It is causing huge issues with morale in my larger company. People are NOT happy that laid off folks are making more. And yes they should stop getting UI of they refuse to return, but given the flood of applications I can't see that getting checked up on right now.
States are doing absolutely everything they can to lower their own unemployment costs. They are absolutely verifying eligibility, sometimes to the detriment of people getting their IU benefits at all or in a timely manner.
Honestly this sounds like an issue with how your company is handling the situation, not an issue with the unemployment payments, which are a drop in the bucket/bandaid on a bullet wound compared to the real financial needs of people during this time.
It is an issue with how my company is handling it in the sense that for a given job category, some people are still working, some are on layoff, and all layoffs receive full benefits and are temporary. So it is a good deal to get laid off. We could avoid this by being crappier- not giving benefits and doing permanent layoffs.
I don’t have it in me to be confrontational but for God’s sake. Can you not see the cruelty on what you are saying and suggesting? People who took a pay cut are suffering. People who lost their jobs or have indefinite full furlough are suffering. One has a job but less money. The other has no job and more money until July, and only any money at all for like 6 months. These are pretty equal sufferings.
SBA, you have been really upsetting the last few months. I don’t remember you ever saying the things you’ve said, in all these years. Are you well?
I am fine, thanks for asking.
I am asking because I am in a specific situation where for many employees it is better to be laid off. I am not alone in that situation but there are also crummy situations. I would think everyone would be better off if UI was just a higher percentage of income. I now understand it to be for administrative ease.
I hope your parents get good UI. I just think it makes more sense to give them one better UI than crap UI + a bonus that expires.
Being furloughed wasn't a "good deal" for me, personally. Yes, I got UI+$600 which was still a pay cut and my benefits along with some "time off". But it also made me feel/realize I was non-essential and expendable. I worried the whole time that I would not have a job to come back to. If my company could cut me for over a month and be ok with it , how could I be guaranteed they wouldn't just cut me loose? And I found out when I got back that they had those discussions about whether or not to bring everyone back. My position was questioned because I work on a grant and it was one of the ones they weren't sure would pay off. They decided to stick with it and not find another place for me or to let me go and I'm very relieved. But definitely made me realize my concerns were legit and something I still worry about. If I wasn't essential last month will I ever be?
I don’t have it in me to be confrontational but for God’s sake. Can you not see the cruelty on what you are saying and suggesting? People who took a pay cut are suffering. People who lost their jobs or have indefinite full furlough are suffering. One has a job but less money. The other has no job and more money until July, and only any money at all for like 6 months. These are pretty equal sufferings.
SBA, you have been really upsetting the last few months. I don’t remember you ever saying the things you’ve said, in all these years. Are you well?
I am fine, thanks for asking.
I am asking because I am in a specific situation where for many employees it is better to be laid off. I am not alone in that situation but there are also crummy situations. I would think everyone would be better off if UI was just a higher percentage of income. I now understand it to be for administrative ease.
I hope your parents get good UI. I just think it makes more sense to give them one better UI than crap UI + a bonus that expires.
You don’t see there being any benefit to the person who isn’t laid off? What if the company decides these need to be Permanent lay offs? Then what? You are being extremely short sighted.
States are doing absolutely everything they can to lower their own unemployment costs. They are absolutely verifying eligibility, sometimes to the detriment of people getting their IU benefits at all or in a timely manner.
Honestly this sounds like an issue with how your company is handling the situation, not an issue with the unemployment payments, which are a drop in the bucket/bandaid on a bullet wound compared to the real financial needs of people during this time.
It is an issue with how my company is handling it in the sense that for a given job category, some people are still working, some are on layoff, and all layoffs receive full benefits and are temporary. So it is a good deal to get laid off. We could avoid this by being crappier- not giving benefits and doing permanent layoffs.
I scoff at your assumption that the layoffs are truly temporary - if your company has already had to lay-off people they’re in a rough situation and likely won’t recover anytime soon. If they’re just hiring people because their PPP money came in, that money won’t last for long.
Long term I wouldn’t expect those that were laid off to all be hired back or kept on.
Some states have such low max UI that it makes sense. I don't think anyone has a problem with UI getting increased in those states. The issues come in the states that have higher UI.
I think the thought of "why go back to work when you can make UI and $600 a month" is playing right into the GOP playbook (Lindsey Graham). I don't know one person personally, out of everyone I know who has had to go through UI in the last two months, say they don't want to go back to work.
I don't think that the $600 a week solves any problems but I don't think the above thought it as prevalent as people make it out to be.
And if it is a prevalent thought, honestly, shame on anyone who who is begrudging someone who previously made about $20/hr or less and is now unemployed an extra $600/week until July. This is another of those "let the poor fight among themselves over their 1% of the pie while the rich enjoy their 99%" concerns that is played out over and over to distract from the real issues.
I just can’t begrudge anyone money right now. I have all this existential dread and a feeling of doom and NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR MY FAMILY. We are so lucky. So very lucky. I cannot imagine how people in situations that are precarious feel. My H lost his job in early 2009 and it changed our lives. In some ways for the better. In some ways for me personally (when I look outside of our family as a whole and focus on just me), for the worse. So much worse. I don’t dwell on it but my entire life trajectory changed that day so I have so many feelings about people who are experiencing that right now.
I honestly just want the government to open the spigot of money and let it flow. People are suffering so much. People don’t have a choice in many cases and are risking their lives to work. People who are laid off really do not have a guarantee that they’ll be back to work any time soon. A steady paycheck is better than an extra $600 for a few months.
I think the thought of "why go back to work when you can make UI and $600 a month" is playing right into the GOP playbook (Lindsey Graham). I don't know one person personally, out of everyone I know who has had to go through UI in the last two months, say they don't want to go back to work.
I don't think that the $600 a week solves any problems but I don't think the above thought it as prevalent as people make it out to be.
And if it is a prevalent thought, honestly, shame on anyone who who is begrudging someone who previously made about $20/hr or less and is now unemployed an extra $600/week until July. This is another of those "let the poor fight among themselves over their 1% of the pie while the rich enjoy their 99%" concerns that is played out over and over to distract from the real issues.
And the vast, VAST majority of people who are losing their jobs and collecting unemployment do not have access to benefits like health insurance while they are unemployed. They are truly fucked. Truly furloughed people are a tiny minority of cases. The idea that all the unemployed people should be subject to a different set of rules because of how specific workplaces are handling this situation is nuts to me.
I just can’t begrudge anyone money right now. I have all this existential dread and a feeling of doom and NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR MY FAMILY. We are so lucky. So very lucky. I cannot imagine how people in situations that are precarious feel. My H lost his job in early 2009 and it changed our lives. In some ways for the better. In some ways for me personally (when I look outside of our family as a whole and focus on just me), for the worse. So much worse. I don’t dwell on it but my entire life trajectory changed that day so I have so many feelings about people who are experiencing that right now.
I honestly just want the government to open the spigot of money and let it flow. People are suffering so much. People don’t have a choice in many cases and are risking their lives to work. People who are laid off really do not have a guarantee that they’ll be back to work any time soon. A steady paycheck is better than an extra $600 for a few months.
Seriously. I’m for everyone getting as much money as they can.
If layoffs and the such are such a great deal maybe some of you can volunteer. I’m sure you fellow coworkers would rather be at work.
I honestly just want the government to open the spigot of money and let it flow. People are suffering so much. People don’t have a choice in many cases and are risking their lives to work. People who are laid off really do not have a guarantee that they’ll be back to work any time soon. A steady paycheck is better than an extra $600 for a few months.
And honestly the more people who complain loudly about the federal UI enhancement using these right-wing talking points the less likely it is that this relief will be continued beyond the July expiration date, or that more cash stimulus will be approved. This is an active conversation (like literally this week in the House) about what the next CARES bill will include. Don’t fan the flames against these poor people so they end up with nothing, it’s just unimaginably cruel.
I honestly just want the government to open the spigot of money and let it flow. People are suffering so much. People don’t have a choice in many cases and are risking their lives to work. People who are laid off really do not have a guarantee that they’ll be back to work any time soon. A steady paycheck is better than an extra $600 for a few months.
And honestly the more people who complain loudly about the federal UI enhancement using these right-wing talking points the less likely it is that this relief will be continued beyond the July expiration date, or that more cash stimulus will be approved. This is an active conversation (like literally this week in the House) about what the next CARES bill will include. Don’t fan the flames against these poor people so they end up with nothing, it’s just unimaginably cruel.
The democrats just announced a new bill extending the 600 to January.
You are exactly right. The GOP are hoping people believe the way OP does.
And if it is a prevalent thought, honestly, shame on anyone who who is begrudging someone who previously made about $20/hr or less and is now unemployed an extra $600/week until July. This is another of those "let the poor fight among themselves over their 1% of the pie while the rich enjoy their 99%" concerns that is played out over and over to distract from the real issues.
And the vast, VAST majority of people who are losing their jobs and collecting unemployment do not have access to benefits like health insurance while they are unemployed. They are truly fucked. Truly furloughed people are a tiny minority of cases. The idea that all the unemployed people should be subject to a different set of rules because of how specific workplaces are handling this situation is nuts to me.
I just can't wrap my head around this, honestly. Assuming that the layoff happened right away and the unemployed worker qualified and collected the $600 for the maximum time frame, that's $10,800 in taxable income, maximum. Keeping in mind that there is the delta between what the person makes when working and that maximum amount plus what they receive on unemployment and most people don't reap the full benefit of an "additional" $600. In order to take full advantage of this huge windfall of $10,800, a person would need to regularly be paid an hourly wage of less than $10/hr. So excuse me if I can't get up in arms for people who regularly earn less than $20k annually suddenly having some extra cash for 30% of the year.
Edited to adjust my numbers...they're actually even lower than I first posted.
I don’t have it in me to be confrontational but for God’s sake. Can you not see the cruelty on what you are saying and suggesting? People who took a pay cut are suffering. People who lost their jobs or have indefinite full furlough are suffering. One has a job but less money. The other has no job and more money until July, and only any money at all for like 6 months. These are pretty equal sufferings.
SBA, you have been really upsetting the last few months. I don’t remember you ever saying the things you’ve said, in all these years. Are you well?
I am fine, thanks for asking.
I am asking because I am in a specific situation where for many employees it is better to be laid off. I am not alone in that situation but there are also crummy situations. I would think everyone would be better off if UI was just a higher percentage of income. I now understand it to be for administrative ease.
I hope your parents get good UI. I just think it makes more sense to give them one better UI than crap UI + a bonus that expires.
There are 2 things then: 1. You can now subscribe to conservatism believing that social safety nets disincentivize individual responsibility, as you say. or 2. You can now subscribe to progressivism believing that corporations should have bigger bootstraps given all that our country gives them in terms of keeping profit and thereby not reduce salaries, and/or or that a government’s function is to help people with universal living standards of income.
The statements you’ve made here and as of late indicate you leaning toward the first. If that’s the case, I just hope you don’t take the next logical conservative step which is racializing #1. If that’s not the case, you might want to re-think your positions.
Post by simpsongal on May 12, 2020 17:23:45 GMT -5
This thread inspired me to call my folks and tell my mom she needs to apply for unemployment. They don’t use computers so she has to go in person. She’s a substitute teacher and they’re dipping into savings to pay expenses and sending my brothers money. She didn’t think UI would be much - I hope it’s more than she thinks and she pursues it.
This thread inspired me to call my folks and tell my mom she needs to apply for unemployment. They don’t use computers so she has to go in person. She’s a substitute teacher and they’re dipping into savings to pay expenses and sending my brothers money. She didn’t think UI would be much - I hope it’s more than she thinks and she pursues it.
Good luck! A substitute teacher that works in my school got approved in my state and is getting the COVID $600 a week
I think the thought of "why go back to work when you can make UI and $600 a month" is playing right into the GOP playbook (Lindsey Graham). I don't know one person personally, out of everyone I know who has had to go through UI in the last two months, say they don't want to go back to work.
I don't think that the $600 a week solves any problems but I don't think the above thought it as prevalent as people make it out to be.
And if it is a prevalent thought, honestly, shame on anyone who who is begrudging someone who previously made about $20/hr or less and is now unemployed an extra $600/week until July. This is another of those "let the poor fight among themselves over their 1% of the pie while the rich enjoy their 99%" concerns that is played out over and over to distract from the real issues.
Yes, this! I’m cynical, but I question some of these larger companies that have been doing layoffs and furloughs while continuing to pay their executives millions of dollars. And nearly every time a company announces a round of layoffs, shares rise. The stock market is booming again, by the way. While specific sectors might be struggling a bit, the DJIA is still at nearly 24k. That is NUTS in this environment.
I am asking because I am in a specific situation where for many employees it is better to be laid off. I am not alone in that situation but there are also crummy situations. I would think everyone would be better off if UI was just a higher percentage of income. I now understand it to be for administrative ease.
I hope your parents get good UI. I just think it makes more sense to give them one better UI than crap UI + a bonus that expires.
There are 2 things then: 1. You can now subscribe to conservatism believing that social safety nets disincentivize individual responsibility, as you say. or 2. You can now subscribe to progressivism believing that corporations should have bigger bootstraps given all that our country gives them in terms of keeping profit and thereby not reduce salaries, and/or or that a government’s function is to help people with universal living standards of income.
The statements you’ve made here and as of late indicate you leaning toward the first. If that’s the case, I just hope you don’t take the next logical conservative step which is racializing #1. If that’s not the case, you might want to re-think your positions.
In this thread alone we have already covered the top two talking points:
1. It’s not fair to employed people that low income people are temporarily making more money on UI than they would working 2. States are approving fraudulent benefit claims/not doing due diligence on claims, allowing people to commit UI fraud
It’s literally out of the right wing playbook. Concerning.
Off topic question. At least in my state, you are required to look for employment and if you are offered a job that is comparable to accept that job or lose your benefits. For those employees who have entered this with the idea it will be temporary and they will be going back to their old jobs, does that requirement still exist or is the job market such crap right now it's not really an issue?
Because I know when I was unemployed not during a pandemic, I lost my unemployment for two weeks because they considered a job that was an hour commute with no benefits a comparable job and that really sucked.
States are doing absolutely everything they can to lower their own unemployment costs. They are absolutely verifying eligibility, sometimes to the detriment of people getting their IU benefits at all or in a timely manner.
Honestly this sounds like an issue with how your company is handling the situation, not an issue with the unemployment payments, which are a drop in the bucket/bandaid on a bullet wound compared to the real financial needs of people during this time.
It is an issue with how my company is handling it in the sense that for a given job category, some people are still working, some are on layoff, and all layoffs receive full benefits and are temporary. So it is a good deal to get laid off. We could avoid this by being crappier- not giving benefits and doing permanent layoffs.
😳😒 its cute people at your work or you actually believe that the layoffs are temporary lol.
That *might* be true.
Out if curiosity are you one of the people laid off or not. It sounds honestly like you aren't. BC people that are laid off, furloughed etc don't describe it the way you are.
I know BC im on furlough and while I'm grateful for the money and it is more than I make usually, I'm MORE scared about my job being on Shakey ground.
To hear others talking about the situation as a "good deal" is..really weird.
notreal - here in Georgia. If the employee is on furlough, they are not required to look for another job during the pandemic as part of the state’s emergency rules.
*A furlough is different than a complete layoff. Furlough is temporary unpaid leave and they technically still have a job; lay-off is complete separation from the company and they no longer have a job.
at my company people have been doing partial furloughs, so a 20% work reduction and 20% pay reduction. but apparently the $600 is not prorated. so unless they're making more than $600/day they are making bank, keeping full benefits and have job security. i was begging my boss to participate in this.
for layoffs, or even temporary unemployment, take all the money. but in this situation, i really wonder if there was a better way.
I didn’t read all of the comments, my thought on this is that I wish there was a cap so that you can’t be making more money than before. I know so so many people making way more now. Pretty much everyone I know on unemployment is. I would be too if I were furloughed.
Retail employees who were semi-retired or just working fairly part time and working 1-2 days a week for $500-1k total are now making an additional $2400 a month on top of their unemployment. My friend who works a little bit for ‘mad money’? Yep, she’s getting it. Student workers who had to move home when their schools closed, same thing. I’m aware that this might have been very very hard to implement, but when I see a 20 year old getting checks like these while living at home, it’s a problem to me.
I didn’t read all of the comments, my thought on this is that I wish there was a cap so that you can’t be making more money than before. I know so so many people making way more now. Pretty much everyone I know on unemployment is. I would be too if I were furloughed.
Retail employees who were semi-retired or just working fairly part time and working 1-2 days a week for $500-1k total are now making an additional $2400 a month on top of their unemployment. My friend who works a little bit for ‘mad money’? Yep, she’s getting it. Student workers who had to move home when their schools closed, same thing. I’m aware that this might have been very very hard to implement, but when I see a 20 year old getting checks like these while living at home, it’s a problem to me.
Why is it a problem? Honest question. The fact some kid is getting $2400 or more a month for a few months doesn’t impact me at all. Are you mad because you aren’t getting an extra $2400? Would you rather be laid off of work with no benefits?
Post by morecoffeeplease on May 12, 2020 20:53:12 GMT -5
why do people in here care so much that others might be making more than they made 3 months ago?
Seriously.
And it’s so weird that some of you know sooooooooo many people in this situation, “making bank” during the pandemic. I know so many people out of work right now and they aren’t making what they made before. I know so many businesses shut down that won’t ever open again.
Stop making it seem like the average person on unemployment suddenly has this windfall. My god.
I didn’t read all of the comments, my thought on this is that I wish there was a cap so that you can’t be making more money than before. I know so so many people making way more now. Pretty much everyone I know on unemployment is. I would be too if I were furloughed.
Retail employees who were semi-retired or just working fairly part time and working 1-2 days a week for $500-1k total are now making an additional $2400 a month on top of their unemployment. My friend who works a little bit for ‘mad money’? Yep, she’s getting it. Student workers who had to move home when their schools closed, same thing. I’m aware that this might have been very very hard to implement, but when I see a 20 year old getting checks like these while living at home, it’s a problem to me.
Why is it a problem? Honest question. The fact some kid is getting $2400 or more a month for a few months doesn’t impact me at all. Are you mad because you aren’t getting an extra $2400? Would you rather be laid off of work with no benefits?
I’m literally dead at the idea that the federal government should somehow be the arbiter of whether someone’s living situation qualifies them for the same assistance as other similarly situated individuals. Or that a 20 year old who is entering adulthood during one of the most economically depressed periods our country has ever seen could be resented for getting to pocket just a tiny bit extra to (not even remotely) make up for the huge hit theg are going to take to their lifetime earning potential due to this shitshow.
Post by morecoffeeplease on May 12, 2020 20:55:56 GMT -5
Our government writes a blank check to the military. Our government bails out huge corporations. God forbid someone makes an extra $200 a week after they lost their job because of a pandemic.
(And again, I don’t know of one single person on unemployment who doesn’t want to go back to work because they are rolling in dough)
I didn’t read all of the comments, my thought on this is that I wish there was a cap so that you can’t be making more money than before. I know so so many people making way more now. Pretty much everyone I know on unemployment is. I would be too if I were furloughed.
Retail employees who were semi-retired or just working fairly part time and working 1-2 days a week for $500-1k total are now making an additional $2400 a month on top of their unemployment. My friend who works a little bit for ‘mad money’? Yep, she’s getting it. Student workers who had to move home when their schools closed, same thing. I’m aware that this might have been very very hard to implement, but when I see a 20 year old getting checks like these while living at home, it’s a problem to me.
This is gross. And again, with the gd stereotypes. You do realize that most people who work retail or part-time aren’t doing it for funsies and pocket money, right? Maybe your friend is being greedy by even applying then, hmmm? If she’s so well off that she works for “mad money”, sounds like she’s taking advantage.
Seriously. How does it hurt you if people who were barely making any money previously might currently be making a bit more and have some breathing room for once?