Bill to extend unemployment AGAIN killed by senate republicans

[Foxfyre]

They would rather you lose your home than receive unemployment benefits YOU paid for. I don't understand these people. They think they would rather collect a paltry payment than work and get paid what they were used too? What kind of logic is that?

Right now, its hard (depending on where you live of course) to find employment. The jobs just are not there. They quote the unemployment numbers when they are trying to make the president look bad, but say to these guys, go find a job. ???

They think a person who is trying to find a job but cant is automatically a "welfare queen" and that is just wrong.

Sometimes if a person can't find work it is because they won’t take a job unless it is of a certain type, or in a certain field that suits them; something they are invested in. It may be better for some people to finally lose their home and be forced to move to another city where there are jobs in their desired occupational field; a move they would never make unless conditions precipitate that move.

That could be the best thing for them, rather than waiting for certain job openings that will never come. Too often maybe, people need to be forced to begin at a lower level occupation - maybe even working a second part time job until they get a raise - just so that they can get back into the game. Once back in the game they can be more comfortable, earning a check, while attempting to again find work in their desired field. That may never happen, but by having some work they have more leverage than as an unemployed person.

Those low level occupations you speak of are just not available to most middle class workers that lose their job. Even low level jobs have requirements. No one hires a 50 year old office worker to dig ditches.

Unemployment benefits are based on your salary. In most states, it rarely pays more than a quarter of your salary. You still have to pay income tax on it which leaves even less. I have never know anyone who would rather be on unemployment than have a job.

Extension of unemployment benefits is always a political game. Whichever party that controls congress attaches legislation to the unemployment extension that the other party can not support. It's pure politics.

A part time job flipping burgers at McDonalds or being a greeter at Wal-mart pays more than the average unemployment check. I would pay somebody $100 right now to pick up the fallen apples in my back yard and do some other grunt work in the yard that I don't want to do. Somebody with a truck can make another $100 hauling a bunch of our junk to the dump.

My own resources are limited as to how much I can help in that way, but I am guessing there are dozens or hundreds like me in my neighborhood who would pay for odd jobs. My nephew runs a construction company and fortunately does have work right now and is having trouble hiring laborers to do the grunt work--picking up trash, general clean up--at the construction site. It is not hard work--just about any mobile person can do it--and he said at least a couple of folks turned him down because the work wasn't permanent and they didn't want to jeopardize their unemployment?

But if that is all a person has to bring in a few bucks for groceries, I imagine there will be people who would do even that kind of menial work.

I remember once when I was pregnant and nobody would hire me because I was pregnant that I took a job as a telemarketer peddling magazines. And using the techniques we were required to use to do that, it was disgusting, degrading work. But I did it. What made it tolerable was that I knew it wasn't permanent.

Life sometimes just sucks and we have to do what we have to do.

 

[froggy]

Senate Republicans Kill Unemployment Measure | The State Column


Without looking into it too much I am on board with letting it die. If we do this yet again, when will it cease? Many people stop looking for work after they begin to draw until the benefits are coming close to an end. That is the sad truth and if we continually push the benefits out there is no reason for people to look for work.

What say you?

Its required you keep a job search log to recieve benifits.

 

[Jarhead]

Don't they have constituents on unemployment? I mean seriously, aren't they in fact hurting the people who voted them in ?

Its called unemployment benefits because you paid for it with taxes. Its unemployment insurance.

Employees don't "pay for unemployment benefits with taxes". EMPLOYERS pay into state and federal reserves to provide unemployment benefits. Those reserves are running dry as they weren't designed to provide endless benefits for millions of people at the same time.

Zona does not care about this fact. I tried to find out where he/she thinks the mopney comes from in regard to UI and he/she completely ignored me.

Facts are facts and Zona is one that completely ignores those facts that do not meet his/her agenda.

 

[froggy]

Don't they have constituents on unemployment? I mean seriously, aren't they in fact hurting the people who voted them in ?

Its called unemployment benefits because you paid for it with taxes. Its unemployment insurance.

Employees don't "pay for unemployment benefits with taxes". EMPLOYERS pay into state and federal reserves to provide unemployment benefits. Those reserves are running dry as they weren't designed to provide endless benefits for millions of people at the same time.

Employees do pay for unemployment benefits, when a employer hire you service out they charge a x amount(no matter what line of work you're in) and you are not paid that full amount, some of it is used to pay for Unemployment ins. it called overhead.

 

[Jarhead]

Don't they have constituents on unemployment? I mean seriously, aren't they in fact hurting the people who voted them in ?

Its called unemployment benefits because you paid for it with taxes. Its unemployment insurance.

Employees don't "pay for unemployment benefits with taxes". EMPLOYERS pay into state and federal reserves to provide unemployment benefits. Those reserves are running dry as they weren't designed to provide endless benefits for millions of people at the same time.

Employees do pay for unemployment benefits, when a employer hire you service out they charge a x amount(no matter what line of work you're in) and you are not paid that full amount, some of it is used to pay for Unemployment ins. it called overhead.

That is a stretch.

We have operating costs, and yes, our cost of payroll addition due to UI is part of operating costs.

But salaries are based on the market. I pay the market value of an employee plus 6%...that is a rule of thumb I use to ensure my salaries are competative. That does not change if my UI is to go up (which it has not). If it does go up, my personal profit (distribution) will go down...not the salary I would pay for an employee.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Senate Republicans Kill Unemployment Measure | The State Column


Without looking into it too much I am on board with letting it die. If we do this yet again, when will it cease? Many people stop looking for work after they begin to draw until the benefits are coming close to an end. That is the sad truth and if we continually push the benefits out there is no reason for people to look for work.

What say you?

The democrats remind me of the republicans when they tryed to get some reform on Fredy and Fanny. Just not enough votes to get past a fillabuster, so they just run away.

 

[chanel]

A real stretch. By that logic, every time the state raises the rate on the employer, the employees should consider that a raise.

A little known scheme in our state (and many others I'm sure) is the "tuition waiver program" which allows college students to collect UI while attending school. They can also collect if they take night or on line courses and be "available for work" during the day. It's abuse but the govt doesn't care. It's not their money.

 

[JimH52]

Why extend unemployment, the GOP logic says. Let them apply for welcare and foodstamps. It is just another pot of money from another area. Who wins that one?

 

[Jarhead]

Senate Republicans Kill Unemployment Measure | The State Column


Without looking into it too much I am on board with letting it die. If we do this yet again, when will it cease? Many people stop looking for work after they begin to draw until the benefits are coming close to an end. That is the sad truth and if we continually push the benefits out there is no reason for people to look for work.

What say you?

Its required you keep a job search log to recieve benifits.

About 3 years ago, I interviewed a young man for a clerical position. He was a nice guy, well dressed; very articulate. Seemed very motivated.

I offered him the position. $575 a week to start with a review after 3 months. His experience warranted anywhere from $500 to $550 a week according to my market review. OUr benefit contribution ius 100% paid for single coverage but the employee must contribute for family coverage. After 1 year, the 401(k) kicks in.

He respectfully asked that I pay for his family coverage as well. I said that since he was a non exempt employee, I could not make the exception for him as it is not legal to offer one non exempt employee one thing and not the same to all other non exempt employees.

He turned down the position.

A week later he stopped by my office and asked for me to confirm in writing that he had interveiwed for the poisiton as unemployment needed proof he was seeking a position.

He asked me to lie and say he did not get the offer as he would be turned down for future unemployment if they knew he turned a viable offer down.

I lied for the guy. But the truth is, if he really wanted to work, he would have accepted my offer. Instead, I have no doubt he is working off the books likely for a local conteractor or something and collecting unemployment and the two together amount to more than my position plus single coverage would have paid him.

He gamed the game.

 

[Jarhead]

Why extend unemployment, the GOP logic says. Let them apply for welcare and foodstamps. It is just another pot of money from another area. Who wins that one?

GOP logic?

What about basic logic that if they lose iunemployment benefits, they will do what they gotta do to earn a living.

There are jobs out there.

Sorry if they are "beneath" them.

 

[froggy]

Senate Republicans Kill Unemployment Measure | The State Column


Without looking into it too much I am on board with letting it die. If we do this yet again, when will it cease? Many people stop looking for work after they begin to draw until the benefits are coming close to an end. That is the sad truth and if we continually push the benefits out there is no reason for people to look for work.

What say you?

Its required you keep a job search log to recieve benifits.

About 3 years ago, I interviewed a young man for a clerical position. He was a nice guy, well dressed; very articulate. Seemed very motivated.

I offered him the position. $575 a week to start with a review after 3 months. His experience warranted anywhere from $500 to $550 a week according to my market review. OUr benefit contribution ius 100% paid for single coverage but the employee must contribute for family coverage. After 1 year, the 401(k) kicks in.

He respectfully asked that I pay for his family coverage as well. I said that since he was a non exempt employee, I could not make the exception for him as it is not legal to offer one non exempt employee one thing and not the same to all other non exempt employees.

He turned down the position.

A week later he stopped by my office and asked for me to confirm in writing that he had interveiwed for the poisiton as unemployment needed proof he was seeking a position.

He asked me to lie and say he did not get the offer as he would be turned down for future unemployment if they knew he turned a viable offer down.

I lied for the guy. But the truth is, if he really wanted to work, he would have accepted my offer. Instead, I have no doubt he is working off the books likely for a local conteractor or something and collecting unemployment and the two together amount to more than my position plus single coverage would have paid him.

He gamed the game.

why didn't you send him on his way and report him to employment office?

 

[Foxfyre]

Employees don't "pay for unemployment benefits with taxes". EMPLOYERS pay into state and federal reserves to provide unemployment benefits. Those reserves are running dry as they weren't designed to provide endless benefits for millions of people at the same time.

Employees do pay for unemployment benefits, when a employer hire you service out they charge a x amount(no matter what line of work you're in) and you are not paid that full amount, some of it is used to pay for Unemployment ins. it called overhead.

That is a stretch.

We have operating costs, and yes, our cost of payroll addition due to UI is part of operating costs.

But salaries are based on the market. I pay the market value of an employee plus 6%...that is a rule of thumb I use to ensure my salaries are competative. That does not change if my UI is to go up (which it has not). If it does go up, my personal profit (distribution) will go down...not the salary I would pay for an employee.

But those of us who have long been running businesses do calculate the cost of mandatory liability insurance (often based on payroll), mandatory work comp insurance (almost always based on payroll), SUTA, FUTA, and FICA (always based on payroll) as well as any other wage based expenses when we determine what we can afford to offer a person to work for us.

The more such expenses there are, the less we can afford to pay in wages. That is why the more mandates the Federal or State governments impose re time off, health insurance, retirement, union membership, etc. etc. etc., the more it will affect your profits and the more it will affect the bottom line in the employee's paycheck.

If you, the employer, are willing to just ignore the consequences of the extra expenses, I imagine you won't be in business too long. You surely will be limited in your ability to expand and hire new employees.

 

[WillowTree]

why don't we employ the unemployed with some of that "shovel ready tarp money" we needs us a big long fence built.

 

[Jarhead]

Its required you keep a job search log to recieve benifits.

About 3 years ago, I interviewed a young man for a clerical position. He was a nice guy, well dressed; very articulate. Seemed very motivated.

I offered him the position. $575 a week to start with a review after 3 months. His experience warranted anywhere from $500 to $550 a week according to my market review. OUr benefit contribution ius 100% paid for single coverage but the employee must contribute for family coverage. After 1 year, the 401(k) kicks in.

He respectfully asked that I pay for his family coverage as well. I said that since he was a non exempt employee, I could not make the exception for him as it is not legal to offer one non exempt employee one thing and not the same to all other non exempt employees.

He turned down the position.

A week later he stopped by my office and asked for me to confirm in writing that he had interveiwed for the poisiton as unemployment needed proof he was seeking a position.

He asked me to lie and say he did not get the offer as he would be turned down for future unemployment if they knew he turned a viable offer down.

I lied for the guy. But the truth is, if he really wanted to work, he would have accepted my offer. Instead, I have no doubt he is working off the books likely for a local conteractor or something and collecting unemployment and the two together amount to more than my position plus single coverage would have paid him.

He gamed the game.

why didn't you send him on his way and report him to employment office?

I prefer to not get into it. But lets just say that here in NYC, you need to be careful with what you do and dont do.

There are way too many people that take your actions and intentionally misconstrue them in an effort to capitalize on it.

I know it sounds lame. But trust me. I have seen advocates boycott and protest companies that by no means did, or intended what they were accused of.

Take it from there.

 

[Jarhead]

Employees do pay for unemployment benefits, when a employer hire you service out they charge a x amount(no matter what line of work you're in) and you are not paid that full amount, some of it is used to pay for Unemployment ins. it called overhead.

That is a stretch.

We have operating costs, and yes, our cost of payroll addition due to UI is part of operating costs.

But salaries are based on the market. I pay the market value of an employee plus 6%...that is a rule of thumb I use to ensure my salaries are competative. That does not change if my UI is to go up (which it has not). If it does go up, my personal profit (distribution) will go down...not the salary I would pay for an employee.

But those of us who have long been running businesses do calculate the cost of mandatory liability insurance (often based on payroll), mandatory work comp insurance (almost always based on payroll), SUTA, FUTA, and FICA (always based on payroll) as well as any other wage based expenses when we determine what we can afford to offer a person to work for us.

The more such expenses there are, the less we can afford to pay in wages. That is why the more mandates the Federal or State governments impose re time off, health insurance, retirement, union membership, etc. etc. etc., the more it will affect your profits and the more it will affect the bottom line in the employee's paycheck.

If you, the employer, are willing to just ignore the consequences of the extra expenses, I imagine you won't be in business too long. You surely will be limited in your ability to expand and hire new employees.

You do not know my business nor do you know my business philosophy.

We all have certain guuidelines that we follow...and then we all deviate where we deem it appropriate.

Certain expenses are that...expenses.

Other expenses that are NOT constant, are expenses that are deducted from my distribution.

An increase in UI, whgich has not even come close to being an issue will be exactly that. A decrease in my take-home. I will not sacrifice quality of employee by offering lower salaries than the market dictates.

In my business, that would be suicide.

 

[hortysir]

With the astronomical number of unemployed persons, Florida, for one, is out of UEI funds.
We have to borrow +/- 300 million per month from the Fed in order to pay our claims

 

[Foxfyre]

That is a stretch.

We have operating costs, and yes, our cost of payroll addition due to UI is part of operating costs.

But salaries are based on the market. I pay the market value of an employee plus 6%...that is a rule of thumb I use to ensure my salaries are competative. That does not change if my UI is to go up (which it has not). If it does go up, my personal profit (distribution) will go down...not the salary I would pay for an employee.

But those of us who have long been running businesses do calculate the cost of mandatory liability insurance (often based on payroll), mandatory work comp insurance (almost always based on payroll), SUTA, FUTA, and FICA (always based on payroll) as well as any other wage based expenses when we determine what we can afford to offer a person to work for us.

The more such expenses there are, the less we can afford to pay in wages. That is why the more mandates the Federal or State governments impose re time off, health insurance, retirement, union membership, etc. etc. etc., the more it will affect your profits and the more it will affect the bottom line in the employee's paycheck.

If you, the employer, are willing to just ignore the consequences of the extra expenses, I imagine you won't be in business too long. You surely will be limited in your ability to expand and hire new employees.

You do not know my business nor do you know my business philosophy.

We all have certain guuidelines that we follow...and then we all deviate where we deem it appropriate.

Certain expenses are that...expenses.

Other expenses that are NOT constant, are expenses that are deducted from my distribution.

An increase in UI, whgich has not even come close to being an issue will be exactly that. A decrease in my take-home. I will not sacrifice quality of employee by offering lower salaries than the market dictates.

In my business, that would be suicide.

I was only judging your business decisions by precisely what you posted as your business decisions. I don't make presumptions about people or judge their opinions by anything other than what they reveal here.

And yes, most of us do eat the expense and don't reduce the wages of our employees because of a modest incidental tax increase on this or that. But if the overall costs of doing business doesn't affect what you offer new hires or what new benefits or wage increases you can offer your existing employees, or your projected bottom line is not affecting what new hires you can afford or what expansion is reasonably indicated, I would question your business judgment if I was evaluating your business for a loan.

There are hundreds of employers in our area who are already calculating the cost of additional taxes once the Bush tax relief expires at the end of this year, and the consequences of having to provide mandatory health insurance for their employees and other affects of existing and pending legislation. They are taking long hard looks at what that will do to their bottom line and that is absolutely affecting their long term plans for expanding and increasing their work force. And not in a good way.

And THAT I believe is exacerbating the unemployment problem and is one of the reasons that the unemployment fund is exhausted.

 

[edthecynic]

Don't they have constituents on unemployment? I mean seriously, aren't they in fact hurting the people who voted them in ?

Its called unemployment benefits because you paid for it with taxes. Its unemployment insurance.

Employees don't "pay for unemployment benefits with taxes". EMPLOYERS pay into state and federal reserves to provide unemployment benefits. Those reserves are running dry as they weren't designed to provide endless benefits for millions of people at the same time.

Zona does not care about this fact. I tried to find out where he/she thinks the mopney comes from in regard to UI and he/she completely ignored me.

Facts are facts and Zona is one that completely ignores those facts that do not meet his/her agenda.

States must vary because I've been paying a State UI payroll tax of about 1% of my gross wages for more than 50 years.

 

[JWBooth]

Bill to extend unemployment AGAIN killed by senate republicans

About time the patrician senatorial bastards earned their keep.

 

[Jarhead]

But those of us who have long been running businesses do calculate the cost of mandatory liability insurance (often based on payroll), mandatory work comp insurance (almost always based on payroll), SUTA, FUTA, and FICA (always based on payroll) as well as any other wage based expenses when we determine what we can afford to offer a person to work for us.

The more such expenses there are, the less we can afford to pay in wages. That is why the more mandates the Federal or State governments impose re time off, health insurance, retirement, union membership, etc. etc. etc., the more it will affect your profits and the more it will affect the bottom line in the employee's paycheck.

If you, the employer, are willing to just ignore the consequences of the extra expenses, I imagine you won't be in business too long. You surely will be limited in your ability to expand and hire new employees.

You do not know my business nor do you know my business philosophy.

We all have certain guuidelines that we follow...and then we all deviate where we deem it appropriate.

Certain expenses are that...expenses.

Other expenses that are NOT constant, are expenses that are deducted from my distribution.

An increase in UI, whgich has not even come close to being an issue will be exactly that. A decrease in my take-home. I will not sacrifice quality of employee by offering lower salaries than the market dictates.

In my business, that would be suicide.

I was only judging your business decisions by precisely what you posted as your business decisions. I don't make presumptions about people or judge their opinions by anything other than what they reveal here.

And yes, most of us do eat the expense and don't reduce the wages of our employees because of a modest incidental tax increase on this or that. But if the overall costs of doing business doesn't affect what you offer new hires or what new benefits or wage increases you can offer your existing employees, or your projected bottom line is not affecting what new hires you can afford or what expansion is reasonably indicated, I would question your business judgment if I was evaluating your business for a loan.

There are hundreds of employers in our area who are already calculating the cost of additional taxes once the Bush tax relief expires at the end of this year, and the consequences of having to provide mandatory health insurance for their employees and other affects of existing and pending legislation. They are taking long hard looks at what that will do to their bottom line and that is absolutely affecting their long term plans for expanding and increasing their work force. And not in a good way.

And THAT I believe is exacerbating the unemployment problem and is one of the reasons that the unemployment fund is exhausted.

Maybe I should elaborate.
I am a NYS sub chapter s corp. I take a low salary and quarterly distributions.
When I am evaluated for a loan, my distrinutions are not a factor included.

Any non constant cost simply affects my distributions. Not my gross net before distributions.