Unemployment for seasonal workers vs GI Bill

[dj-vektor]

Is it just me or does it not make sense that people can work 9 months out of the year, making good money, and then collect unemployment for 3 months. How can someone that makes 50k or more in 9 months justify this? They say they 'pay into it' by paying taxes but to me it just doesn't sound right. Is this how this program is supposed to work?

I need ammunition for an argument. Everytime we (my brother and I) get into it he says I was doing the same thing when I used my GI Bill and was paid to go to school after my active duty service.

Thoughts?

 

[IndyGunworks]

apples and oranges.

 

[SSGSAD]

I thought bho, put a STOP to this ?????

 

[Bill B]

Employees pay nothing into unemployment, the burden is solely on the employer.
Consider your GI Bill payments your "salary" while you "work" (attend school). If you stop working, they stop paying.
I agree with you, a person that makes $60k, or more, working what they know to be a seasonal job should have no rights to unemployment benefits.

 

[Vigilant]

Employees pay nothing into unemployment, the burden is solely on the employer.
Consider your GI Bill payments your "salary" while you "work" (attend school). If you stop working, they stop paying.
I agree with you, a person that makes $60k, or more, working what they know to be a seasonal job should have no rights to unemployment benefits.

Then by that reasoning, laid off Union workers should also not be eligible for unemployment, or should at least have to do the required job search and if offered a job they refuse, lose benefits!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Then by that reasoning, laid off Union workers should also not be eligible for unemployment, or should at least have to do the required job search and if offered a job they refuse, lose benefits!

Everyone has to do the job search unless they have a hire back date, IIRC. I don't think being union matters or not. My dad's last job was as a heavy equipment operator at a land fill and he'd be laid off for a month or two each year when the ground was too frozen to work. It was not a union job. If he had a hire back date he didn't have to search for work.

 

[Vigilant]

Everyone has to do the job search unless they have a hire back date, IIRC. I don't think being union matters or not. My dad's last job was as a heavy equipment operator at a land fill and he'd be laid off for a month or two each year when the ground was too frozen to work. It was not a union job. If he had a hire back date he didn't have to search for work.

I stand corrected!

 

[dj-vektor]

I think that if you take a job that you know is seasonal then you should plan accordingly. Don't spend all your money while you're working and have some for the winter. Anyone should be able to live off 50k. If you don't want to save or can't make yourself then you should find a different job, not suck off the taxpayers teet every year.

Educational benefits after separation are part of serving. That's part of the incentive to join.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think that if you take a job that you know is seasonal then you should plan accordingly. Don't spend all your money while you're working and have some for the winter. Anyone should be able to live off 50k. If you don't want to save or can't make yourself then you should find a different job, not suck off the taxpayers teet every year.

Educational benefits after separation are part of serving. That's part of the incentive to join.

Now it's part of serving, but the GI Bill didn't start out that way. My dad got his degree through the GI Bill.... I'm conflicted in supporting the institution.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Everyone has to do the job search unless they have a hire back date, IIRC. I don't think being union matters or not. My dad's last job was as a heavy equipment operator at a land fill and he'd be laid off for a month or two each year when the ground was too frozen to work. It was not a union job. If he had a hire back date he didn't have to search for work.

I don't know about now, but it used to be that if you were union working out of a hall that would find jobs for you, you wouldn't have to do the search. Union factory worker without a call back date, you had to do the job search. Drywall, carpenter, etc working out of a hall, no job search.

Just checked it's still the same.

NOTE:

If you have a work search waiver, which includes DWD
approved training, a return to work date of 60 days or
less or are an active member of a union hiring hall, you do not have to be registered in
IndianaCAREERconnect.com
or report three work searches each week. However, you are still required to complete
a weekly online voucher. If you have a valid waver, you may write “waived” on each work search line on the weekly
voucher. If it is later determined that you were not eligible for a waiver you may be required to repay benefits.

Page 4 bottom. http://www.in.gov/dwd/files/Claimant_Handbook.pdf

 

[RockofStrength]

I think that if you take a job that you know is seasonal then you should plan accordingly. Don't spend all your money while you're working and have some for the winter. Anyone should be able to live off 50k. If you don't want to save or can't make yourself then you should find a different job, not suck off the taxpayers teet every year.

Educational benefits after separation are part of serving. That's part of the incentive to join.

The problem being that since the GI Bill is funded by taxes, the economic justification that a business would need for that incentive just isn't there. It is an incentive no doubt, and I don't begrudge anyone who served from taking advantage of it, but few real businesses could offer expensive education carte blanche the way the U.S. Military does. It is similar to the issue that many (myself included) have with public sector pensions, because pretty much every real business has had to abandon that concept for the majority of their employees but the government can just keep that gravy train rollin' and raise taxes to make up shortfalls. It's still part of their contract and they're not unreasonable to desire it, but you're not going to have as much sympathy for demanding what is essentially "our" money.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't know about now, but it used to be that if you were union working out of a hall that would find jobs for you, you wouldn't have to do the search.

Right, because someone else is doing the search for you. However just being a union member doesn't exempt you. You could be a union worker in a factory as opposed to a trade hall and still have to do the search. The search must still be done if there's no hire back date.

because pretty much every real business has had to abandon that concept for the majority of their employees.

Had to, or chose to?

 

[RockofStrength]

Right, because someone else is doing the search for you. However just being a union member doesn't exempt you. You could be a union worker in a factory as opposed to a trade hall and still have to do the search. The search must still be done if there's no hire back date.



Had to, or chose to?

I don't really see a difference. The fact that many public sector pensions (detroit, california are top of mind here, could be others) are bankrupt or going bankrupt despite infusions of public money would make me think the former, but I don't much care which it was.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't really see a difference. The fact that many public sector pensions (detroit, california are top of mind here, could be others) are bankrupt or going bankrupt despite infusions of public money would make me think the former, but I don't much care which it was.

They are bankrupt for the same reason social security is. Not because of the benefits paid out, but because politicians in those areas chose to use all of the money out of it for other things. It's tough to remain solvent when your cash keeps getting "borrowed" and put into other things. Indiana actually left the money in the fund, and its very solvent.

Worker productivity has improved greatly since the 70s, yet their share of wages and benefits have gone down. At the same time, the wealthiest Americans take a larger and larger chunk of the pie. Employees can't get a pension, but executives who are there for a few years get millions in golden parachute money? No, they chose to.

 

[RockofStrength]

They are bankrupt for the same reason social security is. Not because of the benefits paid out, but because politicians in those areas chose to use all of the money out of it for other things. It's tough to remain solvent when your cash keeps getting "borrowed" and put into other things. Indiana actually left the money in the fund, and its very solvent.

Worker productivity has improved greatly since the 70s, yet their share of wages and benefits have gone down. At the same time, the wealthiest Americans take a larger and larger chunk of the pie. Employees can't get a pension, but executives who are there for a few years get millions in golden parachute money? No, they chose to.

The solution to that would be for the market to encourage competition in business, particularly with the rise of smaller, more efficient, perhaps even regional businesses rather than the multinational corporations that employ a rather large number of people directly or indirectly. The problem there being that those same wealthiest Americans long ago dealt with the "problem of overproduction" that such businesses cause by setting up legal barriers, setting up schools to produce employees rather than free agents, etc. People will complain about those wealthiest Americans until they're blue in the face, but buy every Microsoft this, Apple that, and continue the ludicrous myth that self employment is meant only for the special few with employment being the norm.

 

[pute62]

I can't be sure but, didn't the seasonal unemployment benifits change a few years ago? I thought I'd read/heard that any seasonal worker who collected unemployment had to pay back the money when they went back to work.

 

[CountryBoy19]

I think that if you take a job that you know is seasonal then you should plan accordingly. Don't spend all your money while you're working and have some for the winter. Anyone should be able to live off 50k. If you don't want to save or can't make yourself then you should find a different job, not suck off the taxpayers teet every year.

Educational benefits after separation are part of serving. That's part of the incentive to join.

I agree. I have an uncle that drives dump truck for a large company that does a lot of road paving projects etc for the state. They work a boat-load of OT when the weather is nice spring/summer/fall, he makes a HUGE amount of money by busting butt and then promptly files for unemployment when winter rolls around... Definitely working the system....

And don't try to tell me that the "have to search for work" part weeds this out because it's pretty easy to "fake" a search for work. You just have to show that you tried to find a job at 3 places each week. IIRC, a person can intentionally go to a place that they know is not hiring, put their expected salary as $1M on an application and not get an offer on purpose (just so they can keep soaking up the benefits when their app gets Filed in #13).

but few real businesses could offer expensive education carte blanche the way the U.S. Military does.

You're right that not many could offer education carte blanche but you have to consider the specifics of what is taking place here. A business normally offers such educational incentives up-front and requires you to enter a binding contract that after you receive those services you will remain with the company for X amount of time. They are getting something in return from such education. With the military they "got it up front" also via a contractual obligation. If you come serve with us for X number of years under a contract we will pay for your school so you can do what you want when we're done with you.

Seems a lot more similar than you're letting on to...

 

[dj-vektor]

Pute, I'll have to look into that

 

[Bill B]

You're right that not many could offer education carte blanche but you have to consider the specifics of what is taking place here. A business normally offers such educational incentives up-front and requires you to enter a binding contract that after you receive those services you will remain with the company for X amount of time. They are getting something in return from such education. With the military they "got it up front" also via a contractual obligation. If you come serve with us for X number of years under a contract we will pay for your school so you can do what you want when we're done with you.

Seems a lot more similar than you're letting on to...

My employer offers 100% tuition reimbursement for up to the first bachelors' degree. The field of study is immaterial. The caveats are: you must take classes that count toward the degree, you must get a "C" or above, and you agree to remain with the company for two years after accepting the reimbursement.
The major differences between what my employer offers and the current GI Bill is the military wants their time first and they will give you a stipend while in school.