Unemployment compensation

[Pacun]

DC allows you to collect unemployment when you get fired or laid off. If you quit your job, you don't qualify. When an employee goes to collect unemployment, even if they quit, they claimed that they were fired.

DC calls the employer to confirm that the employee was fired. If the employer states that the person quit, the DC goverment has a hearing where the employee and the employer state their own version of the situation. The "judge" makes a decision and grants or denies unemployment. If unemployment is granted, the employer has the right to appeal the decision in regular court.

Why does the employer show up to the first court or appeals if the money doesn't come from them? Do companies have to be present if the government send them a letter stating that a hearing is scheduled on the case?

I do understand that each state has different laws. Please share what happens on your state or comment my questions.

[Lion EA]

In CT, unemployment benefits paid to a former employee who worked there any time during the last five quarters will increase your rate on SUTA going forward. So, a company that fired for cause or has an employee that quit would have a good reason to argue against benefits being paid against their record.

[nickr]

Massachusetts will allow a worker to collect unemployment if they quit, but it was "for cause". An example of "for cause" would be if the employer was abusive toward the employee.

[JohnH]

In NC, the employer will contest the claim when someone quits voluntarily for the same reasons given above. If the employee quits voluntarily, they aren't entitled to unemployment compensation. They are also not entitled to u/c if they are fired for valid reasons (or in some cases they are penalized a certain number of weeks before they can begin receiving u/c).

The primary purpose of u/c is to help willing workers who are laid off temporarily or permanenetly because no work is available. Unfortunately, it has come to be regarded by many as some sort of right they are entitled to regardles of the reason they are out of work, including lifestyle decisions along the lines that "I can do just about as well drawing u/c as I can by working, plus I can make a little on the side and not tell anybody".

Back to the point. In the original post you said that the money doesn't come from the employer. In fact, it does come from the employer after being filtered through a government agency and several layers of bureacruacy. The employer's reseve account is the primary funding mechanism. If the employer can establish that the employee left voluntarily or was fired for valid reasons other than lack of work, then the claim is not charged to the employer's reserve account, even if the judge rules that the person is entitled to receive u/c. That is important because even a few small claims can quickly reduce the reserve account balance and cause the rate the employer pays on wages to rise dramatically for many years to come. So contesting claims can save the employer money in the long run - sometimes a lot of money.

The other side of the coin is that some employers will as a matter of policy contest all claims (except for mass layoffs) because there is a strong financial incentive to get "non- charging" status on any claim. So when there is an ambiguous situation, an otherwise deservng employee might be denied or penalized. Overall, though, it's been my experience that the greatest abuse or manipulation of the system is on the claimant side. Your second sentence in the original post illustrates that point.

[mcb39]

In Wisconsin, all of the above are correct. All employers pay into UCB a percentage of their payroll. If someone collects, the percentage goes up.

[Gail in Virginia]

Same applies to Virginia as all of the other posters. It has been my experience that the system is heavily weighted in favor of the employee. A local contractor "suspended" an employee for three days for drinking on the job. The employee did not come back to work but instead filed for unemployment. The contractor contested it and said the employee could come back to work but would not be allowed to drink on the job sites. The employee go unemployment because of a hostile work environment. Now the contractor's rate is about 3 times what it would be if he had no claims filed against him. The original determination is done by phone; in order to appeal, the contractor would have to spend a day driving to and from Richmond to appeal in person, plus whatever time the actual appeal took. And even if they appeal, odds are not good that the employer will prevail.

Employees can file regardless of the situation and it is then up to the employer to demonstrate that they were dismissed for cause.