Work searches req'd to get TN unemployment

[Deleted]

WORK SEARCHES NOW REQUIRED TO RECEIVE TENNESSEE UNEMPLOYMENT
CLAIMANTS REQUIRED TO LOG THREE WORK SEARCHES OR LOSE BENEFIT

NASHVILLE –Beginning September 1, 2012, the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development will begin implementation of the Unemployment Insurance Accountability Act of 2012 requiring all unemployment claimants in Tennessee to demonstrate valid work search activity and maintain a work search log. Failure to comply with the new law will result in a loss of benefits.

Notices will be mailed next week to all claimants receiving Tennessee Unemployment Compensation informing them of the new requirements to continue receiving benefits. Those receiving federal extended unemployment benefits are already required to document work search activity.

“The Accountability Act is aptly named as it raises the bar of accountability for those receiving unemployment benefits,” said Labor Commissioner Karla Davis. “Documenting three work searches each week will require a small effort, but the consequences of not doing them are very serious.”

Labor and Workforce Development will conduct random audits of 1,000 claimants’ work search documentation each week to verify work search activity. If work search claims are found to be fraudulent, the department will stop a claimant’s benefits immediately and can suspend payments for eight weeks.

Claimants are required to conduct three work searches each week. A valid work search activity is considered any of the following:

1. Registering at www.jobs4tn.gov and applying for jobs online
2. Completing a job application in person or online
3. Mailing a job application and/or resume, as instructed in a public notice
4. Making in-person visits with employers who may have job openings
5. Sending job applications to employers
6. Interviewing with potential employers in person or by telephone
7. Registering for work with private employment agencies, placement services or hiring unions
8. Using the employment resources available at Tennessee Career Centers that may lead directly to a job
9. Attending job search seminars, career networking meetings, job fairs or employment-related workshops that offer instruction in improving individual skills for obtaining employment

Claimants who don’t receive guidance and work search logs in the mail can find information both on the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s Internet site at www.tn.gov/labor-wfd or at the nearest Tennessee Career Center. For Career Center locations visit www.tn.gov/labor-wfd/cc/cccounty.shtml.

[Justin Thyme]

That's been the rule in Georgia since at least 2003. I fully support the policy but it can be onerous at times.

[ssmynkint]

I fully support the policy

So do I. having been on unemployment, I can attest how ridiculously easy it was to "phone-in" each week. By the same token, it struck me as..whatever...to see affluent, clearly upper-middle class (Cadillac, diamond ring, tailored clothing) applicants.
No means test was used either.

[TNBear]

I had to comply with a similar structure in CA 35 years ago, except we had to show more than 3 contacts a week.

Why would there be a means test for unemployment? If you were gainfully employed and then, through no fault of your own, you were without a job, you qualified.

[ssmynkint]

Why would there be a means test for unemployment

Shouldn't unemployment, as with any other government pay-out, be based on need?
I know it's "legal," but is it fitting that an unemployed executive who pulled in hundreds of thousand a year get unemployment the same as an hourly worker?

[TNBear]

I must respectfully disagree with you on this one. The monies to provide unemployment payouts are paid as an ad hoc tax, much as social security. Surely you do not advocate for means testing to receive social security.

[ssmynkint]

Actually, I do.

[Warkitty]

On this one, ssmyn, we disagree. SS is already based on what your earnings were, as is unemployment. Let me put it to you this way. I as a single woman am bringing in... well lets just say a nice salary. I also have a pretty large monthly mortgage, plus car payment to manage. I do not, despite the apparent trappings of wealth, have a shit-ton of money stashed away like squirrels nuts with which to maintain these revolving, monthly bills for very long. I can manage, briefly, but given more than a month out of work without assistance and I'd be bankrupt, my home lost to the bank and on the street (along with the animals in my care). Does it seem smart to you that the State put people like me in that position just because we're not already below the median income level? After all, our home stability is a HUGE part of what makes the area desirable to set up business and keep the economy running.

No, I'm all for proving you're looking for work. It's a PIA but a sensible measure. What you're advocating though, not so much.

[TNBear]

OK mynkint, how about means testing to receive payouts from a 401(k) or pension fund?

[frayne56]

Unfortunately people game the unemployment comp system, the same as with welfare and EITC. Don't have any answers just saying that is the reality we live in. The three work searches requirement will be gamed as well and is no big deal for someone wanting to abuse the system. I have known a few people in the six figure category who collected unemployment and saw it as their right. Also have known plenty of seasonal workers who put in just enough time, year after year to collect unemployment compensation and do it with regularity for years.

[Justin Thyme]

Aug 24, 2012 16:15:24 GMT -5 ssmynkint said:

Why would there be a means test for unemployment

Shouldn't unemployment, as with any other government pay-out, be based on need?
I know it's "legal," but is it fitting that an unemployed executive who pulled in hundreds of thousand a year get unemployment the same as an hourly worker?

Payroll taxes were paid equally for both of them. There is a maximum unemployment benefit paid out that will be drastically less of a percentage of the executives pay than the guy making $15/hr. The same with Social Security and Medicare. These programs are the only true federal retirement programs that we have. People pay into them so they are entitled to the benefits they bought, rich or poor.

[LimitedRecourse]

"...how about means testing to receive payouts from a 401(k) or pension fund?"

Talk about apples and oranges. Unemployment/SSI benefits are government programs that are based on need. Pensions and 401ks are YOUR money that YOU invested. You are always entitled to your own private investments. Of course, there are rules about early withdrawal, etc.

[Justin Thyme]

Unemployment/SSI benefits are government programs that are based on need.

No, these are insurance policies and their benefits are based on the insurance premium you and/or your employer paid. The only need is that you qualify to receive payment, just like any other insurance.

[JC]

You have to work to receive unemployment. It's the only benefit that I'm aware of that the recipient actually has to work before they're eligible.
You do not have to work or "pay into" to receive any SS benefit (SS, SSD, SSI, Medicare). Though, if you did work, you will receive a higher benefit based on the amount and time you paid into it.

I see both as I do any other welfare program. We all pay into the food stamps program, for instance. We are not all entitled to receive food stamps, though. Why? Because if you have six figures in the ole' checking account, then you can afford to buy groceries. And as such, if you have enough cashola to pay the ole' mortgage, then you should not be receiving unemployment benefits.
I do not really care if you paid into it or not because at the end of the day, it's still my tax dollars going to support your quality of life. Especially in these times with unemployment benefits being extended across the blanket.
Loose your job - I'm sorry for you... but I shouldn't have to pay for your big house and luxury cars when I'm renting and driving per-owned vehicles. That's just as bad as me paying a crack whore's section 8 rent to me.

Means testing should be required for both unemployment and SS just as the other government benefits require.

[ssmynkint]

+1

[Tsavodiner]

Loose your job - I'm sorry for you... but I shouldn't have to pay for your big house and luxury cars when I'm renting and driving per-owned vehicles. That's just as bad as me paying a crack whore's section 8 rent to me.

Interesting point. The well-off have the option in most cases of shedding indicia of wealth and down-sizing. although the local housing market's still sh*t (notwithstanding the Pee-Wee Herman optimism of the Realtor's Association) and luxury cars can scarcely be given away.

Less fortunate folk receive commensurate recompense, which, despite the popular notion, really just maintain most in the limbo inculcated by Government assistance.

So, is one evil worse than the other? Or, are they the same?

[Justin Thyme]

You have to work to receive unemployment. It's the only benefit that I'm aware of that the recipient actually has to work before they're eligible. You do not have to work or "pay into" to receive any SS benefit (SS, SSD, SSI, Medicare). Though, if you did work, you will receive a higher benefit based on the amount and time you paid into it.

It isn't just that you have to work, you have to have been employed by an employer that has paid the unemployment payroll tax on your pay. If you are self employed and you close your business you don't get unemployment benefits even though you have been working. A lot of those temp workers that companies are hiring in lieu of their own employees that may work several years at a place are not always covered under unemployment. It all depends on whether or not the temp agency is paying them as W2 or 1099 employees. SS benefits? You or a qualifying family member had to have paid into the SS system before you are eligible for the benefits.

These are not government welfare programs, they are government insurance programs. They are in no way related to the government food stamp program which is paid for out of general funds. If you pay for them you are entitled to the benefits. The government promised you these benefits and many people have paid for those benefits their entire life. Suggesting that the rules change to now means test for those benefits would be wrong.

[JC]

You or a qualifying family member had to have paid into the SS system before you are eligible for the benefits.These are not government welfare programs, they are government insurance programs. They are in no way related to the government food stamp program which is paid for out of general funds. If you pay for them you are entitled to the benefits

Not entirely. There is no work or "pay into" requirement for SSI and Medicare.
And after a quick search, I found that these are paid out of general funds, too. There is a means test in place for these benefits.

I'm fairly certain there is no work or "pay into" requirement for SSD.

Obviously retirement comes with a work and pay into requirement.
This is the only benefit that I feel that everyone is really entitled to.... but even that has limits. How fiscally smart is it to pay out benefits to those with a cool mil' or two in the bank?

[JC]

Aug 27, 2012 16:28:53 GMT -5 Tsavodiner said:

Loose your job - I'm sorry for you... but I shouldn't have to pay for your big house and luxury cars when I'm renting and driving per-owned vehicles. That's just as bad as me paying a crack whore's section 8 rent to me.

Interesting point. The well-off have the option in most cases of shedding indicia of wealth and down-sizing. although the local housing market's still sh*t (notwithstanding the Pee-Wee Herman optimism of the Realtor's Association) and luxury cars can scarcely be given away.

Less fortunate folk receive commensurate recompense, which, despite the popular notion, really just maintain most in the limbo inculcated by Government assistance.

So, is one evil worse than the other? Or, are they the same?

I certainly do not want my tax bucks paying for a new'ish vehicle note for a family of three, no more than I want to pay for luxury vehicles for the well off.

I'd say count anything financed above... I dunno, 10k for vehicles and 100k for homes against the recipient (excluding SSR). Plenty of room to step-down from there if they want more benefits.

[TNBear]

temp workers are not covered by Unemployment insurance-except, as I found to my benifit. If you were hired by a temp company to work in their office, say to canvass employers by telephone to get an opportunity for a rep from the temp firm to send workers.

Anyhoo, I collected unemployment and worked under the table for several months. It really is strange world we live in.

[Justin Thyme]

Obviously retirement comes with a work and pay into requirement.This is the only benefit that I feel that everyone is really entitled to.... but even that has limits. How fiscally smart is it to pay out benefits to those with a cool mil' or two in the bank?

So do you want to keep people from withdrawing the earnings from a Roth IRA tax free if they have a couple of million in their checking account? Money paid into the SS system is apart from the money we pay in income tax and it is paid specifically to provide SS benefits. The same goes for unemployment insurance. The employer pays that tax along with half of the Social Security tax.

[JC]

Aug 27, 2012 20:03:18 GMT -5 Justin Thyme said:

Obviously retirement comes with a work and pay into requirement.This is the only benefit that I feel that everyone is really entitled to.... but even that has limits. How fiscally smart is it to pay out benefits to those with a cool mil' or two in the bank?

So do you want to keep people from withdrawing the earnings from a Roth IRA tax free if they have a couple of million in their checking account? Money paid into the SS system is apart from the money we pay in income tax and it is paid specifically to provide SS benefits. The same goes for unemployment insurance. The employer pays that tax along with half of the Social Security tax.

As someone else said earlier, apples and oranges.
Government and private.

There is a means test for Medicare. If you can afford private insurance, then you will not receive the government's insurance (for free anyway) even though you have paid into all of your life.

I see no reason not to apply the same standard for SS retirement.

[Justin Thyme]

Aug 27, 2012 20:31:30 GMT -5 JC said:

Aug 27, 2012 20:03:18 GMT -5 Justin Thyme said:

So do you want to keep people from withdrawing the earnings from a Roth IRA tax free if they have a couple of million in their checking account? Money paid into the SS system is apart from the money we pay in income tax and it is paid specifically to provide SS benefits. The same goes for unemployment insurance. The employer pays that tax along with half of the Social Security tax.

As someone else said earlier, apples and oranges.
Government and private.

No, it is a government subsidized program. You pay into a Roth IRA with after tax dollars and your money grows tax free. You pay no taxes on the earnings of the money in that account. What you are suggesting with SS should also apply to a Roth IRA. Shouldn't it? If you have enough wealth your earnings should now be taxed when you pull your money out. After all, if you're rich you have no need for that tax incentive that was promised you.

[JC]

No, it is a government subsidized program.

And because every penny you stash in a Roth IRA is your money—not a tax-subsidized gift from Uncle Sam
www.rothira.com/what-is-a-Roth-IRA

I'll admit to not knowing much about Roth IRAs... I will say that lot's of companies are subsidized, though, and I would not suggest restricting those based on earnings. Gas is subsidized. I wouldn't want rich folks to pay more :shrug:

What you are suggesting with SS should also apply to a Roth IRA. Shouldn't it?

I believe I said wealthy above. Aren't Roth IRAs capped to those whom earn less than $50,000?

Not exactly the same as saying those that have a few million in their pockets shouldn't receive benefits.

[wheels]

Aug 27, 2012 20:31:30 GMT -5 JC said:

There is a means test for Medicare. If you can afford private insurance, then you will not receive the government's insurance (for free anyway) even though you have paid into all of your life.

I see no reason not to apply the same standard for SS retirement.

if you want to change the rules now, you would need to only apply the new rules for the future. anyone who has paid into SS was promised that money by the government. they should get it. if the government decides to change that, then they better be prepared to offer a plan to compensate those who have already paid in. there would have to be an understanding that future SS taxes would be means tested. it would be political suicide to change the rules w/o compensating those who have already paid in.