| 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 Katareen
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.
That's fine. Then you would quit. You would not be entitled to UE.
UE is for people who are laid off or lose their job through no fault of their own. Saying you cannot come in at 5am is on you, not the company. You would not collect in this situation.
|
Posted 1/19/18 9:14 AM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
Sash
Peace
Member since 6/08 10312 total posts
Name:
fka LIW Smara
|
Re: Unemployment question
Let’s get this clear VickiC is not cheating the system. She would be cheating the system if she was freelancing off he books and still collecting unemployment. You can work short term and not claim your benefits for that time period. My husband has done this. He can go on a short electrical job for two weeks not claim his benefits, they let him go and goes back on unemployment. This is actually better than someone sitting on their ass and not doing anything.
As for the OP, what everyone is missing is that she was originally working full time and wanted to switch to PT. However, her job could only give her FT as a way to keep her. She decided to leave because she didn’t want it. So she isn’t entitled to unemployment. However, since it may have been mutual and if she has a good relationship with the old boss, he may approve her claim.
However, I would be careful because you may piss them off and break the relationship you have with them.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 9:20 AM |
| |
|
Sash
Peace
Member since 6/08 10312 total posts
Name:
fka LIW Smara
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by NYCGirl80
Posted by Katareen
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.
That's fine. Then you would quit. You would not be entitled to UE.
UE is for people who are laid off or lose their job through no fault of their own. Saying you cannot come in at 5am is on you, not the company. You would not collect in this situation.
Her case is different because she was PT and her job changed the position on her. In this case they ask for a change and she said she couldn’t so they technically layed her off because of it to probably find someone who can. In the OP they offered her the same job she had and but she didn’t want it because “SHE” wanted to change it to PT.
It’s two different cases, this is probably why VickiC got her unemployment approved - because the job changed the position.
ETA: her job was smart because they rather give unemployment than potentially get sued for changing the position on an employee who just came back from maternity leave.
Message edited 1/19/2018 9:33:23 AM.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 9:24 AM |
| |
|
Pomegranate5
LIF Adult
Member since 2/11 4798 total posts
Name:
Pomegranate5
|
Re: Unemployment question
Wow everyone is taking this so personally for some reason. It's amazing to me that some of the same women who continually complain about the maternity benefits in this country are so outraged that a new mother is trying to use UE as a crutch until she can find work that fits her needs and wants. The hypocrisy is truly baffling.
OP, apply and see what happens. I've seen someone RETIRE (there was a luncheon in their honor and everything) and then file for unemployment and the employer did not fight it so they got approved. You have no idea what might happen. Your boss verbally told you they were changing your job to PT and are now going back on that. I think you have a good chance and I hope it works out for you.
ETA - I don't work at UE and am no expert, but as far as I know, neither is anyone else on this thread.
Message edited 1/19/2018 10:36:08 AM.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 10:32 AM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7272 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by Pomegranate5
Wow everyone is taking this so personally for some reason. It's amazing to me that some of the same women who continually complain about the maternity benefits in this country are so outraged that a new mother is trying to use UE as a crutch until she can find work that fits her needs and wants. The hypocrisy is truly baffling.
Because the government doesn’t have to support you for the sole reason that your previous job doesn’t “fit your needs or wants.” What person (I’m removing “mom” because that’s irrelevant here) wouldn’t prefer a job with, say, a shorter commute or more convenient hours? That doesn’t mean someone can quit because they’re sick of the LIRR and expect the government to pay for that choice.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 11:10 AM |
| |
|
Pomegranate5
LIF Adult
Member since 2/11 4798 total posts
Name:
Pomegranate5
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by Pomegranate5
Wow everyone is taking this so personally for some reason. It's amazing to me that some of the same women who continually complain about the maternity benefits in this country are so outraged that a new mother is trying to use UE as a crutch until she can find work that fits her needs and wants. The hypocrisy is truly baffling.
Because the government doesn’t have to support you for the sole reason that your previous job doesn’t “fit your needs or wants.” What person (I’m removing “mom” because that’s irrelevant here) wouldn’t prefer a job with, say, a shorter commute or more convenient hours? That doesn’t mean someone can quit because they’re sick of the LIRR and expect the government to pay for that choice.
She and her boss negotiated 3 days a week, which she was happy with. Now, before she got the chance to come back, they have told her that either she accommodates something else, or she has no job. Would your opinion change if she was already back working at 3 days and then they changed it on her? How is this different than a FT job being changed to a PT job? Who are strangers on a message board to decide the hours she can and cannot work?
All I was saying is that she should at least try, and in all likelihood her boss would not fight it.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 11:28 AM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7272 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by Pomegranate5
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by Pomegranate5
Wow everyone is taking this so personally for some reason. It's amazing to me that some of the same women who continually complain about the maternity benefits in this country are so outraged that a new mother is trying to use UE as a crutch until she can find work that fits her needs and wants. The hypocrisy is truly baffling.
Because the government doesn’t have to support you for the sole reason that your previous job doesn’t “fit your needs or wants.” What person (I’m removing “mom” because that’s irrelevant here) wouldn’t prefer a job with, say, a shorter commute or more convenient hours? That doesn’t mean someone can quit because they’re sick of the LIRR and expect the government to pay for that choice.
She and her boss negotiated 3 days a week, which she was happy with. Now, before she got the chance to come back, they have told her that either she accommodates something else, or she has no job. Would your opinion change if she was already back working at 3 days and then they changed it on her? How is this different than a FT job being changed to a PT job? Who are strangers on a message board to decide the hours she can and cannot work?
All I was saying is that she should at least try, and in all likelihood her boss would not fight it.
No, my opinion would not change because she was never working part time. She worked full time, went on maternity leave and then came back to the same job she had before she went on leave. Legally they did what they needed to do. And, it is certainly different from a FT job changing to a PT job. The job offered upon return needs to be equivalent to the previous job. You couldn’t offer someone who previously worked a salaried position making $100k a part time hourly position making $15 an hour because that is not equivalent.
Of course strangers cannot decide what hours she can work. I don’t think anyone is implying that. What we’re saying is that SHE is choosing to not take the equivalent job offered to her. Therefore, she would not be entitled to UE benefits without some type of fabrication, which is illegal.
I fundamentally disagree with someone applying for benefits not intended for them. IMO, no one should be paid for choosing not to work. And that is what seems to be getting lost in translation here- choice vs need. But, I’m not the ethics police, so have at it.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 12:19 PM |
| |
|
jlm2008
LIF Adult
Member since 1/10 5092 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by Pomegranate5
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by Pomegranate5
Wow everyone is taking this so personally for some reason. It's amazing to me that some of the same women who continually complain about the maternity benefits in this country are so outraged that a new mother is trying to use UE as a crutch until she can find work that fits her needs and wants. The hypocrisy is truly baffling.
Because the government doesn’t have to support you for the sole reason that your previous job doesn’t “fit your needs or wants.” What person (I’m removing “mom” because that’s irrelevant here) wouldn’t prefer a job with, say, a shorter commute or more convenient hours? That doesn’t mean someone can quit because they’re sick of the LIRR and expect the government to pay for that choice.
She and her boss negotiated 3 days a week, which she was happy with. Now, before she got the chance to come back, they have told her that either she accommodates something else, or she has no job. Would your opinion change if she was already back working at 3 days and then they changed it on her? How is this different than a FT job being changed to a PT job? Who are strangers on a message board to decide the hours she can and cannot work?
All I was saying is that she should at least try, and in all likelihood her boss would not fight it.
No, my opinion would not change because she was never working part time. She worked full time, went on maternity leave and then came back to the same job she had before she went on leave. Legally they did what they needed to do. And, it is certainly different from a FT job changing to a PT job. The job offered upon return needs to be equivalent to the previous job. You couldn’t offer someone who previously worked a salaried position making $100k a part time hourly position making $15 an hour because that is not equivalent.
Of course strangers cannot decide what hours she can work. I don’t think anyone is implying that. What we’re saying is that SHE is choosing to not take the equivalent job offered to her. Therefore, she would not be entitled to UE benefits without some type of fabrication, which is illegal.
I fundamentally disagree with someone applying for benefits not intended for them. IMO, no one should be paid for choosing not to work. And that is what seems to be getting lost in translation here- choice vs need. But, I’m not the ethics police, so have at it.
You are exactly right! I am not sure if things are getting lost in all the posts but the fact is she worked 5 days a week, went on maternity leave, while on maternity leave boss & she agreed to 3 days. before she came back, boss said no, I need you for 5 days that you always worked. SHE changed the job, NOT the boss. What aren't people getting about this??? I can GUARANTEE you I cannot tell my job I decided to just work 3 days from now on and if they don't accept that, since I am a full time employee that I would get unemployment.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 12:30 PM |
| |
|
olive98
LIF Adolescent
Member since 11/12 791 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
She was offered a 3 day position. Her employer went back on that. She is absolutely entitled to unemployment. You can get unemployment if the employer makes a change to hours or location. You can even get it if your spouse takes a job and you have to move for them.
I think some people on here are taking this too far. Yes lots of mothers go back to work full time. I did. I was able to. You don't know her situation. Some mothers are not able to work full time because of childcare.
It doesn't even matter..Nobody's business.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 12:35 PM |
| |
|
klingklang77
kraftwerk!
Member since 7/06 11486 total posts
Name:
Völlig losgelöst
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by Pomegranate5
Wow everyone is taking this so personally for some reason. It's amazing to me that some of the same women who continually complain about the maternity benefits in this country are so outraged that a new mother is trying to use UE as a crutch until she can find work that fits her needs and wants. The hypocrisy is truly baffling.
OP, apply and see what happens. I've seen someone RETIRE (there was a luncheon in their honor and everything) and then file for unemployment and the employer did not fight it so they got approved. You have no idea what might happen. Your boss verbally told you they were changing your job to PT and are now going back on that. I think you have a good chance and I hope it works out for you.
ETA - I don't work at UE and am no expert, but as far as I know, neither is anyone else on this thread.
I agree. And this is why maternity leave needs to be better in the US. But that’s another topic for another day.
OP, I’d personally try for UE. The bootstraps mentality is sensitive in the US.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 12:42 PM |
| |
|
Sash
Peace
Member since 6/08 10312 total posts
Name:
fka LIW Smara
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by Pomegranate5
Wow everyone is taking this so personally for some reason. It's amazing to me that some of the same women who continually complain about the maternity benefits in this country are so outraged that a new mother is trying to use UE as a crutch until she can find work that fits her needs and wants. The hypocrisy is truly baffling.
OP, apply and see what happens. I've seen someone RETIRE (there was a luncheon in their honor and everything) and then file for unemployment and the employer did not fight it so they got approved. You have no idea what might happen. Your boss verbally told you they were changing your job to PT and are now going back on that. I think you have a good chance and I hope it works out for you.
ETA - I don't work at UE and am no expert, but as far as I know, neither is anyone else on this thread.
I agree. And this is why maternity leave needs to be better in the US. But that’s another topic for another day.
OP, I’d personally try for UE. The bootstraps mentality is sensitive in the US.
I think she did try, so I ma curious to hear the update,
My only concern is how her and the boss parted ways. Some companies will get upset if you file for unemployment if they feel you quit. I don’t know if she would want to burn that bridge. That is the only red flag I see.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 1:10 PM |
| |
|
jlm2008
LIF Adult
Member since 1/10 5092 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by olive98
She was offered a 3 day position. Her employer went back on that. She is absolutely entitled to unemployment. You can get unemployment if the employer makes a change to hours or location. You can even get it if your spouse takes a job and you have to move for them.
I think some people on here are taking this too far. Yes lots of mothers go back to work full time. I did. I was able to. You don't know her situation. Some mothers are not able to work full time because of childcare.
It doesn't even matter..Nobody's business.
If it's nobody's business why is it posted on a public message board asking for opinion?
|
| Posted 1/19/18 2:05 PM |
| |
|
ave1024
I Took The Wrong Road
Member since 12/07 6153 total posts
Name:
That Led To The Wrong Tendencies
|
Re: Unemployment question
Posted by olive98
She was offered a 3 day position. Her employer went back on that. She is absolutely entitled to unemployment.
Even if the whole idea that she was "offered" the 3 day a week job came into play here, the fact remains that they are now offering her a 5 day job and to qualify for unemployment aren't you required to take this opportunity if presented?
Check out this link to nolo.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/collecting-unemployment-are-you-able-32445.html
Available to Work
To collect unemployment benefits, an employee must also be available to work. "Available to work" means there is nothing preventing the employee from accepting a new job, should one come along. Here are some examples of situations that might lead a state unemployment agency to find that an employee is unavailable for work -- and, therefore, ineligible for benefits:
The employee is unwilling to work certain hours or days. If you have a history of working part time and are looking for part-time work, some states will still consider you available to work as long as your schedule isn't too restrictive. In other states, the agency will expect you to be ready to take a full-time job, if one is offered. The less flexible you are about your work schedule, the more likely the agency is to find you unavailable to work.
Frankly there is no "history" of working part time (a verbal agreement to start working part time does not show history), so based on that since she previously was working full time, was offered full time, she would be required to take full time.
Message edited 1/19/2018 3:07:16 PM.
|
| Posted 1/19/18 3:06 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] |
