Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not a satisfying answer, but the most accurate answer to your question has to do with how the funds for these various forms of unemployment get allocated by the federal and state governments. I don't claim to understand it all completely, but funds for EUC get allocated during a specific time period and any funds allocated during that time period get paid out to claimants in their entirety even once the EUC program ends. The initial 26 weeks of state unemployment is different and the EB/FED-ED system is even more complicated still.
As for why the allocation works this way. Who can say?
Pavlov may well have the right answer.
Or as Unemployed2010 said, it may just be because this is a patchwork system of poorly conceived programs laid on top of each other over time, most of which were never intended to last even as long as they have.
We could probably come up with some more explanations if we thought about it enough, but plenewken's answer would still be the only one that really mattered.
The dates are arbitrary and could be seen as unfair.
Emergency funds are not out - they are cut off.
The "system" - though there really isn't one - is moved forward on the whims of Congress, or not. The only "system" is the first weeks paid by the state, and the states in which EB is always paid given their criteria. After that, Congress giveth or not. They are bonus bucks and not any truly codified program, given in response to an emergency.
It seems to them kinder I guess to let someone who began a tier to finish it out rather than cutting everyone off at the same time. May not be smarter politically for those who want to extend it, as it softens the blow and quiets some complaints.
There are many arguments to "explain" why they chose to do it this way, none of which make everyone happy, and all of which are speculation.
The only truly "fair" thing would be to continue emergency unemployment to those who need it until a certain threshold is met - say 6% UE, measured in a way agreeable to all. I doubt that will ever happen. I don't think it's "fair" to cut off someone at 99 weeks if there are not enough jobs to re-employ them. But that's my idea of fair, and clearly not everyone's.
Meanwhile, pitting the unemployed against each other -"Hey, your piece of cake is bigger than mine!" is a great way to distract them from the fact that there are very few jobs for them whether they have looked for 9 weeks or 99.
12-02-2010, 08:13 PM
grant516
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185
Meanwhile, pitting the unemployed against each other -"Hey, your piece of cake is bigger than mine!" is a great way to distract them from the fact that there are very few jobs for them whether they have looked for 9 weeks or 99.
That's an interesting point that I'm glad you brought up.
Others say it fairly well too- there really is no sensibility to the system at times, and I wonder how familiar with it those in political power really are.
I'm positive few people know that one person could be on week 26, and another on week 27- and one will get cut off immedately, and the other will get nineteen weeks more. Logically, if I were in charge, I'd give them both 9 more.
There is no justification against how that makes much more adequate sense, and again, the losers of a system like that would be current 99ers who are unfairly ahead of the game.
I'm pretty sure those in power are aware of the consequences of their actions. And if they are not after the last 2 contentious extensions they are living in their own special bubbles.
But aside from the immediate situation, if you were to start the whole extended benefits thing fresh, would you still choose to use time unemployed as a criteria? or would you just say - wow, 9+% & 1 job for every 5 jobless people - that's a really tough economy. We'll extend benefits till it's 6% and 1 job for every 3 unemployed. [or whatever numbers, not being exact here].
I contend that using length of unemployment is fine in a good economy. If it was 2007 and the UE rate was 4.6 with 1 job for every 2 unemployed, then state 26 weeks is fine. But if the economy in general can not support a significant number of jobless with jobs to get, then emergency aid should depend on the state of the economy, not how long you are unemployed.
Maybe it would inspire those who control economic policy to work on improving the economy to stop UE benefits instead of just fighting over extending benefits every 3 months. Just say 'till we fix the mess, we'll have to pay for it.
The unemployed can't fix the economy. They are the symptom of a disease the "Dr's" aren't working very hard to cure. Instead they kill the patient, slowly, in 3 or 6 month intervals, with a couple of aspirin and call me next year. Whoa - no more disease! [yes, I have become snarkily cynical].
Yes, that assumes, as I do, that the vast majority of unemployed would much rather have a job than be unemployed. It's no vacation loosing your house because you bring home $200/week instead of 800.[or whatever]
12-03-2010, 11:45 AM
grant516
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185
I contend that using length of unemployment is fine in a good economy. If it was 2007 and the UE rate was 4.6 with 1 job for every 2 unemployed, then state 26 weeks is fine. But if the economy in general can not support a significant number of jobless with jobs to get, then emergency aid should depend on the state of the economy, not how long you are unemployed.
Maybe it would inspire those who control economic policy to work on improving the economy to stop UE benefits instead of just fighting over extending benefits every 3 months. Just say 'till we fix the mess, we'll have to pay for it.
This system would eventually bankrupt the government, as well as produce little incentive for low skilled, low paid employees to seek out work.
The discussion on this particular thread is to point out the system in place that has given some folks 99 weeks, while others 26 weeks.
While I'm under the assumption that some benefits will continue after congressional debates- the federal system of funding really does need to be linked higher to unemployment rates nationwide, and no tiers should exist that span 20 weeks as that seems to be greatest disparity in UI compensation.
Perhaps rather than a Tier 5, they should just extend Tiers 3 & 4 to 20 weeks each
12-03-2010, 12:17 PM
grant516
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by plenewken
I don't understand. What's the issue with 20-weeks tiers? And what about the initial 26 weeks? You're against it too?
Guaranteed 20 Week Tiers create disparity on UI compensation.
Let's say two people work for Company C.
Employee A was was hired May 10th 2009, Employee B hired on May 20st 2009.
Both work similar shifts for a year prior to Company C downsizing and removing some of their workforce.
Employee A is terminated on May 20th, 2010
Employee B is terminated on May 30th, 2010
Employee A will have access to 26 + 20 (Tier 1) weeks of UI Compensation- (as well as $25 a week in FAC benefits)
Employee B will have access to 26 weeks of UI Compensation.
Employee A worked the same amount of time, but will receive 2x the compensation of UI.
If the system involved a 10 week Tier 1, and a 10 week Tier 2. The government could close access to Tier II, while both employees still could equally receive the same funding for Tier 1.
As it is with 20 week tiers, a single day cut off will be the difference between a massive 20 week UI payout.
It's like a restaurant closing it's booths and kicking customers out, but people at the Tables can stay an extra 5-6 hours. It's a nonsense policy.
Okay we GET IT already - sheeeesh - The system isn't FAIR and equitable - we KNOW this.
What good does your constant harping on it in EVERY post do? NO-one here can change the system, so why not contact those who CAN?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
