Unions scamming the system & the taxpayers!!

Did you realize some union members can receive up to 21 weeks a year of unemployment benefits for "voluntary" unemployment and don't have to provide any proof the employer laid them off? They don't even have to exhibit the desire to find a job! At the end of their "voluntary" unemployment, if the employer doesn't hire them back they are then entitled to file for normal unemployment benefits. Does this sound right to anyone? See, this is the sort of scam unions are running today that puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

 

Sounds a lot like the construction and timber industry in my area, union and non-union... with no real difference between the two. Both work more in the Summer months and take unemployment in the Winter. I've always worked year-round myself. I'd agree that Unemployment insurance is abused... it practically begs to be.

 

"Some" union members. How many? Where? in what industry? What union? As is usually the case, there is no context, no background, no source. Just an unsupported statement followed by the usual RW outrage. Not saying you're wrong, just asking you to have the courtesy to give us what we need to evaluate your accusation.

 

I got that information Saturday night from a 40 year construction superintendent & union member, at a fundraiser for one of my kids schools. We were sitting at a table eating, discussing the economy when he shared this information with us. He was actually lamenting the facts that unions, in an effort to keep themselves relavent, have stooped to such depths just to keep some of their members happy (who wouldn't be happy with 21 weeks paid vacation built into their contract, right?).

 

I demand 22 weeks! ...wait, I'm not in a union... make it 23!

 

....and this is part of the problem....
When abuse like this is discussed the union supporters will either ignore it completely or try to dismiss it...they will never address is rationally and heaven forbid they would ever criticize it.

 

But I did address it previously. I agreed with you that some union and non-union members abuse unemployment. I even gave a maximum wage cut-off point at $16,500... but I could go higher if you wanna discuss it this time. How about $25,000 (single)?

 

I don't understand this wage cutoff concept of yours/

 

An example then:

Say you are a single male working 8 months of the year for a business, making say... $15,000 in wages for those 8 months. Every year your boss lays you off for a 4 month period. You are unable to find even part-time work for those 4 months, and begin receiving unemployment. Say the limit set for wages and unemplyment benefits is set at $17,500. You would therefore be eligible to receive a maximum of $2,500 in that fiscal year. A fiscal year begins as you start a job.

It would never be this simple of course. Calculations for cost-of-living in a given area would vary the maximum benefits allowed for one thing. That means if you live in a city, where the cost of living is higher (than in the country) you would have a larger maximum benefit. In my area, about $16,500 or so... maybe $17,500 would be a good maximum benefit for a single person, living alone. Calculations would have to be made for couple, married or otherwise, number of people in the household, etc.

 

Too complicated, too convoluted and not really germaine to the thread.
These little union-demanded loopholes need to be eliminated., it's a abuse of the system, a waste of taxpayer money & puts US business at a competitive disadvantage. No one should ever receive u/e benefits for a voluntary layoff.

 

The current rules are even more complicated lol

The point was to start a dialogue on possible ways to improve the unemployment system, and to see if you were even willing to try. A major problem in the Congress is an unwillingness to work on solving problems, choosing instead to continue the partisan bickering. The example I gave was an attempt to solve a problem. Removing all unemployment benefits is IMO, unacceptable.

 

Pretty simple really. Convoluted? YO. Not germaine? You did ask for more details, though not directly ("I don't undersatnd this...")

 

I thought we were discussing a little known scam unions were running on the taxpayers?

 

I know, but focusing on one issue and not considering other issues that are relevant is myopic. In order to have a real understanding of an issue you have to explore the other issues relating to it. Focusing on one point of an issue encourages an 'us versus them' attitude and that isn't going to solve any problems, it's only going to make things worse.

 

......while diluting the subject with too many tangents can serve to minimize the relevance.....

 

I'll put it this way then: Say a man jumps into a river. That's what you're wanting to focus on. I'm looking at why he did, and what the consequences of that action might be. Was it hot out? Was he being chased by bees? Is the water safe to jump in? Your focus on the man jumping in is ok, just not as complete of an understanding of the circumstances that it could be. It's like a single frame in a movie. I wanna see the rest of it lol

 

What contributing factors are relevant to the union scam in the OP?

 

The 'contributing factors' are numerous, but most are of little actual relevance. It really depends on how deep you want to get into the issue. You can learn as much as you want to learn about it.

IMO though, you're right. Union members are abusing the system. I would disagree that this is a 'little known' thing though. I'd also have to add that the abuse is not limited to union members, or a particular political party's members.

Would you place an annual limit on unemployment benefits? If so, what? If not, why not?

 

I am not a member of any Union yet I am sick and tired that whenever the economy goes south, people attack unions that they are getting paid too much and have too many benefits. Funny few people complain when everyone is making money. That is everyone but the vast majority of people who are in a union. There are many people who work in government union jobs who could make alot more in the private sector but choose being teachers, fireman, policeman, social workers, public DA's etc, for it is like a calling for them and as long as the pay is decent they will do it. But go ahead and kill the unions and see in ten years who you have as firemen, policemen, teachers, etc...There is an old saying," you get what you pay for."

 

I'm not totally against it, but I do see how it creates a laziness, an unwillingness to look for work. I agree that the private sector pays much more than the public sector does, but might disagree on what constitutes a sufficient income or benefit.