|
| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 |
NYCGirl80
I love my kiddies!
Member since 5/11 10413 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
|
Posted 1/16/18 3:06 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
VickiC
Rocking the party
Member since 5/05 4937 total posts
Name:
Vicki
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week. It doesn't really matter that she was already working 5 days/week. That's why I said she should just file for UE and let her boss deny the claim. As long as she says she can no longer fulfill the requirement, which is true, he really shouldn't deny the claim.
Yes, with UE you have to tell them that you are looking for a job every week and every month I had to go in for an in house interview to show them my progress. I knew I was not returning to work, but I was working as a freelance designer. So I would input that on my worksheet every now and again and they never questioned my "search" for work bc I was working freelance.
|
| Posted 1/16/18 3:18 PM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7274 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week.
Why can she no longer fulfill the requirement?
|
| Posted 1/16/18 4:09 PM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7274 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by VickiC
Yes, with UE you have to tell them that you are looking for a job every week and every month I had to go in for an in house interview to show them my progress. I knew I was not returning to work, but I was working as a freelance designer. So I would input that on my worksheet every now and again and they never questioned my "search" for work bc I was working freelance.
If you were working as a freelance designer how were you unemployed? Do all freelancers collect unemployment?
|
| Posted 1/16/18 4:27 PM |
| |
|
LIRascal
drama. daily.
Member since 3/11 7287 total posts
Name:
Michelle
|
Unemployment question
You can be laid off or resign your position, citing "lack of work", can't you? Help me out if you're in HR
|
| Posted 1/17/18 1:25 AM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: Unemployment question
You have to be laid off for lack of work. Thats for the employer to decide. If you resign it's not lack of work
|
| Posted 1/17/18 7:16 AM |
| |
|
NYCGirl80
I love my kiddies!
Member since 5/11 10413 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week. It doesn't really matter that she was already working 5 days/week. That's why I said she should just file for UE and let her boss deny the claim. As long as she says she can no longer fulfill the requirement, which is true, he really shouldn't deny the claim.
Yes, with UE you have to tell them that you are looking for a job every week and every month I had to go in for an in house interview to show them my progress. I knew I was not returning to work, but I was working as a freelance designer. So I would input that on my worksheet every now and again and they never questioned my "search" for work bc I was working freelance.
That's not 'good cause.' I'm sorry, but you're giving the OP inaccurate information based on what you've done, but not on the legal realities and ramifications she would face.
|
| Posted 1/17/18 11:21 AM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week. It doesn't really matter that she was already working 5 days/week. That's why I said she should just file for UE and let her boss deny the claim. As long as she says she can no longer fulfill the requirement, which is true, he really shouldn't deny the claim.
Yes, with UE you have to tell them that you are looking for a job every week and every month I had to go in for an in house interview to show them my progress. I knew I was not returning to work, but I was working as a freelance designer. So I would input that on my worksheet every now and again and they never questioned my "search" for work bc I was working freelance.
That's not 'good cause.' I'm sorry, but you're giving the OP inaccurate information based on what you've done, but not on the legal realities and ramifications she would face.
Exactly. Technically she CAN fulfill the job requirements to work 5 days a week. Millions of women do after they have babies. I did. She isn't disabled and no longer able to fulfill the requirements of a job.
She is CHOOSING not to.
That's not the fault or the responsibility of the state or her employer.
|
| Posted 1/17/18 11:24 AM |
| |
|
Mara1017
LIF Adolescent
Member since 5/11 696 total posts
Name:
Mara
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week. It doesn't really matter that she was already working 5 days/week. That's why I said she should just file for UE and let her boss deny the claim. As long as she says she can no longer fulfill the requirement, which is true, he really shouldn't deny the claim.
Yes, with UE you have to tell them that you are looking for a job every week and every month I had to go in for an in house interview to show them my progress. I knew I was not returning to work, but I was working as a freelance designer. So I would input that on my worksheet every now and again and they never questioned my "search" for work bc I was working freelance.
Posting on a public site about cheating the system is never a good idea!
|
| Posted 1/18/18 6:06 AM |
| |
|
jillee03
LIF Adult
Member since 8/05 953 total posts
Name:
Jill
|
Unemployment question
Thanks for all the input ladies. I’ll be sure to keep you posted
|
| Posted 1/18/18 6:47 AM |
| |
|
MrsDrMatt
Live and RUN like a Ninja!
Member since 5/06 3104 total posts
Name:
MrsDrMatt
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week. It doesn't really matter that she was already working 5 days/week. That's why I said she should just file for UE and let her boss deny the claim. As long as she says she can no longer fulfill the requirement, which is true, he really shouldn't deny the claim.
Yes, with UE you have to tell them that you are looking for a job every week and every month I had to go in for an in house interview to show them my progress. I knew I was not returning to work, but I was working as a freelance designer. So I would input that on my worksheet every now and again and they never questioned my "search" for work bc I was working freelance.
Posting on a public site about cheating the system is never a good idea!
I agree... very tacky to admit.
|
| Posted 1/18/18 9:27 AM |
| |
|
VickiC
Rocking the party
Member since 5/05 4937 total posts
Name:
Vicki
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by MrsDrMatt
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week. It doesn't really matter that she was already working 5 days/week. That's why I said she should just file for UE and let her boss deny the claim. As long as she says she can no longer fulfill the requirement, which is true, he really shouldn't deny the claim.
Yes, with UE you have to tell them that you are looking for a job every week and every month I had to go in for an in house interview to show them my progress. I knew I was not returning to work, but I was working as a freelance designer. So I would input that on my worksheet every now and again and they never questioned my "search" for work bc I was working freelance.
Posting on a public site about cheating the system is never a good idea!
I agree... very tacky to admit.
It's all good Ladies; I wasn't cheating the system at all. When I had a freelance job, I reported it to UE and I did not receive benefits for that week. There were many weeks that I only received partial benefits or none at all. No need to call me tacky just because you didn't know that. And as stated above - I did input that on my Search for Work sheet and since you have to give them phone numbers, UE could easily call and verify what I was inputting.
|
| Posted 1/18/18 3:45 PM |
| |
|
VickiC
Rocking the party
Member since 5/05 4937 total posts
Name:
Vicki
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week.
Why can she no longer fulfill the requirement?
She can no longer fulfill her job requirement bc she can no longer work 5 days/week whether it be bc her child care situation changed or bc she just doesn't want to work 5 days/week.
|
| Posted 1/18/18 3:47 PM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by VickiC
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week.
Why can she no longer fulfill the requirement?
She can no longer fulfill her job requirement bc she can no longer work 5 days/week whether it be bc her child care situation changed or bc she just doesn't want to work 5 days/week.
So if I don't want to work at all anymore.... I want to go lie on a beach somewhere all day and drink margaritas....does that mean I can quit my job, say I can no longer fulfill the requirement and then collect unemployment?
Wow, that would be some racket if our country worked that way!
|
| Posted 1/18/18 3:49 PM |
| |
|
jlm2008
LIF Adult
Member since 1/10 5092 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by VickiC
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week.
Why can she no longer fulfill the requirement?
She can no longer fulfill her job requirement bc she can no longer work 5 days/week whether it be bc her child care situation changed or bc she just doesn't want to work 5 days/week.
So if I don't want to work at all anymore.... I want to go lie on a beach somewhere all day and drink margaritas....does that mean I can quit my job, say I can no longer fulfill the requirement and then collect unemployment?
Wow, that would be some racket if our country worked that way!
I don't want to work either anymore, I should try this then! I had no idea all you had to say was that you didn't want to work anymore to collect unemployment....wish I knew about this when I started working 22 years ago!  somehow, I don't think my employer would approve it though...can you imagine if that was actually a real thing???
|
| Posted 1/18/18 3:57 PM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7274 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by VickiC
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week.
Why can she no longer fulfill the requirement?
She can no longer fulfill her job requirement bc she can no longer work 5 days/week whether it be bc her child care situation changed or bc she just doesn't want to work 5 days/week.
I have no idea where your information comes from but you are not only wrong, you are abusing a government program meant for people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. People who need to feed their families and would give their right arm to have a job.
She can fulfill her job requirements. Anyone who has a child can fulfill their job requirements. It’s whether or not they choose to do so. And if they choose to stay home it is not the government’s responsibility to pay for it.
|
| Posted 1/18/18 6:56 PM |
| |
|
Marbo
LOVE
Member since 7/08 2374 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
I don't see op saying she doesn't want to work anymore?
|
| Posted 1/18/18 8:45 PM |
| |
|
hmm
Sweet
Member since 1/14 7993 total posts
Name:
|
Unemployment question
it SUCKs to be on UE, I went on it over the summer and only got off last month. Not enough $$ to do anything with
|
| Posted 1/18/18 9:04 PM |
| |
|
VickiC
Rocking the party
Member since 5/05 4937 total posts
Name:
Vicki
|
Unemployment question
I think you are all misconstruing what I am saying as I am obviously not explaining myself well. I am not advocating for anyone to screw the system or take advantage of UE. It sucks to be on UE and I really feel for those people who are on it for any length of time.
I am saying that she would possibly be eligible bc in her original post she states that the work arrangement between her boss and herself no longer works for either of them. She can no longer fulfill the requirement that HER BOSS NEEDS to perform her job there. Therefore, she should be eligible for UE because of that situation.
And yes, I know that anyone who has a child CAN fulfill their job requirements, but sometimes life happens and you need to not work FT anymore. I went back to work FT after my first child was born and was able to go PT when he was 2. I knew that after my daughter was born I wanted to remain PT, and my job decided otherwise. Therefore, I was NOT ABLE to fulfill THEIR requirement so I was eligible for UE.
I never said she never wanted to work again and go lie on a beach drinking margaritas. Yes, we figured out while I was on UE that I most likely could get enough freelance jobs to help supplement our income, so once again, I did not abuse the system.
|
| Posted 1/18/18 10:27 PM |
| |
|
jillee03
LIF Adult
Member since 8/05 953 total posts
Name:
Jill
|
Unemployment question
Ladies wasn’t looking to start any trouble. Just wanted to know if UE WAS AN OPTION TILL I WAS ABLE TO FIND SOMETHING ELSE PART TIME
|
| Posted 1/18/18 10:28 PM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7274 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by VickiC
I am saying that she would possibly be eligible bc in her original post she states that the work arrangement between her boss and herself no longer works for either of them. She can no longer fulfill the requirement that HER BOSS NEEDS to perform her job there. Therefore, she should be eligible for UE because of that situation.
And yes, I know that anyone who has a child CAN fulfill their job requirements, but sometimes life happens and you need to not work FT anymore. I went back to work FT after my first child was born and was able to go PT when he was 2. I knew that after my daughter was born I wanted to remain PT, and my job decided otherwise. Therefore, I was NOT ABLE to fulfill THEIR requirement so I was eligible for UE.
But that's the thing. You weren't UNABLE to fulfill their requirement. You CHOSE to not fulfill their requirement "Unable" would imply a cause beyond your control that rendered you incapable of doing your job. Having a child does not make you unable to do your job.
|
| Posted 1/18/18 10:42 PM |
| |
|
klingklang77
kraftwerk!
Member since 7/06 11487 total posts
Name:
Völlig losgelöst
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by VickiC
Posted by MrsDrMatt
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week. It doesn't really matter that she was already working 5 days/week. That's why I said she should just file for UE and let her boss deny the claim. As long as she says she can no longer fulfill the requirement, which is true, he really shouldn't deny the claim.
Yes, with UE you have to tell them that you are looking for a job every week and every month I had to go in for an in house interview to show them my progress. I knew I was not returning to work, but I was working as a freelance designer. So I would input that on my worksheet every now and again and they never questioned my "search" for work bc I was working freelance.
Posting on a public site about cheating the system is never a good idea!
I agree... very tacky to admit.
It's all good Ladies; I wasn't cheating the system at all. When I had a freelance job, I reported it to UE and I did not receive benefits for that week. There were many weeks that I only received partial benefits or none at all. No need to call me tacky just because you didn't know that. And as stated above - I did input that on my Search for Work sheet and since you have to give them phone numbers, UE could easily call and verify what I was inputting.
I don’t think working freelance is “cheating the system.”
I’m currently unemployed, but I work freelance (I’m not in the US, so not sure how it compares to the US.)
I work freelance, but there is a limit and what I make is taken from the unemployment benefits I get every month. In my case, I need the benefits because my health insurance, tax and pension are taken care of, which is not taken care of by freelance.
I had a hard time with going on unemployment because it seemed like such a cop out, but the fact is there is a law here that prohibits me from getting certain work contracts bc of the contract I had. After my contract ended, everyone told me to make sure you apply for unemployment because I had already paid into it. I balked, but I think it might be a different attitude here. In retrospect, I’m glad I did bc my STBX left and I was screwed with money.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 2:14 AM |
| |
|
Katareen
5,000 Posts!
Member since 4/10 7180 total posts
Name:
Katherine
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by VickiC
I am saying that she would possibly be eligible bc in her original post she states that the work arrangement between her boss and herself no longer works for either of them. She can no longer fulfill the requirement that HER BOSS NEEDS to perform her job there. Therefore, she should be eligible for UE because of that situation.
And yes, I know that anyone who has a child CAN fulfill their job requirements, but sometimes life happens and you need to not work FT anymore. I went back to work FT after my first child was born and was able to go PT when he was 2. I knew that after my daughter was born I wanted to remain PT, and my job decided otherwise. Therefore, I was NOT ABLE to fulfill THEIR requirement so I was eligible for UE.
But that's the thing. You weren't UNABLE to fulfill their requirement. You CHOSE to not fulfill their requirement "Unable" would imply a cause beyond your control that rendered you incapable of doing your job. Having a child does not make you unable to do your job.
They possibly needed her to work FT, and she wasn’t able to do so. As a mother I’m able to work FT—but if my job suddenly required me to come in at 5am I would not be able to do that due to my circumstances at home.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 2:59 AM |
| |
|
Mara1017
LIF Adolescent
Member since 5/11 696 total posts
Name:
Mara
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by VickiC
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by VickiC
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Mara1017
Posted by VickiC
Yes - you would qualify because the same thing happened to me. I was working PT and they wanted me back FT after Maternity leave. I couldn't do it, so they laid me off. You can file for Unemployment as I doubt your boss would deny your claim. Technically, he'd have to fire you anyway because you are not able to fulfill the position he wanted you to fill.
This is not correct. She was working full time before she went out on maternity leave and they gave her a full time position but she wanted to work part time. She basically she quit and therefore not entitled to unemployment.
This is correct. The first poster here says she was "laid off." That's the key. The current employer has to lay you off to get unemployment. And the OP has to actively be looking for new employment. She would not qualify.
That is absolutely not correct. There are circumstances where you can quit and get unemployment. As for actively looking, the actual standard is "ready, willing, and able to work." As I said in a PP, the standards for collecting unemployment are much more complicated than what can be stated on a message board.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not correct. When you're on unemployment, you are required to keep track of jobs you're applying to. They provide you a worksheet, in fact. At any point they can request a meeting where you will be required to show this worksheet to prove you are actively seeking employment.
Also, the company that OP left from can dispute unemployment benefits given that she quit and was not laid off. Laid off means that the company has to show they closed that exact position. By replacing her, they would not be laying her off.
The only way she can quit and still get unemployment benefits is to quit for "good cause" such as a hostile working environment, sexual misconduct, etc. Not wanting to work 5-days a week would not qualify as "good cause."
But it would be a good cause because she can no longer fulfill the job requirement to work 5 days a week.
Why can she no longer fulfill the requirement?
She can no longer fulfill her job requirement bc she can no longer work 5 days/week whether it be bc her child care situation changed or bc she just doesn't want to work 5 days/week.
I have no idea where your information comes from but you are not only wrong, you are abusing a government program meant for people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. People who need to feed their families and would give their right arm to have a job.
She can fulfill her job requirements. Anyone who has a child can fulfill their job requirements. It’s whether or not they choose to do so. And if they choose to stay home it is not the government’s responsibility to pay for it.
[/
Message edited 1/19/2018 7:55:50 AM.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 7:52 AM |
| |
|
NYCGirl80
I love my kiddies!
Member since 5/11 10413 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by VickiC
I think you are all misconstruing what I am saying as I am obviously not explaining myself well. I am not advocating for anyone to screw the system or take advantage of UE. It sucks to be on UE and I really feel for those people who are on it for any length of time.
I am saying that she would possibly be eligible bc in her original post she states that the work arrangement between her boss and herself no longer works for either of them. She can no longer fulfill the requirement that HER BOSS NEEDS to perform her job there. Therefore, she should be eligible for UE because of that situation.
And yes, I know that anyone who has a child CAN fulfill their job requirements, but sometimes life happens and you need to not work FT anymore. I went back to work FT after my first child was born and was able to go PT when he was 2. I knew that after my daughter was born I wanted to remain PT, and my job decided otherwise. Therefore, I was NOT ABLE to fulfill THEIR requirement so I was eligible for UE.
I never said she never wanted to work again and go lie on a beach drinking margaritas. Yes, we figured out while I was on UE that I most likely could get enough freelance jobs to help supplement our income, so once again, I did not abuse the system.
Given these exact circumstances, you should not have been able to collect UE. Perhaps your job was ok with saying you were laid off, but in fact, you were not. You chose to leave. Should you have gotten caught, then the company and you would both have been in trouble.
We are telling you the way it is. That doesn't mean that some situations don't slip through. Yours did. You were not legally eligible since you were not LAID OFF.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 9:13 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 |
Potentially Related Topics:
Currently 172396 users on the LIFamilies.com Chat
|
Long Island Bridal Shows
|
