Here is a little more of an “in detail” report of what some of the hubbub is about. One thing I noticed is that the House Bill includes a trillion dollars for state relief so they can pay their first responders; the police, the fire departments etc. Note: Some cities are defunding their police departments. I digress. The House Bill also allows the unemployment money to stay at $600 a week which we have already found out that the allotment that is already in place is more than a lot of the workers normally make hence, they don’t go back to work (nor look for jobs) when the workplace opens back up. People who are not employed do not pay taxes and if there isn’t any tax money it’s hard to pay the fire departments and police departments. Classic case of a (rock and a hard place) The Senate wants to give those who are unemployed because of the CV a reduction to $200 or so to encourage employees to go back to work when the job opens back up but still give them some relief until then. To me, if employees go back to work, they pay state and local taxes and then that state and city can pay their first responders so there’s no need for the extra trillion bucks. Anyway....here’s the article and it’s rather revealing in that it tells at least most of the story. https://www.forbes.com/sites/terina...d-pay-that-you-need-to-know-now/#59ee294c1483
Bobby, in what state when you refuse a call back to a layoff or furlough is that not considered a resignation,being a qualifier for unemployment? I have to lay some one off, I call them back and they refuse, my next call is to Dept. of Labor. Unemployment rate that business pays is related to the frequency of use.
I don’t know about other states, but in both Washington and Idaho , if you were laid off, you were eligible for unemployment right away (after the waiting period of 2-3 weeks). If you quit your job (resigned), or were fired, you were not eligible for unemployment for at least 2-3 months, and then , it depended on the circumstances of why you quit or were fired. While I can totally understand someone not wanting to go back to work if they are making twice as much just sitting at home , I do think that if they refuse to return to work, they should be considered either fired or having quit, and lose the unemployment. I also still think that a person should claim whatever amount they are entitled to if laid off, and then have that amount subsidized depending on what their normal rate of income is. Why should someone making minimum wage at the local cafe or bar be getting as much unemployment compensation as a highly skilled person who made 2-3 times as much when they were working ?
Yvonne answered the question very well but I’d like to add to that. A lot of the employers, especially when it comes to small businesses may not like the fact that their employees are not coming back to work but at the same time, because the employer also sympathizes with the situation, many of them aren’t calling to report them. And, reporting them doesn’t mean that the person is going back to work, it just means that the person no longer qualifies for the $600. Also, even if a person is no longer making that big check doesn’t mean they’re out of a home if they rent because the renter is temporarily protected from being evicted. All that said, I need not go on about it because I’m sure that anyone can see the tangled web of loopholes people will jump through if given the opportunity to do so. I think, but not sure that today is the last day of the $600 unemployment check thing and also the last day of the stay of eviction status that some renters are holding onto. I guess we’ll see what happens next.
Texas, for one. Actually, even worse than that. When I owned an ambulance company, one of our EMTs did not report for work. Since EMS was a close community, we soon learned that he had gone to work for another ambulance company, taking a couple of our regular transfer patients with him. We hired someone else to fill his slot. Then, we get a notice that he has applied for unemployment benefits. We let them know that not only was he not fired or laid off, but he was free to come back to work anytime; and besides that, he wasn't unemployed because he was working for another ambulance company. Nevertheless, they approved his application for benefits. We appealed, and we lost. He continued to work for a rival ambulance company while simultaneously collecting unemployment benefits. Unemployed people who have a reason not to want to go back to work, such as that this would include a reduction in the amount of money they are taking in, can always find reasons not to do so, and we can't depend on common sense from the bureaucrats in charge. It's not their money; they don't care.
Ken, this is really, really weird, but it does happen. It's pretty obvious that there are many people in America collecting government money that definitely shouldn't be.
Then, there are folks, like a friend of ours, that was collecting three types of money (retirement/pension, full social security and UI) and all legally. The UI was from a company that laid him off, social security (his age) and his pension.
Hmmmm. No second stimulus checks in the latest proposal, 12/2/20: https://www.yahoo.com/money/democra...-coronavirus-stimulus-proposal-201334073.html The $908 billion bipartisan proposal the Democratic leaders support has a significantly lower price tag than the $2.2 trillion version of the HEROES Act they were pushing throughout the most recent phase of negotiations. The compromise proposal includes $160 billion for state and local governments, $180 billion for additional unemployment benefits, $288 billion for a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) for small businesses, short-term liability, among other provisions. The proposal doesn’t include a second round of stimulus checks, a provision supported by the White House and Democrats in the previous phase of the stimulus negotiations.
Likee I said with the first one, don't need it. My income stream has not changed a penny since the 'rona came round. We gave away most of the first one to a go fund me for a local diner,a hairdresser, and a vape shop. If we get another will probably do the same.
Do you think your governor is going to pay that from his own checking account? Of course your taxes will go up.