IF YOU LIVE IN PA AND HOPE TO REC. EB BENEFIS, HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO WRITE EVERY SENATOR IN 10 MINUTES

First topic message reminder :

IF YOU LIVE IN PA, HERE IS EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO WRITE ALL THE SENATOR IN ONE SINGLE EMAIL. ALL THE EMAIL ADDRESS, HOW TO BCC, THE LETTER, ALL BY SENDING ONE EMAIL. JUST FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS PLEASE AND LET ME KNOW YOU HAVE DONE THIS. I SUGGEST YOU WIRE ANOTHER EMAIL EVERYDAY, FILL THEIR EMAIL ACCOUNTS UP ASKING THEM TO PASS SB 944. IF YOU CAN'T DO THIS SIMPLE ALL EXPLAINED ONE EMAIL THEN I GUESS WE DO NOT DESERVE EB. WILL YOU PLEASE LET ME KNOW YOU HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THIS

Here is a list of all the Senator in Pennsylvania. I feel, since many do not know of our issue, that we should write to all of them now and ask them to discuss with each other what it will be like in June when 45,000 will lose EB and another 15,000 in July. Maybe you don't think this is you, but it will be. So what you have to do is in you BCC (NOT THE CC AREA) put all of these name, just copy them and put them in. Here they are:

alloway@pasen.gov; dargall@pasen.gov; lbaker@pasen.gov; lbaker@pasen.gov; senatorblake@pasenate.com; boscola@pasenate.com; brewster@pasenate.com; pbrowne@pasen.gov; mbrubaker@pasen.gov; jcorman@pasen.gov; jcorman@pasen.gov; costa@pasenate.com; andy@pasenate.com; jearll@pasen.gov; jeichelberger@pasen.gov; eerickson@pasen.gov; eerickson@pasen.gov; ferlo@pasenate.com; mfolmer@pasen.gov; fontana@pasenate.com; jgordner@pasen.gov; sgreenleaf@pasen.gov; hughes@pasenate.com; hughes@pasenate.com; cmcilhinney@pasen.gov; bmensch@pasen.gov; jorie@pasen.gov; jpiccola@pasen.gov; dpileggi@pasen.gov’ jpippy@pasen.gov; jrafferty@pasen.gov; jscarnati@pasen.gov; lsmucker@pasen.gov; stack@pasenate.com; tartaglione@pasenate.com; rtomlinson@pasen.gov; vance@pasen.gov; kward@pasen.gov; washington@pasenate.com; mwaugh@pasen.gov; dwhite@pasen.gov; mwhite@pasen.gov; williams@pasenate.com; wozniak@pasenate.com; gyaw@pasen.gov; yudichak@pasenate.com;lbaker@pasen.gov; tartaglione@pasenate.com

In the TO area put this email address: lbaker@pasen.gov She is the Republican Chair of PA DOL&I. We need to turn some Republicans

Subject: Don't Cut-off PA's Unemployed Workers! Pass SB 994 to Continue Extended Benefits

Here is the letter, perhaps you will want to add your personal experiences to it:

Dear Senator,

Unless Pennsylvania lawmakers take action soon, long-term unemployed workers in Pennsylvania will lose up to 20 weeks of unemployment compensation known as Extended Benefits on June 11, 2011. Senate Bill 994 would allow Pennsylvania's unemployed to keep these federally-funded benefits.

On June 11, 2011, an estimated 45,000 unemployed workers in Pennsylvania will be cut-off of the Extended Benefits they've been receiving, unless the legislature acts. Pennsylvanian's Department of Labor and Industry estimates that a total of 135,000 jobless workers could lose eligibility for these benefits this year starting on June 11th.

The federal government now covers 100% of the cost of these benefits for non-government employees. All the state needs to do to continue receiving these federally-funded benefits is to enact a technical fix to the state unemployment insurance law. Senate Bill 994 would do just that. Can we please put a side partisanship, and get this done immediately. It is very stressful not knowing what is going to happen, and makes most of lives little things unbearable. Not knowing makes interview seem like you are a loser before you get there. We need you help now.

Republicans and Democrats in every one of Pennsylvania's neighboring states ---- have all recently passed the needed Extended Benefits legislation. In total, 24 states have already acted to allow individuals to continue these benefits.


Extended Benefits are 100% Federally funding, no one dime comes from the States. Thanks to federally-funded Extended Benefits, more than $1.5 billion additional dollars flowed into Pennsylvania since the recession started benefiting unemployed workers and businesses alike. 200,000 of us, our friends, family members, and neighbors have counted on these benefits to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

This small legislative change, with no cost to Pennsylvania, is the only thing that stands in the way of unemployed workers being able to secure the benefits they, and the local economy, so desperately need, and that the federal government is underwriting.

It's time for Pennsylvania lawmakers to act.

Don't Cut-off Pennsylvania's Unemployed Workers! Pass SB 994 to Continue Extended Benefits!

Thank you.

your name
address
city, state, zip

Dazed&Confused wrote:I think that means, in fact I am pretty sure, they will file it and think about it someother time-which means never, good.

Night gal, Dazed

Yeah, I think it means the same as "tabled", too. Night to you too.

Had to look it up to be sure, and we were right:


It is to "kill" a bill that was not accepeted by a committee in congress. More than 90% of proposed bills are tabled. After the bill has been "tabled", the full House or Senate can override committee decisions (but this rarely happens).

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_it_mean_when_a_bill_is_laid_on_the_table#ixzz1M13ouBGE

Very worried about w

Please nobody hold your breath but I think the Republican have a bill with pork in it, not clean, but does mention 3 year look back toward the bottom to extend thru December 31, 2011. It is SB 1030, latest printers #1189. Now I am not positive of this, but it had its first consideration May 10, 2011. Please this is very hard to read, but I am 50% sure about this. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but it keeps on "prior 3 years". It is very hard to read and you kinda have to read the whole thing to understand . I do wonder it the Republicans put the 3 year thing in because they have to in order to get the money and use it for themselves. I DON'T KNOW, THIS IS ALL SO STRANGE. Here is the bill:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=1030&pn=1189

Please if I am incorrect, forgive me. Dazed

Here is what I am talking about with this rep. senate bill. Think it has workfare in it to but for the 3 year look back, I might be right I don't know. But it looks like it is going to get out of committee and pass, but Workfare, ick!

It reads:

1
State, seasonally adjusted, for the three-month period referred

2
to in subparagraph (i) equals or exceeds one hundred ten per

3
centum of such average rate for either, or both, of the

4
corresponding three-month periods ending in the two preceding

5
calendar years, or

6
(B) with respect to compensation for weeks of unemployment

7
beginning after December 17, 2010, and ending on or before

8
December 31, 2011, the average rate of total unemployment in

9
this State, seasonally adjusted, for the three-month period

10
referred to in subparagraph (i) equals or exceeds one hundred

11
ten per centum of such average rate for any, or all, of the

12
corresponding three-month periods ending in the three preceding

13
calendar years.

14
(2) There is a State "off" indicator for this State for a

15
week if the requirements of paragraph (1)(i) or (ii) are not

16
satisfied.

17
(3) This subsection shall be applicable only with respect to

18
weeks of unemployment for which one hundred per centum Federal

19
sharing of extended benefits is available under section 2005(a)

20
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public

21
Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115), without regard to the extension of

22
Federal sharing for certain claims as provided under section

23
2005(c) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,

24
or under a subsequently enacted provision of Federal law.

25
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, any

26
week for which there would otherwise be a State "on" indicator

27
shall continue to be such a week and shall not be determined to

28
be a week for which there is a State "off" indicator.

29
(5) For purposes of this subsection, determinations of the

30
rate of total unemployment for any period, and of any seasonal

20110SB1030PN1189
- 22 -

This got yes votes from every member of PA DOL May 10th:

Senate Committee Roll Call Votes
LABOR AND INDUSTRY
JOHN R. GORDNER, Chair LLOYD K. SMUCKER, Vice Chair


Date of Meeting: May 10, 2011
Subject of Roll Call: Senate Bill 1030 Printer's No. 1133 (current printers #1189)
Reported as Amended

AYE NAY NOT VOTING
BLAKE
BROWNE
FOLMER
KASUNIC
MCILHINNEY
SMUCKER
STACK
TARTAGLIONE
YAW



GORDNER, Chair
SCARNATI , ex-officio


AYES: 11
NAYS: 0
NV: 0

It does have some not so nice things in it. Dazed
-

Dazed & Confused

Thanks for keeping us all up to date. I don't know how you find all this information.

i stay up all night and look for stuff. No just go to the PA State Senate Website, how I found it was a little tricky, but on the right hand top there is a box for Bills, you just put in the bill # or issue, and you get lots of hits. I got lucky and looked under the Republican Leaders name and it was there. I think they hide everything from us.

Hope you are well Jane.

Sorry this is messy and for the all caps but that's the way they write the bills. Here is my synopsis of the amendments:

Starting on page 14:

(1)IS MAKING AN ACTIVE SEARCH FOR SUITABLE EMPLOYMENT. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR "ACTIVE SEARCH" SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SHALL INCLUDE, AT A MINIMUM, ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: (I) REGISTRATION BY A CLAIMANT FOR EMPLOYMENT SEARCH SERVICES OFFERED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA CAREERLINK SYSTEM OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER INITIAL APPLICATION FOR BENEFITS. (II) POSTING A RESUME ON THE SYSTEM'S DATABASE, UNLESS THE CLAIMANT IS SEEKING WORK IN AN EMPLOYMENT SECTOR IN WHICH RESUMES ARE NOT COMMONLY USED. (III) APPLYING FOR POSITIONS THAT OFFER EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES SIMILAR TO THOSE THE CLAIMANT HAD PRIOR TO HIS UNEMPLOYMENT AND WHICH ARE WITHIN A FORTY-FIVE (45) MINUTE COMMUTING DISTANCE. (2) THE PENNSYLVANIA CAREERLINK SYSTEM OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION, AS THE SECRETARY DEEMS APPROPRIATE, TO THE PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION SERVICE CENTER SYSTEM SO THE SYSTEM CAN CONDUCT THE NECESSARY CROSS REFERENCE CHECKS. (3) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARAGRAPH (1), THE DEPARTMENT MAY DETERMINE THAT A CLAIMANT HAS MADE AN ACTIVE SEARCH FOR SUITABLE WORK IF THE CLAIMANT'S EFFORTS INCLUDE ACTIONS COMPARABLE TO THOSE TRADITIONAL ACTIONS IN THEIR TRADE OR OCCUPATION BY WHICH JOBS HAVE BEEN FOUND BY OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY AND LABOR MARKET IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT IS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT. (4) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION DO NOT APPLY TO ANY WEEK IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT IS IN TRAINING APPROVED UNDER SECTION 236(A)(1) OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 (PUBLIC LAW 93-618, 19 U.S.C.§ 2101 ET SEQ.) OR ANY WEEK IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT IS REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES UNDER SECTION 402(J). (5) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO A CLAIMANT WHO IS LAID OFF FOR LACK OF WORK AND ADVISED BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE CLAIMANT WILL RETURN TO WORK. (6) THE DEPARTMENT MAY WAIVE OR ALTER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION IN CASES OR SITUATIONS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE SECRETARY FINDS THAT COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE OPPRESSIVE OR WHICH WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT.

Severance pay language on pages 16-17

Bottom of page 19, line 29: some amendment to max weekly benefits

Page 20, line 19, some language about the state UE rate and how (I think) that affects EB

Page 21 line 16, page 22, line 6, 3-year look-back

Bottom of pg 23-32 “Shared Work Program” is all new. Too tired too pick through this.

Joan, I knew there was pork in there just was too tired to look. Also,the Majority Chair, I am not exact on the words, but he said he will try to get this passed by June 11, 2011. I wonder, since this was a Republican bill, if a state must enact the 3 year look back in order to get the money, to use it as they please. Him saying I will try and get it done before June 11, makes me think, if they don't pass that new bill that came out of US committee today, using UC to take care of the states problems, if in fact this is the only way to get this money for the state and use it for themselves, having to incorporate the 3-year look back. We always have to be one step ahead of these guys, ecause they seem to always be out to get us. Dazed

I dunno, Dazed...I'm not seeing what I would call "pork"...I didn't cite some sections that seemed to me might let employers off the hook for their share under certain circustances, which I'm sure employers just love. There must be something horrible in there somewhere, because that's what they do. You don't expect Paula Dean to cook anything without at least a stick of butter and a cup of sugar and you don't expect Republicans to vote for bills that don't have crappy clauses in them.

JoanB wrote:I dunno, Dazed...I'm not seeing what I would call "pork"...I didn't cite some sections that seemed to me might let employers off the hook for their share under certain circustances, which I'm sure employers just love. There must be something horrible in there somewhere, because that's what they do. You don't expect Paula Dean to cook anything without at least a stick of butter and a cup of sugar and you don't expect Republicans to vote for bills that don't have crappy clauses in them.

Yepper, there is something going on when a bunch of Republicans (and I was at one time a Republican) wrap up legislation in 2 days, it has now been sent back to or "re-referred to the Appropriatons Committee, for any additional changes they may make. Then it goes to the Senate for a vote, then to the Represenatives, and then to the Governor. Seems to me they should put in there "even though this is a Republican Bill we will behave like Democrats and not steal your unemployment comp to fix our problems." More letter writting for me, I don't trust them not to use our hard fought UC for their own benefit. They are to sneaky for my palet. Not today JoanB, not today. Dazed

Just to be clear on one thing: I love Paula Dean. All y'all.

Yes, I do too! Hey make me a picture of what happened in games 7 for those Flyers and those Penguins, a funny one, like cross-checking eachother. Daxed

Well Dazed. I must like ya a lot...this dang thing kept turning my gif into a jpeg so I finally had to load it up to Photobucket. But anyway, this is


Part 1 - What Happened to the Flyers:



Don't worry, Part 2 won't be pretty for the Penguins either.

hahahaha, I love it, thank you so much Joan, you are the best, You and folks like you put a smile on my face, which I need a lot these days. You are a great person. I want to see what happens to those Penguins too. You make lots of funnies.

Hey, I got a letter from Corbett, I can't say I like the sound of it, but hell, he is gonna do the best thing for us. More funnies, haha. Here goes:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your recent letter expressing support for SB 994, which would extend unemployment compensation benefits currently available under the Extended Benefits program. Please know that my Administration remains committed to assisting Pennsylvanians who are enduring professional hardship during this difficult economic period.

SB 994 is one of the many bills being considered as part of the discussions on how to assist currently unemployed Pennsylvanians and improve the system for those who may face similar challenges in the future. Be assured that my staff and I will monitor this bill’s progress as discussions continue.

In addition, since this bill is currently in the General Assembly, I suggest you contact your State Representative and State Senator to notify them of your position. Nonetheless, should this bill be presented for my signature, I will certainly keep your concerns and suggestions in mind.

In the meantime, you can track the progress of this proposed legislation by visiting www.legis.state.pa.us.

Sincerely,

TOM CORBETT
Governor

He suggests I contact my senators, I did that 32 times each on, I no longer get email responses saying "Thank you for contacting Senator XXXX." I believe they have blocked my IP address. Oh well, I will get around it. Still don't trust this whole thing, it just smells of Republican Donkey dong. Dazed

I think they are gonna pass the 3-year look-back, Dazed. I could be wrong, but I really think so. You're right, they're gonna insist on putting some of their stink into the bill, but I think it's what we've said: minimizing future benefit increases, making job search documentation a big PITA, and letting employers sleaze their way out of paying their fair share.

It's always possible that there are some poison pills we're not picking up on, but don't you think someone better at sniffing this stuff out than we are would have by now? I dunno.


Penguins: it's pretty dark. Not for childrens' eyes, that's for sure. You'll have to wait.

Joan, I wait, but I can't wait!

Joan we spoke about Bill 916 which was laid on the table, well as soon as they laid it on the table they took it off the table and it is back. I got this in my email today, first I hear of it, must be one of those Republican tricks we talked about, gotta get to sending everyone emails. This is the email I receive. I checked on the Senate Website and it was tabled and seems the next day taken off the table, which means it can come up for a vote shortly. I hate this.

A bill that would drastically cut Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits for large numbers of Pennsylvania's unemployed is moving in the General Assembly, and votes are expected as early as Monday, May 23.

HB 916 would make permanent, harmful reductions in benefit amounts and weeks of eligibility for many of Pennsylvania's unemployed workers, as well as disqualify many unemployed workers entirely.

We need to act now to tell our PA legislators to oppose UC cuts in PA, and vote 'NO' on HB 916.

HB 916 would harm Pennsylvania's unemployed workers by:

Lowering benefits amounts ($463 million in cuts annually) and reducing the number of weeks that many unemployed could get benefits (another $48 million in cuts annually).
Changing the definition of “willful misconduct” to deny UC benefits to workers whose mistakes were not intentional.
Denying UC benefits to workers forced to leave their jobs for family or medical reasons—those fleeing domestic violence, dealing with lost child or elder care, providing care for sick family members, or suffering from medical conditions that prevent them from performing their jobs.
Offsetting 100% of severance payments, even if those payments are required by law or contract.

Supporters of HB 916 claim that it is needed because the UC Trust Fund, out of which benefits are paid, is out of money and borrowing from the federal government. But they would deal with the debt entirely by cutting UC benefits to the unemployed, and employers would not be required to pay their fair share.

Please act now to send a message to your State Representative. Here's how:

1. Click here or on the "Under Attack, Fighting Back" graphic above to send a click-to-send email message. On the message page just enter your full PA home address (including St., Rd., Ave. etc.) and click "Participate" to send your message today: Stop the UC Cuts in PA! Vote 'NO' on HB 916.

2. Call your State Representative. Click this link to find your legislator and their office phone numbers. Call and tell them: Stop the UC Cuts in PA! Vote 'NO' on HB 916.

We want every State Representative to receive both a phone call and an email message -- and that's particularly important if you're in Montgomery, Chester, Bucks or Delaware Counties!

Many thanks for fighting back.

The Unemployedworkers.org Team

Mitchell, Chris, Maurice, Judy, Christine, Rebecca, Mike, Rick, George, Norman, Claire and Blase

Joan, check this out http://www.pehsc.org/how_bill_law.htm

I am emailing now. And by the way, Gov. Corbett would sign a bill reducing unemployment in a heartbeat, but he wouldn't sign one to tax drillers or keep drinking water safe. He likes closed door meetings.

I agree Mary Kay, but he has a terrible rating here, and his staff is trying to get that through to him, We are a democratic state, we'll flip him in a NY minute, you know that. Don't get me going on the drillers and the loggers, opened up 20,000 jobs for them just to lower the UR. One death in the mines already. I have emailed the entire Senate on this. I am going to try to do the reps tomorrow. Be well. Dazed

Dazed, that link you posted seems to suggest that bills have to go through the Senate and then the House...did I read that wrong? Did 916 go through the Senate first in some form? What am I missing?