Would you file for unemployment?

[RunningBum]

Feeling bad is one thing, committing fraud by lying about looking for work is another.

I pay for auto insurance, but if I want a new car I don't crash mine into a tree and call it an accident so that I can get that money I paid in back. Insurance doesn't work that way.

Apparently now there is no requirement to look for new work, so there's no fraud in collecting unemployment.

 

[Jerry1]

I am kind of on the fence about all of this and wondering where people draw the line on ethics vs legality.

For example, in our state (maybe most states), you can qualify for Medicaid based on monthly income, not yearly. So if you took out $200,000 from your Roth in December but had no other income, you could get free healthcare from Jan to November.

Totally legal.

I have no problem ethically, taking advantage of government programs. If it’s legal and I need it, I’d take it. It’s not my job to write the laws in a way that prevents abuse. It’s our representatives that are responsible for that. Look at ACA for example. Is it my fault that they base eligibility on income and have no view on net worth or demonstrated need? Look how long it took to close the file and suspend loophole in SS. Ethics are just not in play for me. Legality is always in play and if there are grey areas I might pause, but ethics are not, imho, in play. They make the rules, I play by them, what possible ethical issue do I have?

One thing that does come into play is value of my time. For example, when I was given my buyout, I could have filed for UI. To do so legally, I would have had to look for a job. I could have done that legally but I was only looking at about $6K and I just wanted to get on with my new retired life. Just wasn’t worth it. That’s different than ethics. FWIW, in Michigan, they use an annual income number for Medicaid. Maybe a worthwhile thing to do would be to write the State and let them know about the flaw in using a monthly income amount.

 

[Ready]

I have no problem ethically, taking advantage of government programs. If it’s legal and I need it, I’d take it. It’s not my job to write the laws in a way that prevents abuse. It’s our representatives that are responsible for that. Look at ACA for example. Is it my fault that they base eligibility on income and have no view on net worth or demonstrated need? Look how long it took to close the file and suspend loophole in SS. Ethics are just not in play for me. Legality is always in play and if there are grey areas I might pause, but ethics are not, imho, in play. They make the rules, I play by them, what possible ethical issue do I have?

I agree completely. I don’t see any issues with ethics here.

 

[doneat54]

Are you retiring then? If not, file for unemployment, but do a job search. If you are retiring, do not file. Your neighbors, your fellow taxpayers, your state, needs the money more than you right now. Make sure you are doing things legally. And also follow your conscience.

At least in the state I live in, UI is not funded by taxes, or any tax revenue. It is funded by the employers who have to pay into a pool, and if they terminate someone, they have to increase their "premiums" to the pool.

 

[rodi]

Personally, I probably wouldn't... My circumstances were different, I quit to retire because I got tired of waiting for the layoff. (It would have been at least 1 more year working before they downsizing decimated my old department.)

My dad pioneered this.... During the big defense layoffs in the 80's the company he worked for for decades was down to about 20% of its peak size... He kept hoping.... and not getting laid off. He was super ready to retire... but wanted UI $. He finally went into the big boss (founder/ceo) and asked to be let go. Turns out they were afraid to lay him off because he 'knew where all the bodies were buried'.... He was laid off, collected UI, started his pension, and never looked back. But.... a few years later he said he regretted waiting to be laid off... freedom was worth more than the UI $.

My son just filed for UI.... but they got rid of 45 people in a 50 person department.... Fortunately, it looks like he's got another job lined up... and he'll only get a few weeks of UI.

 

[Fermion]

Does not worrying about ethics only apply to money?

What if you could have jumped the line for a vaccine by inviting your niece or nephew over to spend one night so you could state that you were in a multi generational household? This would have put you in front of the line at least in our state. Totally legal.

I am not pointing fingers, just curious. We manage our income to get ACA subsidy so certainly are not throwing stones in this house!

 

[Montecfo]

It's no more wrong than millionaires taking a subsidy on their ACA.

I see the point you are making, but I can distinguish them.

UI is to cover lost income. With severance you have income. Therefore to me it is wrong to apply for UI for periods covered by severance. I would not do it and have not. Everyone has a choice to apply or.not.

ACA subsidy is different. You do not "apply for" it. It is a tax break based on income. I'm not sure how you avoid the subsidy exactly. You don't "take the subsidy" any more than you "take" capital gain tax rates. Tax compliance is the law.

To me those are two different things. Nor is this self serving, as I also do.not qualify for an ACA subsidy.

 

[Montecfo]

At least in the state I live in, UI is not funded by taxes, or any tax revenue. It is funded by the employers who have to pay into a pool, and if they terminate someone, they have to increase their "premiums" to the pool.

Yes. Same in Virginia and Texas.

And this is why employers will contest bogus claims.

 

[breger1]

Having been on the other side of this situation @MegaCorp in my past I can tell you that your employer took the fact that you are eligible for unemplyment into account in planning your severance and is expecting that you will file for unemployment. FWIW

 

[CRLLS]

You were RIF'ed. You are entitled to UI regardless of the "negotiated" package you and your employer agreed to. They even mentioned you can file. I don't understand why it is even a consideration not to file. You would have continued to work if allowed to. They had other plans.

P.S. I have been downsized twice during my working years and filed both times. It never occurred to me to not file. The last time was my final one and I stopped looking for work when the UI ran out.

 

[corn18]

I've decided not to take it. This is a mutual separation. I saw the writing on the wall last year and approached them about leaving before they made a formal move. There were a lot of sleepless nights as we worked through my package, but today it becomes official. $560k of stocks, bonuses and severance is more than fair and I was planning for a lot less than that when this all started. Life is good.

 

[f35phixer]

Good for you Corn, I just retired on Nov12th to be exact, turned 62 on the 13th so you know what that means an extra 10% onto pension.... Boss called me up month later, what would it take to bring you back, HUMMMM 500K / Week sounds good. Real Yup really!!!

BS Bucket got full, last year an half.

Best on luck on your future endeavors. Ever at PAX, let me know !

 

[skyking1]

congratulations!

 

[Oakster]

I negotiated an amicable departure from megacorp. My last day is this Friday. My position is being eliminated. I got a great severance package.

The way my separation letter is worded, I am not receiving severance, so I can file for unemployment. With the latest COVID bill, I would receive $904 a week for 26 weeks. That's a lot of money and would be helpful.

Would you file for unemployment?

I would only file if the true nature of your severance package was known, if it makes a difference. I would not try to cheat the system. Integrity is more important than a little government money.

 

[meleana]

Yes.

 

[euro]

I've decided not to take it. This is a mutual separation. I saw the writing on the wall last year and approached them about leaving before they made a formal move. There were a lot of sleepless nights as we worked through my package, but today it becomes official. $560k of stocks, bonuses and severance is more than fair and I was planning for a lot less than that when this all started. Life is good.

Bravo - good for you, corn18!!!

 

[Oakster]

I would collect it to the point that I was meeting the rules and guidelines truthfully. Some places have suspended any needs to submit evidence of looking for work (or so I hear)... in that case, you would be good for 26 months. I would tell the truth and if I qualified, I would accept it.

 

[imnontrad]

> Would you file for unemployment?

The laws of your state may differ but
1) You would usually not be eligible for unemployment until that severance period (26 weeks) runs out.
2) After that, you would only be eligible if you meet the requirements - apply to X number of jobs each week, do not turn down any job, etc.

So if you plan to work for someone else, for the first 26 weeks after leaving the company, starting work elsewhere would mean a "bonus" (a paycheck plus the severance pay for that week).

If you are just planning to retire, then filing for unemployment would not apply.

 

[Bigdawg]

Good for you Corn, I just retired on Nov12th to be exact, turned 62 on the 13th so you know what that means an extra 10% onto pension.... Boss called me up month later, what would it take to bring you back, HUMMMM 500K / Week sounds good. Real Yup really!!!

BS Bucket got full, last year an half.

Best on luck on your future endeavors. Ever at PAX, let me know !

I'm following this thread because my contract is up in June (third extension), I am @ Pax and I am contemplating going on UI for a few months. We'll see. IF I apply for UI I plan on following all the rules. Applying for two jobs per week, etc... Like I mentioned in an earlier post I will apply for jobs at the very top of my skill set with the idea that they will be harder to get. But, if one looks OK I may bite. If not I will remove myself from UI. For those of you not affiliated with military aviation, many/most of these jobs are pretty cool. But occasionally there are the politics and micro management that make any job suck.

 

[charais]

Like others have said, just make sure you meet the rules. I was laid off/job eliminated and found another job one day a week, getting UI for the difference. When I moved and left the one day a week job, that employer was now dinged for my UI even though I never applied for UI from that job. He protested and I had to repay all the UI from when I quit to move out of state to find a full time job. It was a couple of thousand dollars but it was a lesson I never forgot. (huh...must be the day for PAX-I work there too as a contractor)

 

[Coach Shoe]

Take it?

Outstanding! Good for you! Gaming the system just adds to the morass we find ourselves in. It’s refreshing to see someone with integrity stepping up to the plate.

 

[doneat54]

> Would you file for unemployment?

The laws of your state may differ but
1) You would usually not be eligible for unemployment until that severance period (26 weeks) runs out.

In my state, the UI website specifically states that you can collect it RIF'ed even if you get a severance. The state labor dept. contacts the employer to verify details before dispatching UI checks.

 

[OddGuy]

Funny how people have no issue taking every tax deduction legally possible, but get tied in knots about claiming unemployment payments to which they'll legally eligible.

 

[corn18]

In my state, the UI website specifically states that you can collect it RIF'ed even if you get a severance. The state labor dept. contacts the employer to verify details before dispatching UI checks.

Funny how people have no issue taking every tax deduction legally possible, but get tied in knots about claiming unemployment payments to which they'll legally eligible.

The issue for me is the unemployment office will contact my employer. The only reason I can retire now is because they were very kind to me with the severance package. They did not have to do that. I don't want to burn that bridge.

 

[Aerides]

Funny how people have no issue taking every tax deduction legally possible, but get tied in knots about claiming unemployment payments to which they'll legally eligible.

If I were wanting to work, and laid off, and seeking work = I'm eligible.

If I wanted to retire, angled for a package, and now retire = I'm not eligible.

True, the rules might temporarily be suspended re Proof of actively seeking work, but that is due to the extraordinary covid impacts on jobs. But that's a temporary loophole and not intended to invite otherwise-willing early retirees also get in on it. (but yes, legal, sure... and most of us don't take every single legal thing when we know it's really dodgy and involves even a little truth-stretching)