Part Time Penalty/BYE/Update

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/2010/Final%20EUC%20Fix%20QA.pdf

The above link is the part time penalty fix defined.


If anyone has been a victim of the part penalty prior to July 2010 "fix" this F.Y.I. is good news!

I was a victim of the part time penalty, 2-weeks into EUC Tier 2 my BYE ended,my benefits were slashed for working a part time job while supplementing benefits.
Rather then continue on EUC, I was forced to take a new claim at the lower rate.
When the law changed in July it really did fix this problem for many. Others like myself remained at the lower rate on a new claim for 26 weeks.

The 26 week claim has now expired and because of having an existing EUC claim still open from my original claim (2-weeks into EUC Tier 2) my original Rate has now been re-established. This is an odd circumstance but make sure your state is aware.

Now if your BYE ends at least you don't have to worry about being reduced. I know this may be hard for some to follow, I was a member of the UF forum working hard on the part time penalty fix and my efforts now have come full circle.
Feel free to ask any questions on this subject I am more than happy to help.
Great job on this new site from many of my UFriends forum 1.0 !

In an odd twist my BYE has ended again and even though I still had two weeks left on my tier 2 EUC CLAIM
THE STATE FORCED ME TO OPEN A NEW CLAIM. (1st bye ended 5/10)
Now that my 2nd BYE has ended 5/11, and because of my part time employment,the computer system tells me my new rate of;
$118 PER WEEK based on my part time 2010 earnings.
Will make the call on Monday and hopefully the part time fix will save me. My part time earnings are about 60.00 more than my new benefit rate which will kill the new claim altogether.

EVW: Is it true though that the funds have to be established (or already started) in order to augment back onto any remaining or original EUC balances/tiers? Im speaking in reference to claimants whose BYE is before July 23rd, 2010.

I have the DOL program letter documents filed away on the specific wording, but pretty sure that's how the ruling is if memory serves me correctly. I received reg. UI on 2 seperate claims as well as EUC tiers on both but never received EB on 1st claim (larger amt.), & exhaust EB on 2nd claim in 2 weeks, but do not believe I will qualify for triggering EB onto original claim.

mj33 wrote:EVW: Is it true though that the funds have to be established (or already started) in order to augment back onto any remaining or original EUC balances/tiers? Im speaking in reference to claimants whose BYE is before July 23rd, 2010.

I have the DOL program letter documents filed away on the specific wording, but pretty sure that's how the ruling is if memory serves me correctly. I received reg. UI on 2 seperate claims as well as EUC tiers on both but never received EB on 1st claim (larger amt.), & exhaust EB on 2nd claim in 2 weeks, but do not believe I will qualify for triggering EB onto original claim.

wow i'm sorry! I do not know anything about EB. To answer your question; my funds were into tier 2 EUC when reduced. Went thru the entire 26 week state claim and then went back to EUC at my orginal rate so I guess that would be a; yes. I only post what has happened w/my claim so others may know what to expect down the road. I can only speak for Oregon.All states are different but use the same basic model.

evw59 wrote:In an odd twist my BYE has ended again and even though I still had two weeks left on my tier 2 EUC CLAIM
THE STATE FORCED ME TO OPEN A NEW CLAIM. (1st bye ended 5/10)
Now that my 2nd BYE has ended 5/11, and because of my part time employment,the computer system tells me my new rate of;
$118 PER WEEK based on my part time 2010 earnings.
Will make the call on Monday and hopefully the part time fix will save me. My part time earnings are about 60.00 more than my new benefit rate which will kill the new claim altogether.

Well it's official, I'm screwed because I worked!!! The part time fix would've only helped me if I was already on the 2nd year EUC program. Because I was on EUC from the 1st year the july 2010 date has cut me off.
The only way for me to get back on EUC would be to collect 26 wks at 118. That would be easy except my p/t work I make more than my benefit rate. So once again becuse I didn't sit on my butt and collect checks I'm screwed becuse I worked! this system makes no sense, well I guess my food stamps will go up! lol!

evw59 wrote:

mj33 wrote:EVW: Is it true though that the funds have to be established (or already started) in order to augment back onto any remaining or original EUC balances/tiers? Im speaking in reference to claimants whose BYE is before July 23rd, 2010.

I have the DOL program letter documents filed away on the specific wording, but pretty sure that's how the ruling is if memory serves me correctly. I received reg. UI on 2 seperate claims as well as EUC tiers on both but never received EB on 1st claim (larger amt.), & exhaust EB on 2nd claim in 2 weeks, but do not believe I will qualify for triggering EB onto original claim.

wow i'm sorry! I do not know anything about EB. To answer your question; my funds were into tier 2 EUC when reduced. Went thru the entire 26 week state claim and then went back to EUC at my orginal rate so I guess that would be a; yes. I only post what has happened w/my claim so others may know what to expect down the road. I can only speak for Oregon.All states are different but use the same basic model.

now I can answer you, you must already be established or open prior or you can't fall back! at least this is true w/ EUC but I'm sure EB is no different.

I recall and understand that one rule w/ the 'established funds' part, but know I was in same boat as you in that the July 23rd rule that was put into effect is reason I was placed on 2nd benefit year claim like yourself, well before rule was in effect, and thus having BYE well before that July 23rd date. However, I qualified for EB 5 mth's ago on 2nd claim but never on 1st claim (higher amt.), so not sure on the exact ruling/reasoning there.

I figured your claim from your last post would be that outcome after initially reading it.

Did you receive EB at all on either claim or still receiving EUC on the claims still up to this point, being that EUC proceeds 'state' (EB) extension?

If Im following you correctly, youshould still receive EB on your 2nd benefit year claim after exhausting your EUC.

In my case, the EB 'rules' appear to not follow the same pattern as for augmenting back onto the original (higher) claim amount that occured each time EUC new tier was enacted, in which I triggered back onto first claim.

Just wanted see if anyone else has similar experiences with multiple claims or any feedback as have posted year ago on situation as applies to 2 seperate claims.

I received all EUC tiers on '08 claim & also all tiers for my '09 claim & near exhaustion of EB on my 2nd benefit year, and was wondering if will trigger onto EB on the 1st (original claim) that I never received?

Both benefit years ended before July 23rd, 2010 and my 1st benefit year is $100 or more than the 2nd benefit year.

I was really never told exactly why I received EB on my 2nd claim other than told it was the most current claim, although haven't seen any rule from the state and the DOL rules don't specify exactly other than 'claimant shall receive any available/remaining balances', which to me means it's still available since never was used and still in EB period.

Any feedback or insight?

mj33 wrote:Any feedback or insight?

this is my reply from UI,it looks like I'm done!

The benefit year ending date on the claim you were being paid EUC benefits was 17-10 (May 1, 2010), so this claim does not qualify for the "fix". It is true that the benefit year ending date on your second claim is after July 22, 2010 (April 30, 2011), however you were not receiving EUC on your second claim, so there is nothing to "fix" and you do not qualify for EUC on this claim because you still have an EUC balance on your earlier claim.

DonUI Technician

Unfortunate set of circumtances there, and I was also reading few great discussion threads on similar situations, including those with 3 claims and those inquiring about EB with 2 seperate claims all from a site on unemp. I googled online while back, and an indiv. that works in explaining and interpreting the rules for a particular state that are not all listed by DOL. Amazing as there's hundreds of questions over past 6-7 mths on the site's discussion forum, all directed more less for qualifications standards , extensions etc...

My question pretty much also answered, as appears EB stops once 2nd or new claim is started, and that subsequent (or 2nd claim) for some reason is triggered for EB only, even if EB was originally started. this indiv. admitted tons of people penalized by the July 23rd rule in vast amounts from taking jobs/positions which resulted in lower claim amounts on 2nd and 3rd claims.

evw59 wrote:

mj33 wrote:Any feedback or insight?

this is my reply from UI,it looks like I'm done!

The benefit year ending date on the claim you were being paid EUC benefits was 17-10 (May 1, 2010), so this claim does not qualify for the "fix". It is true that the benefit year ending date on your second claim is after July 22, 2010 (April 30, 2011), however you were not receiving EUC on your second claim, so there is nothing to "fix" and you do not qualify for EUC on this claim because you still have an EUC balance on your earlier claim.

DonUI Technician

So because I always worked and had a p/t job I lost my unemployment EUC
If I didn't work at all I would still be collecting 480 per week, now on my new claim I would have to live on $118 per week or make less then that p/t to receive any UI. If my new claim was denied I still be getting 480 per week and earning up to $160 part time.

yes, that's how it usually works, legislatures working in reactive way most times despite us warning them for over year and half ago about the 'broken rules' that needed modified, and still never were truely addressed, your just one of many hundreds to thousands in each state affected by this who went back to work and unfortunately the rules were basically made as they went and nothing concrete at that time , since they had no idea about how long and how many extensions we would have. lack of planning and insight across the board, along with them not listening to us fighting and awaring them of the cause, is what it is again, and not going to change.

to anyone whom has been affected by the part time fix, turns out the DOL isn't specific in the benefit year fix and many states have used there own rules as if the fix never existed. The good news is many senators are just now (since april) are getting wind of there fix is still broken.Because of the timeline it is just coming into play. My advice to everyone write, state and fed officials, the money is already there its just dialogue and interpetation what needs to be modified. Weekly this is going to happen to alot more people. I will continue to look for gainful employment and work my part time job but I'll continue to file as long as the online system excepts my earnings. So if and when a change is made the data already exists in the system.

evw59 wrote:to anyone whom has been affected by the part time fix, turns out the DOL isn't specific in the benefit year fix and many states have used there own rules as if the fix never existed. The good news is many senators are just now (since april) are getting wind of there fix is still broken.Because of the timeline it is just coming into play. My advice to everyone write, state and fed officials, the money is already there its just dialogue and interpetation what needs to be modified. Weekly this is going to happen to alot more people. I will continue to look for gainful employment and work my part time job but I'll continue to file as long as the online system excepts my earnings. So if and when a change is made the data already exists in the system.

in California and New York there many appeal cases

Does anyone know how to interpet this BLS guideline on EUC STATE OPTIONS #1-4 from the second page?

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/01/art2full.pdf

evw: read your post earlier today on the city-data.com unemployment section thread, and glad hear u checked it out and got good factual info. on your behalf, in particular from that one poster working in DOL. Tons of good threads there over past 6 mth's on our situation. It certainly can still use being 'fixed' as you say in nutshell as for the broken rule. In 2 wk's I'll be joining the many millions as an official 'exhaustee' as my 2nd claim becomes exhaused so guess will lurch myself into that "99er" term/category so often used

I should correct myself, meant to say that indiv. who works for a particular state helping the unemployed claimants on behalf of their claims.

EVW: by way, in case haven't yet noticed, those program letters each are numbered on top right corner, "UIPL....." & can be located very easily under ETA's site under program letter or advisories, if ever need for future reference, or any of the prior directives, which includes section on multiple claims also, in PDF format.

here's my response from the Oregon Governors office;

Dear xxxxxxxxxxx:



Thank you for contacting me regarding your problem.



I have forwarded your concerns to the appropriate agency for its review. I appreciate the opportunity to assist you and will ensure you get a response either directly from my office or from the agency if appropriate.



Again, thank you for contacting me.



Sincerely,







John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.

Governor



Erik Horeis



Citizens' Representative Office

Office of Governor Kitzhaber

Phone: 503-378-5204


hopefully the state will realize they're using state new money while the federal funds are not being utilized

Hopefully your contacting them will help you with your claim and whatever it is at this point that you desire and need answered/addressed. I wouldn't expect a whole lot at first just as fair warning and may need call back again for follow up contact, and may want consider contacting your local state legislature party line, who can also put word in to state UI agency.

Speaking directly in person many times is better for getting through to regarding personal claims that can be quite complicating and rid of any discrepency, good luck and know you'll get to bottom of it sooner than later.

Well I did get a reply from the Governor's Office, they sent the situation over to a UI Technician via a state legislator whom I wrote to also. It turns out that it's a federal guideline that dictates NO EUC available if your eligible for a new state claim. The irony is that is exactly what 4213 addressed. My appeal hearing is June 20th.

They have cited Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110–252)
this is the amended note from 4213 it changes the above act but it never mentions the so called parent claim year. There intention was to eliminate the p/t penalty so its a problem w/ the federal guideline.

Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110–252; 26 U.S.C.
3304 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
WITH REGULAR COMPENSATION.—

I doubt they will rule in my favor but more feds need to be made aware of the shortcomings of 4213.

EVW:

I figured you'd more than likely get response pursuing the route you did. Im little confused though on the response being that the rule clearly states in that memorandum directive that IF your BYE is AFTER July 23rd, you remain on your higher claim if the benefit amt. is $100 reduction or more.

It specifically spells it out in the one example if I recall (from reading/printing it out) to where the claimant can receive all available EUC tiers and then receive the 2nd claim (lower amount) if still in period of existing program.

I know state EB is handled differently being that may states only trigger that last and can only be used once, on the subsequent claim (although no federal rule exists on this be ETA).

If it makes you feel any better, don't expect it would because I greatly sympathize with your situaion and imagine emotional roller coaster pain, but I would have received $79.00 per week more on my 2nd benefit year (including the extenstions) if I would have sat tight and waited 3 months to file my claim, thus being in a different base pay period, which would have resulted in 5 additional weeks of wages from my last employment, and ultimately over $3,000, however I was not informed that I could potentially do that. At time, I had been receiving EUC tiers and automatically stopped during the conclusion of 52 wk. period (Jan. 09).

But, that is the past and nothing can and will change that, just like nothing will change unless we keep fighting along for the long term unemployed that keep getting left in dust.