Getting laid off better than retiring early?

[Rambler]

The moral dilemma in all of this is that because so many people "take (undue)advantage" of the system, the cost/rate we have to pay keeps going up, which psychologically tends to trick our minds into thinking "hey, I paid for it, why don't I get some for me?" ...and then it becomes a vicious cycle with more people on some sort of dole than the people who are working can reasonably support... and on, and on, and on. Thankfully I have never had to take UI benefits, and I have often thought that with the savings I have, I may be too personally embarrassed to take them even if I fell within the proper qualifications.

Not preaching at anyone here...that's just the way I see it.

R

 

[easysurfer]

I retired about 3 years earlier than I originally planned. There came a point that I had to ask myself, "Johnny Paycheck now or try to hang on for another three years of a stressful environment?" When it came time to make my final decision, my mind was almost split in two people. On one side, the familiarity and the idea to rough it out for 3 years, or the heat-of-hearts telling myself 3 years felt like an eternity. I look at the calendar today and had I chose the rough it out path, I'd still be plugging away for almost 2 more years. Life is all about choices. I know in my heart-of-hearts I did the right choice for me ... that's all one can ask for.

 

[traineeinvestor]

In my experience, people who get laid off tend to get more than people who leave of their own accord. The latter typically only get what they are contractually entitled to. The former will often be given additional money.

If you have made a decision that you are definitely willing to go, there is nothing wrong with tactfully holding your hand up. However, in most organisations doing so will have consequences if you change your mind (e.g. lower discretionary bonus, lower pay rise, reduced promotion prospects).

Another observation from the layoffs which occured in late 2008 and 2009 - the people who got laid off first often got better packages than the people laid off later. Given that the least useful people tend to be let go first and the best people get let go last this is kinda odd ?

 

[vicente solano]

Here in Spain you get no unemployment benefits if you quit without a legal reason, i.e. illegal breach of contract by your employer. Conversely, you DO get benefits if you are justly fired.
Even though the legal reasons for quitting with benefits are many and generic, they don´t include merely getting bored by the job!

 

[Nords]

If you're OK with having other Americans subsidizing your retirement under false pretenses through unemployment benefits and having Canadians subsidize your health care also under false pretenses - go for it. With all due respect, you can't be serious...

You make it sound as if "unemployment benefits" consists of sitting on the couch eating bonbons all day.

I think it's closer to being paid to do a job search. Most unemployment rules require the beneficiary to actually be going through the motions, if not the intent, of finding a job: answering ads, floating résumés, going to interviews. Sure, fraudulent intent isn't difficult to implement, but keeping up the scheme requires serious effort. Why, it's almost like... work.

Doesn't seem much worse to me than being "paid" by an "employer" to "work" when said concept consists of showing up for meetings, answering phones, and shuffling paper.

I suspect Canadian healthcare has the same number of wickets & hoops.

Sounds like the same discussion as filing for welfare benefits, or spending down/gifting assets to qualify for Medicaid. Again the concept of actually "getting away with it" is complicated by the bureaucratic jeopardy of compliance.

Maybe this type of conversation would be better in the "selling yourself" thread, but the seller doesn't put a very high value on the merchandise.

 

[rescueme]

You make it sound as if "unemployment benefits" consists of sitting on the couch eating bonbons all day.

That task is reserved for us retirees!

 

[cashbalancetrouble]

I my case, I caught my last boss in a lie. When confronted, he wanted me gone but had no grounds. I negotiated a 26 weeks severance and then collected unemployment while I continued my search. I knew full well leaving in my fifties means a new job would be hard to come by in the Forbes rated most miserable city. But I didn't need a job as I was prepared to never go back to work.

After the 26 weeks severance ended, I did continue with 26 weeks of unemployment. As said before, extensions only applied to the newly
unemployed.

I have no regrets. Since I left four and 1/2 years ago, the company was sold twice, the 'boss' became president and the business and employee count has 'GROWN' to be half of what it used to be.

The best workers have left after me and it has become relatives and friends only apply.

 

[Dawg52]

I love this forum and enjoy reading all the posts, but a question.....why is drawing unemployment compensation looked upon with such disdain by some of the forum members? Is it illegal? Wasn't it devised for our benefit if/when we are laid off or terminated?

Never received unemployment benefits. But if I knew I did not plan to go back to work after being laid off, I would have a tough time going through the motions of pretending to look for a job just to collect the benefits. Now if I thought I might want to work a few more months.....sure I would take the benefits and search for a job, even though it may be just short term job.

I guess it's all how we look at it.

 

[jIMOh]

Got to stop reading these so fast...

I thought it was "getting laid better than retiring early".... and I was wondering what the answers were going to be....

I sent a thanks
but I am laughing so hard this deserves a repeat

If there is prize for post of the day, you win my vote.

 

[tryan]

But if I knew I did not plan to go back to work after being laid off, I would have a tough time going through the motions of pretending to look for a job just to collect the benefits.

In MA they make it easy. You just phone in (from: your cell, the beach, the lake, the golf course ....) and answer a few questions via the touch tone into the computer and t he check is in the mail!

Coworkers spoke of being required to take classes (resume writing ... ) but that did not materialize for me. Not sure why/why not.

 

[FUEGO]

Never received unemployment benefits. But if I knew I did not plan to go back to work after being laid off, I would have a tough time going through the motions of pretending to look for a job just to collect the benefits. Now if I thought I might want to work a few more months.....sure I would take the benefits and search for a job, even though it may be just short term job.

Man, you people are lazier than me!

From what I gather, you just send out 2 resumes a week. Respond to phone calls and emails in a reasonable time. Probably something that could be done in roughly an hour per week. For me it would be a touch over $500/week pay, or $500 an hour with favorable tax treatment. That's more than I earn at the ole day job (per hour).

Here's an excerpt from a "friend" (crazy former semi-stalkerish co-worker):

"Anything new?? I got the job offer at Megacorp. $10/hr. Hell yeah I turned it down.
Doesn't make sense.
...
I am going to Chicago tomorrow ...on your tax dollars."

Ahhh, unemployment benefits. Why work if you can make virtually the same doing nothing and traveling? Although I did confront this individual about whether she could legally turn down a valid job offer and continue to collect unemployment.

Although I told this same person I would be doing the same thing she was doing - "diligently" searching for a new job, while enjoying one's self and taking it easy. If DW and I were somehow simultaneously right-sized, we would probably pick somewhere nice and tropical and relocate for 99 weeks while "diligently" searching for a job pursuant to the requirements necessary to remain a valid dole-collector.

Regarding morality of collecting benefits, if you can situate yourself such that you comply with the terms of the program, I don't see a problem with collecting benefits. There is no notion of "fairness" when it comes to dole-collecting. No one would voluntarily refrain from claiming a proper tax deduction or credit if they legally complied with the requirements to take the credit or deduction. No different than collecting unemployment benefits I don't think. Just my opinion though, and everyone must act in accordance with their own views of the world.

 

[skyvue]

In MA they make it easy. You just phone in (from: your cell, the beach, the lake, the golf course ....) and answer a few questions via the touch tone into the computer and t he check is in the mail!

Coworkers spoke of being required to take classes (resume writing ... ) but that did not materialize for me. Not sure why/why not.

I was told by a friend MA has the most lucrative benefits. He live in Ohio but works on construction projects that take him to different states during the summer. He gets laid off every winter for 4 months and manages to file and collect MA unemployement even though his residence is in OH. It nearly doubles his weekly benefit (according to him).

 

[REWahoo]

Regarding morality of collecting benefits, if you can situate yourself such that you comply with the terms of the program, I don't see a problem with collecting benefits.

If you are referring to collecting unemployment benefits when you never really intend to return to work (ie, you are retired), then it may not be a problem for those who can sleep at night while committing a fraudulent act.

I see it as stealing from some young wage earner who really does need unemployment to keep food on the table for his/her family while looking for another job. But hey, I'm an old dinosaur who still comes to attention and stops talking when the national anthem is played prior to the start of a ball game...

 

[Bestwifeever]

I don't think it comes down to whether you need it or not. Son-in-law collected while actively looking for work, but he and DD did not need it as she has a good job. Should he not have collected it? Did anyone who needed it to put food on the table not receive it because he did?

I have a friend in his late 70s who has never filed for SS because he feels he doesn't need it and says he does not want government handouts. I see paying into SS by individuals and business the same as employers paying unemployment insurance--those programs were designed to pay for themselves.

To the OP's question re layoffs--DH's megacorp offered attractive packages for people who volunteered to be laid off, which allowed DH to leave 2 years earlier than planned (and the HR people encouraged everyone to file for unemployment benefits--interesting (dh didn't)). He would not have been laid off otherwise, ever, but he is thrilled with the bonus years.

 

[REWahoo]

I do not necessarily think it wrong for an unemployed person (sincerely seeking employment) who doesn't need the money to draw unemployment. However, I do think it would diminish how I felt about myself if I did so.

I did not apply for unemployment insurance while "between opportunities" (age 31, two small kids and a stay-at home spouse). Had I not found work in a couple of months and prior to depleting our meager emergency fund, then no doubt I would have been in the unemployment line signing up.

 

[FUEGO]

If you are referring to collecting unemployment benefits when you never really intend to return to work (ie, you are retired), then it may not be a problem for those who can sleep at night while committing a fraudulent act.

I see it as stealing from some young wage earner who really does need unemployment to keep food on the table for his/her family while looking for another job. But hey, I'm an old dinosaur who still comes to attention and stops talking when the national anthem is played prior to the start of a ball game...

I think anyone would consider returning to work should the right offer come along.

I don't think it is an "either/or" proposition in regards to a wealthy older person receiving benefits versus a truly needy wage earner receiving their benefits. Both parties will receive their benefits as long as they comply with the terms of the program. By me taking $2000 in child tax credits even though I don't really "need" the money, am I somehow depriving someone else (say a single wage earning mother) of their child tax credits? No; we both receive our benefits/credits.

 

[REWahoo]

I don't think it is an "either/or" proposition in regards to a wealthy older person receiving benefits versus a truly needy wage earner receiving their benefits.

I don't agree but I've already admitted I'm a dinosaur when it comes to this subject.

 

[Leonidas]

Legality (i.e. getting away with it because it's not technically a crime) is one issue, but morality is at the heart of it. Regardless if you (and your employer) paid into UI for 50 years, it's not money owed to you unless you become unemployed and intend to get another job. If you don't think there is anything wrong with doing otherwise, then when you go down to the unemployment office go ahead and honestly tell them that you may be able to work but you have no intention of making yourself available for work.

If you have to lie to get it you have to know that it's not right.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I don't agree but I've already admitted I'm a dinosaur when it comes to this subject.

Yeah, but you're our dinosaur and we love you.

 

[FUEGO]

Legality (i.e. getting away with it because it's not technically a crime) is one issue, but morality is at the heart of it. Regardless if you (and your employer) paid into UI for 50 years, it's not money owed to you unless you become unemployed and intend to get another job. If you don't think there is anything wrong with doing otherwise, then when you go down to the unemployment office go ahead and honestly tell them that you may be able to work but you have no intention of making yourself available for work.

If you have to lie to get it you have to know that it's not right.

Maybe it is the lawyer in me, but unless they are asking you to affirmatively swear to something, you don't have to disclose anything. Of course you are welcome to do so, however it may prejudice your claim for benefits that you may otherwise be entitled to.

From what others have told me, you have to certify each week that basically you looked for work, and that you didn't turn down suitable work. If you can truthfully certify to this, then you are entitled to your benefits.

No one is saying "lie to get unemployment benefits". If you do so and intend to deceive, then that is fraud.

 

[REWahoo]

Maybe it is the lawyer in me...

Yep, that must be the reason you don't have any issues with the moral/ethical problem others see here.

 

[FUEGO]

Here is what my jurisdiction's unemployment office says:

"All claimants, except those who are still attached to an employer's payroll, must (a) register for work with the Employment Security Commission; (b) file a claim for each calendar week of benefits they request, and (c) actively seek work during any week for which unemployment benefits are claimed. Actively seeking work means doing those things that an unemployed person who wants to work would normally do. Unless otherwise instructed, a claimant must seek work in person on two different days with at least two different employers and must keep a written record of all work search contacts for periodic review by ESC."

Their instructions don't mention intent to find a job, just that a person must "actively seek work" by doing those things that an unemployed person who wants to work would normally do. I think the minimum is 2 contacts per week. And keep notes on your work seeking activities.

 

[FUEGO]

Yep, that must be the reason you don't have any issues with the moral/ethical problem others see here.

Could be. I'd suggest following the guidelines set forth by the agency doling out benefits. Don't lie. They can change the guidelines if they think a narrower set of people should qualify for benefits.

 

[tryan]

FWIW, for me "actively seeking and logging activity" was clipping 2 references from the want ads. Was told the unemployment office can ask for your log at any time. Didn't happen to me thou.

After 20 years in mega corp and leaving on THIER terms ... I have zero guilt after collecting 30 weeks.

 

[FUEGO]

FWIW, for me "actively seeking and logging activity" was clipping 2 references from the want ads. Was told the unemployment office can ask for your log at any time. Didn't happen to me thou.

From having a number of family, friends, and coworkers being out of work these last couple of years, that is what I gather as well. Very minimal effort is sufficient. I guess if there was ever a full hearing and you had to show that you were acting in a manner consistent with one who is seeking work, you may have to discuss what you did beyond the bare minimum clipping want ads or searching monster dot com 2x a week. So maybe clip 3 ads each week!

And I have never heard of anyone actually be asked for their log of contacts or searching effort.