positions that do not pay the bills. (Those dont change just cause you get laid off), and unless I am mistaken, you health benefits at risk, I can certainly understand people staying on it as long as they need to (within reason) until they get back to work. I would rather thy draw on what they paid in and recieve those benefits, rather than be on medicaid where we are paying all their expenses. Nor do I believe that someone should sell things they worked hard for and will never get their money back from, unless it is a do or die situation. IMO only. Fortunately I have not had to worry about it since I am self employed.
I should clarify though...if it was welfare, it's a completely different story. I would do anything before I would take tax payer money. Unemployment is something I have paid into my entire working life and never taken a dime of...so I consider it insurance for just this type of event. It's like any other type of insurance...I pay the premiums so no guilt in using it to do what it was intended to do. That's why we have it.
Welfare is different. I think there needs to be far stricter guidelines around it, and far more limitations.
Welfare is different. I think there needs to be far stricter guidelines around it, and far more limitations.
I have to disagree with making it 4-6 weeks. In an economy where there are jobs available its one thing, but right now, that unemployment cheque can make the difference between eating or living in a card board box for some.
I am currently on unemployment while on Maternity Leave. Let me tell you, there are no big screen tv's or luxery items in my life. It's food, keeping a roof over our heads and feeding my baby. I dont know how it works in the US, but here we get $1600 a month or 60% of our income, whichever is less. In a city where average house prices are $400K, that is not a lot of money. No way I could do this without a husband who works. If I were a single parent I would be on the streets. So to take a job that paid less then that, well that's great if I live in a shelter. It' s not everyone that is all about the luxery items. We can't lump everyone in under the same umbrella.
I am currently on unemployment while on Maternity Leave. Let me tell you, there are no big screen tv's or luxery items in my life. It's food, keeping a roof over our heads and feeding my baby. I dont know how it works in the US, but here we get $1600 a month or 60% of our income, whichever is less. In a city where average house prices are $400K, that is not a lot of money. No way I could do this without a husband who works. If I were a single parent I would be on the streets. So to take a job that paid less then that, well that's great if I live in a shelter. It' s not everyone that is all about the luxery items. We can't lump everyone in under the same umbrella.
I think that the extension of unemployment benefits are a huge disserves to the individual and the country.
I personally think they should be for 4-6 weeks, it is up to each of us to maintain “sellable” skills. I also think that there should be NO job so far beneath us that we wouldn’t do it to keep a roof over our heads and food in our belly. Big screen TVs, cable with 42 movie channels and a cell phone are all luxury items that if you can afford you can do without.
I personally think they should be for 4-6 weeks, it is up to each of us to maintain “sellable” skills. I also think that there should be NO job so far beneath us that we wouldn’t do it to keep a roof over our heads and food in our belly. Big screen TVs, cable with 42 movie channels and a cell phone are all luxury items that if you can afford you can do without.
Do you know one of the most depressed and insecure groups of people are those who inherit wealth? Psychologically speaking it is better to EARN your money. So depending on the job----------if it lead to something better and offered benefits that off set the loss of income to the unemployment pay out OR if it did not preclude me from also looking for a better job . . . then I'd take it.
I voted that it would depend on the job as well. I agree with you, if it was dead end with no future opportunities, I would probably keep looking for something better. It's tough though, because I have never been on unemployment (well, except for maternity leave) and I think it would be hard for me. At the same time, I don't see unemployment as an entitlement...it is insurance I have paid into and if I need it to feed my family while I aggressively look for a job that will pay all the bills, so be it.
Absolutely, on two conditions. There is growth and better income down the road, and if they offered insurance benefits. Absolutely, as long as the man was working too and were not starving! Lotta ifs!
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
