Yes starting Jan l Hoosiers are no longer entitled to the unemployment insurance that we and our employers paid for. Thanks Mitch! I am sure you know better than I do as to what to do with that money...


Uncle Sam puts his hand in your
shirt and squeezes your tit till
it's purple. (we) Always get the short
end. That's a fact. - Byron Hadley

For the first four weeks of unemployment, workers can accept jobs with the same pay as their last job. As time goes on and they collect more unemployment benefits, they must accept jobs that pay less than their previous wages.


If I was looking for talented people and didn't want to pay a lot for it, I'd 'lose' their application for a month. Then when the applicant had to accept a lower wage i'd hire them on for 10% below market rate. They either accept my job offer or lose unemployment benefits.

Score!

hm..then again, i'm evil. so there's that.

I wonder how this works for highly skilled people... I don't fill out an application until I interview and am accepted for the job.

It would be kind of hard to submit a filled out job application that way.

Now THAT'S a well thought out plan. I mean, after all, unemployed people don't have the time to go to the polls and vote, RIGHT?

Weaver95: i'm evil.

Yes you are. Of course once you've hired them, they'll look for a better job.

I wonder how this works for highly skilled people

I was wondering that too, but in a different way. I can submit my resume to the company's HR computer -- or email it to my friend the hiring manager -- and that counts as an application. But two tech jobs are not as similar as two burger flipping jobs. And it may take a few weeks to set up all the interviews.

First time I filed for unemployment you had to submit a log of where you applied to keep collecting. Second time it was all computerized and you had to call in and press 1 if you were still unemployed.

Couldn't they do something like offer 90% wages the first month, 80% the second, and keep dropping the percentage until the person gets a job or they aren't getting any benefits?

/or just go with a negative income tax equal to the poverty line for every hour worked, up to 40 hours per week. You could reduce welfare and unemployment, and get rid of the minimum wage.

ZAZ: I wonder how this works for highly skilled people

I was wondering that too, but in a different way. I can submit my resume to the company's HR computer -- or email it to my friend the hiring manager -- and that counts as an application. But two tech jobs are not as similar as two burger flipping jobs. And it may take a few weeks to set up all the interviews.

First time I filed for unemployment you had to submit a log of where you applied to keep collecting. Second time it was all computerized and you had to call in and press 1 if you were still unemployed.

What was the number to report a regicide?

Meh this is for the chronically unemployed. I know there are plenty of people out there who want to get jobs and get off of unemployment, but this is for the other half.

/not the best way around
//kinda like capping welfare...only really hurts the kids, not the abusers

Who would want to live on unemployment?

Sitting at home all day sucks.

I mean, you can only fap, eat, and stare at Xbox so long before you want to kill yourself.

dead_dangler: What was the number to report a regicide?

5#96

/whistles walks away

As someone currently unemployed in Indiana, this law has me on both sides of the fence. I have already been doing the 3 actual applications a week, I had no idea that wasn't how it was done already. But the lower pay thing could really be a bummer. Not because of accepting a lower paying job on my end, I'll do what I have to do for my family, but on the employer's end like has been mentioned above. It sounds like a cheap way to get skilled labor.

This is crap.
These people have paid into unemployment INSURANCE for these times. It's not like they are receiving welfare for having done nothing.

I'm not worried. I know Keith Hernandez.

Bippal: It sounds like a cheap way to get skilled labor.

That's what I'd do were I the evil corporate type. Abuse the shiat outta the situation to snarf up skilled labor and come in under industry salary averages.

Bippal: As someone currently unemployed in Indiana, this law has me on both sides of the fence. I have already been doing the 3 actual applications a week, I had no idea that wasn't how it was done already. But the lower pay thing could really be a bummer. Not because of accepting a lower paying job on my end, I'll do what I have to do for my family, but on the employer's end like has been mentioned above. It sounds like a cheap way to get skilled labor.

welcome to supply and demand.
Many skilled workers to choose from = cheap skilled labor

/self-employed skilled labor
//had to drop prices 30% to get work(more supply and demand)

Not only that, but as people are forced to take lower paying jobs, the state will end up making less tax revenue, so they'll have to raise tax rates.

And really, 3 job applications/week? Perhaps you could do one a day? I managed to do that the last time I was on unemployment.

cannotsuggestaname: I wonder how this works for highly skilled people... I don't fill out an application until I interview and am accepted for the job.

It would be kind of hard to submit a filled out job application that way.

Yeah, the only job I filled out an application for and got was a lab assistant in college. Since college I've had two jobs, neither of which I filled out an application for. Every job I filled out an application for I didn't get.

Bippal: It sounds like a cheap way to get skilled labor.

Or drive it out of state. When the going wages for skilled labor drops artificially, the people who are not tied down WILL move.

Conveniently, that decreases the pool of potential employees, so the wages, in theory, can't drop as far, if even at all.

It still drives skilled labor out of state, though.

Bippal: but on the employer's end like has been mentioned above. It sounds like a cheap way to get skilled labor.


Kind of. I'd say the more likely outcome would be the top end of skilled labor leaving the state. i.e. "brain drain." After all, this is Indiana. There are other states nearby. It ain't like this is Alaska, or even Texas where you might have a 9 hr drive just to get to a neighboring state.

This isn't really anything too unreasonable. In VA I have to apply for at least 2 jobs a week. Indiana still only has to apply for 1. The job accepting requirement has the ability to be abused though...

Gotta lower those labor costs, or all the jobs will go overseas. It's just a way of leveling the playing field.

3???

We have to do 6 job searches in Texas a week. My (required to keep) work log looks something like this:

1 Searched, nuttin'
2 Sent resume
3 Searched, nuttin'
4 Searched, nuttin'
5 Sent application online
6 Searched, nuttin'

It is insane to think that you are going to be able to find 6 jobs to apply for a week in this economy. I'm hard pressed to find 2 (and that is me lowering my standards).

pugsleythegreat: Who would want to live on unemployment?

Sitting at home all day sucks.

I mean, you can only fap, eat, and stare at Xbox so long before you want to kill yourself.

43 Days, 13 hours, and 17 minutes to be precise.

Bippal: As someone currently unemployed in Indiana, this law has me on both sides of the fence. I have already been doing the 3 actual applications a week, I had no idea that wasn't how it was done already.

I'm currently unemployed in SC and was quite surprised with how little you have to do to prove you're "looking for work as instructed." They give you a form with these columns: Employer Contacted, Type of Work Sought (Be Specific), Type of Contact (ex. telephone, in-person, resume, wants ads, family) and Results (ex. interview, application taken). There isn't even a date line. We're supposed to have at least 1 entry per week and I would bet good money there is no oversight/ verification.
I also had to register for work with their online system, but seeing as how their postings are riddled with errors and blind links, I doubt it will be any help.

/almost 6 months in
//genuinely trying to get a job

TheGreatGazoo: Not only that, but as people are forced to take lower paying jobs, the state will end up making less tax revenue, so they'll have to raise tax rates.

And really, 3 job applications/week? Perhaps you could do one a day? I managed to do that the last time I was on unemployment.

I really doubt this plan will have much of an effect to lower averafe income, it seems much more catered to prevent people from constantly collecting and never getting a job. People having a meh job over having a welfare collecting job still means more tax money and less spending for the government.bahr: Bippal: but on the employer's end like has been mentioned above. It sounds like a cheap way to get skilled labor.


Kind of. I'd say the more likely outcome would be the top end of skilled labor leaving the state. i.e. "brain drain." After all, this is Indiana. There are other states nearby. It ain't like this is Alaska, or even Texas where you might have a 9 hr drive just to get to a neighboring state.

Are there realy that many highly skilled, employable people on welfare? It seems like if all the companies in the area are looking for your skills you shouldn't have any problem getting a job rather quickly, assuming you actually look.

Last time I was on unemployment was when I was still in California. This was NorCal, so not sure if it still applies elsewhere, but I had to apply for 15 jobs per week. If I didn't hit that number I didn't get my check.

Yeah, 15 per week. Good luck finding that many jobs in one week to apply for, even in a good economy.

The last time I was on unemployment, the State of Michigan told me I had to accept a job that paid only 70% of what I was making before. Thankfully, a better job offer came up a few days later.

Barakku: Are there realy that many highly skilled, employable people on welfare?

No, they're on unemployment.

A person shouldn't get unemployment benefits unless he can prove that he/she is actively seeking employment. People who think that their "highly skilled" status is grounds for sitting back on their laurels and collecting unemployment because they don't want to perform "menial labor" tasks just need a better perspective on life. Do what you can and keep trying for what you want. The experience will be good for you.

I wonder what's going to happen when the unemployment system runs out of money? We've already got 15 states that can only fund unemployment with loans from the federal government, and next year that number could double. So what happens when we keep adding hurdles to get the money, then the money dries up? With more and more people getting put out of work and the job situation only getting worse and not better...what next?

None of this situation is sounding very good.

smallonion: This is crap.
These people have paid into unemployment INSURANCE for these times. It's not like they are receiving welfare for having done nothing.

They call it insurance but it really isn't. Insurance is supposed to restore you to a pre-loss condition. If I'm making $75,000 a year and I'm paying an insurance premium I'd want to be getting the equivalent of my working salary. In Georgia I think the maximum payment is $330 a week before taxes. That's about a quarter of what I would normally make. That's not my pre-loss condition.

And then you also have to pay income taxes. For example if my wife dies and I collect $500,000 in life insurance benefits I don't pay income taxes on that $500,000. If my car gets hit and the repairs are paid by my insurance carrier at a cost of $5000 I don't pay taxes on that $5,000. If I get unemployment payments I have to pay income taxes on those payments.

They call it insurance to make it more palatable for people with a sense of pride but it really is a welfare program. I'm not condemning it, I'm just saying that it's not what it pretends to be.

Barakku:
Are there realy that many highly skilled, employable people on welfare? It seems like if all the companies in the area are looking for your skills you shouldn't have any problem getting a job rather quickly, assuming you actually look.

Kind of, unless all the companies in your area are looking for your skills but there are a bajillion people who also have them.

I was thisclose to accepting a job for less than half what I had been making when I lucked into something for the same range I've been making since 2001. The job market here kind of blows.

Barakku
... it seems much more catered to prevent people from constantly collecting and never getting a job.

Eventually the state stops sending checks and you have to go a certain amount of time with a verifiable employer (at least in IL) before you can apply for unemployment benefits again.

Terrydatroll: A person shouldn't get unemployment benefits unless he can prove that he/she is actively seeking employment. People who think that their "highly skilled" status is grounds for sitting back on their laurels and collecting unemployment because they don't want to perform "menial labor" tasks just need a better perspective on life. Do what you can and keep trying for what you want. The experience will be good for you.

People in the real world don't see it that way. Consider this - it is now more than possible to bust your ass for a company only to lose your job through no fault of your own. Then your boss gets a pay raise for running the company into the ground, and the company gets a federal bailout. Meanwhile your taxes go up, you find it difficult verging on impossible to apply for unemployment AND you can't find a job anywhere near your previous pay scale because nobody is hiring.

So after a couple months of this, your old company comes back and offers to re-hire you...but at a 25% pay cut and complete loss of seniority. plus a benefits cut of course. you either take the job or lose what little is left of your unemployment benefits.

Ah, but the rage! Do that sort of thing to enough people and you WILL face a backlash. sooner or later someone will come along who finds a way to focus all that hatred into a political campaign. THAT is the real danger here.

Isn't this going to force people to only look for high paying jobs or jobs that they are completely unqualified for? Which would make the likelihood of staying on unemployment longer. Not to mention employers are going to get screwed because they are going to be overwhelmed by applications from unqualified people.

I always thought the best way to deal with this unemployment issue would be to require people to do 10-15 hours of community service a week in order to receive benefits. Maybe not the first 4 weeks after losing your job but after a certain time you should be picking up garbage on the highway or doing something productive for society.

This is state-sponsored extortion on behalf of employers.

What's to stop an Indiana employer from laying off half its work force and then publicly offering the laid-off employees their jobs back after 4 four weeks, but at 50% of what they were making before? According to the new rules, the laid-off employees who are still drawing unemployment benefits at that point would be required to take the offer.

I just want to know: Whose dick(s) did Indiana businesses have to suck in order to get this passed? Now you have the state dictating to laid-off workers they they must take the first offer they get, even if the offer is a low-ball? What if the offer isn't enough to cover the employee's needs?

Somebody at the state level thinks they're being clever with this. In fact, this risks destroying what's left of the housing market in Indiana. Think about it: How can you apply for a 30 year mortgage (or any long-term financial commitment) in a state that mandates that you can be forced to take a lower-paying (and perhaps loan-disqualifying) job in the event of a lay-off?

The Great Screwing continues... We'll be just like Mexico in the next 10 years if this crap keeps up.

You should be damn grateful that we have some sort of system for those who fail.

The Poorification of America.

Barakku:
Are there realy that many highly skilled, employable people on welfare? It seems like if all the companies in the area are looking for your skills you shouldn't have any problem getting a job rather quickly, assuming you actually look.

Yes, depending on the job type.

For example, right now lawyers are facing tremendous unemployment. Businesses are in trouble so legal spending is down -- a company will just endure minor legal losses rather than paying for legal help, and will only lawyer up if there is a threat to the company's continued existence. This means all the Biglaw high-rise firms are slashing jobs left and right. No real sympathy for the attorneys who have a few years in the tank and are liquid, but the first to go are the ones who are only a year or two out of law school and have a $1,145.00/mo student loan payment on top of every other expense.

This leaves a laid-off attorney with the option of hanging out a shingle on main street to try to grow a practice (a risky and expensive proposition even in GOOD economic times) or apply for jobs that aren't in the practice of law. Problem is, a company sees that J.D. on the resume, and they won't hire you. They think you'll bolt back to law as soon as the economy turns around or you catch a break.

So you end up probably working in government, where the J.D. isn't a liability, but we all know the government can only eat its own tail for so long before it reaches the breaking point. And that brings us roughly up to today.

Other professions are similar in their own way... no company wants to hire and invest in a person who is overqualified, because the best-case scenario is you have a miserable employee who isn;t making what their credentials cost them, and worst case the employee bolts and takes your client goodwill with him as soon as the opportunity arises.

Weaver95: AND you can't find a job anywhere near your previous pay scale because nobody is hiring.

Alternatively, everyone refuses to hire you for a job that is less skilled than your previous because they fear you'll get an offer similar to your previous job, and they wasted time hiring you just to have you quit a few weeks/months later.

Did you bullshiat today?
No.
Did you try to bullshiat today?
Yes.

So you have to apply for one job per week? Sure, no problem...

Week 1: Applied to be General Counsel with the Church of Scientology
Week 2: Applied to be Chief of Surgery at local hospital.
Week 3: Applied to be Governor of Alaska
Week 5: Applied to be head of MI6 research division
Week 6: Applied to be the owner of FARK.com

See? This is easy!

This is awesome for employers. They can offer minimum wage for even highly skilled jobs, and they'll get takers. The employee might have a degree and be qualified for a $40K a year job, but now the employer can offer half that and the employee will have to take it because he loses everything if he doesn't.

It's probably not a bad idea to do this to welfare people (who are getting money for nothing), but it seems like a real kick in the crotch to the unemployed (who are now getting much less than they were promised when they were paying their insurance premiums).

It's like your homeowner's insurance company saying "well, we know you paid for $1,000,000 of liability insurance, but our bottom line is hurting this quarter so we decided you only get $500,000 now that you need it."

Those on unemployment must now submit at least one job application each week and also look for work at least two other places. Previously, unemployment recipients simply had to conduct three work searches per week.

O okay... >_>

So does that mean that a person simply has to walk into three locations, make an inquiry at each one... and THEN merely obtain a specific form, fill it out, and return it to the person who gave it to them... and that this must be done each week?

O THE HUMANITY!

Weaver95: I wonder what's going to happen when the unemployment system runs out of money? We've already got 15 states that can only fund unemployment with loans from the federal government, and next year that number could double. So what happens when we keep adding hurdles to get the money, then the money dries up? With more and more people getting put out of work and the job situation only getting worse and not better...what next?

None of this situation is sounding very good.

This is why they need to start more of those evil socialist programs to keep people employed. High unemployment and a large amount of people unable to pay their debt is going to get really ugly if we don't do something. We need to bring back the WPA type programs for a while. There are plenty of things that have been left to rot and need repair. Let the govt. develop the programs and either direct hire or contract employees to do the work. Energy efficiency modifications to buildings, low cost green retrofits for houses, repairing schools, putting up to date computers in schools, electronic learning materials so we can dump the bloated private book sales scam, repair roads and infrastructure.

We need to quit listening to the conservatives whining about govt. intervention and anything that doesn't pad some companies wallet.

Weaver95: I wonder what's going to happen when the unemployment system runs out of money? We've already got 15 states that can only fund unemployment with loans from the federal government, and next year that number could double. So what happens when we keep adding hurdles to get the money, then the money dries up? With more and more people getting put out of work and the job situation only getting worse and not better...what next?

What will happen? Simple. The government will raise taxes and print more money (same effect as taxes). Rinse and repeat.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Weaver95: I wonder what's going to happen when the unemployment system runs out of money? We've already got 15 states that can only fund unemployment with loans from the federal government, and next year that number could double. So what happens when we keep adding hurdles to get the money, then the money dries up? With more and more people getting put out of work and the job situation only getting worse and not better...what next?

What will happen? Simple. The government will raise taxes and print more money (same effect as taxes). Rinse and repeat.

That's a finite solution. It can't go on forever. We're just about tapped out already.

Bohemian: This is why they need to start more of those evil socialist programs to keep people employed. High unemployment and a large amount of people unable to pay their debt is going to get really ugly if we don't do something. We need to bring back the WPA type programs for a while. There are plenty of things that have been left to rot and need repair. Let the govt. develop the programs and either direct hire or contract employees to do the work. Energy efficiency modifications to buildings, low cost green retrofits for houses, repairing schools, putting up to date computers in schools, electronic learning materials so we can dump the bloated private book sales scam, repair roads and infrastructure.

We need to quit listening to the conservatives whining about govt. intervention and anything that doesn't pad some companies wallet.

Let me ask you a question: why not have the government simply create jobs for everyone? Unemployment could be 0% tomorrow. Why aren't you in favor of that?

I have a follow-up question once you answer that one.

FrancoFile: Did you bullshiat today?
No.
Did you try to bullshiat today?
Yes.

came for this, leaving satisfied.

/it's good to be the king!

Fark Me To Tears: This is state-sponsored extortion on behalf of employers.

What's to stop an Indiana employer from laying off half its work force and then publicly offering the laid-off employees their jobs back after 4 four weeks, but at 50% of what they were making before? According to the new rules, the laid-off employees who are still drawing unemployment benefits at that point would be required to take the offer.

I just want to know: Whose dick(s) did Indiana businesses have to suck in order to get this passed? Now you have the state dictating to laid-off workers they they must take the first offer they get, even if the offer is a low-ball? What if the offer isn't enough to cover the employee's needs?

Somebody at the state level thinks they're being clever with this. In fact, this risks destroying what's left of the housing market in Indiana. Think about it: How can you apply for a 30 year mortgage (or any long-term financial commitment) in a state that mandates that you can be forced to take a lower-paying (and perhaps loan-disqualifying) job in the event of a lay-off?

The Great Screwing continues... We'll be just like Mexico in the next 10 years if this crap keeps up.

But how does the govt. of Indiana even PROVE that you ever got a job offer from anyone at all in the first place?

As far as I can see, you can pretty turn them all down anyways...

But maybe they already have this worked out.

Kareeshus: They can offer minimum wage for even highly skilled jobs, and they'll get takers.

Say you make $50,000/year as a programmer. Then you get laid off. Someone offers you minimum wage as a programmer. Do you take it?

No. You try to hold out for a better paying job, or move to an area where there are comparable wages.

I was on unemployment for about 6 mos... then got dropped because i refused a job to work as a programmer for $8/hr. I mean come the fark on McD's hires for $8.50 here. Granted i like programming but you can suck on my fat chubby if you think i'm gonna do it for $8 w. 12 years experience.

was making $38/hr :/

EyeForgot: I was on unemployment for about 6 mos... then got dropped because i refused a job to work as a programmer for $8/hr. I mean come the fark on McD's hires for $8.50 here. Granted i like programming but you can suck on my fat chubby if you think i'm gonna do it for $8 w. 12 years experience.

was making $38/hr :/

In Mississippi they require you to take jobs that pay only 25% of your previous wages?

GaryPDX: That's a finite solution. It can't go on forever. We're just about tapped out already.

No, it will take a lot more before people start actually pushing back. Most of the people I know still worship the president as some sort of mystical king figure and think big government can solve all of their problems as long as they give it enough funding and support. As much as I hate to say it, they could probably raise the effective tax rate three-fold and most people would just take it, if with a bit of bellyaching. We've become a complacent people with just enough creature comforts to lose to keep us from rocking the boat.

There is a solution. It's called the Free State Project. Everyone just has to decide for themselves where the line in the sand is and what it will take to make the move.

EyeForgot: I was on unemployment for about 6 mos... then got dropped because i refused a job to work as a programmer for $8/hr. I mean come the fark on McD's hires for $8.50 here. Granted i like programming but you can suck on my fat chubby if you think i'm gonna do it for $8 w. 12 years experience.

was making $38/hr :/

That's horrible! How did they know that you were offered the job?

I don't really know how it works.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: There is a solution. It's called the Free State Project. Everyone just has to decide for themselves where the line in the sand is and what it will take to make the move.

I've heard one of the problems with the Free State Project are all the people moving into NH from MA who are sick of paying high taxes, but when they get to NH, they ask where all the social programs are, and that these people are outnumbering the Free Staters. Any truth to that?

Vandelay Industries!

rat_brain_flies_plane: EyeForgot: I was on unemployment for about 6 mos... then got dropped because i refused a job to work as a programmer for $8/hr. I mean come the fark on McD's hires for $8.50 here. Granted i like programming but you can suck on my fat chubby if you think i'm gonna do it for $8 w. 12 years experience.

was making $38/hr :/

That's horrible! How did they know that you were offered the job?

I don't really know how it works.

The unemployment lady followed up and called the place and they said i was hired but refused the job. Then i was called in to the unemployment office and she told me that my unemployment was terminated because i refused the job.

"Those collecting unemployment must accept any offer of suitable work, and the new law spells out what qualifies. For the first four weeks of unemployment, workers can accept jobs with the same pay as their last job. As time goes on and they collect more unemployment benefits, they must accept jobs that pay less than their previous wages."

So will Mr. Sheepskinonthewall now have to take the lesser paying job as a janitor cleaning booths at a peepshow? Or is that only reserved for the liberal arts majors?

EyeForgot: I was on unemployment for about 6 mos... then got dropped because i refused a job to work as a programmer for $8/hr. I mean come the fark on McD's hires for $8.50 here. Granted i like programming but you can suck on my fat chubby if you think i'm gonna do it for $8 w. 12 years experience.

was making $38/hr :/

I sympathize with you, but it's all about supply and demand. For a time, computer programmers were in high demand in the US. I used to be a technical recruiter - during 1999, I used to place associate's degree grads in $80 per hour gigs, and still make $15 per hour on them as a contractor. Now, the labor supply is plentiful, with India, Pakistan, and several South American countries cranking out talent (which is good...those were very, very poor nations for a long time, and now those people have opportunities). With the wide availability of enterprise open source technologies we have now, companies don't need to spend millions for things like CRM solutions, so there are not as many jobs.

It sucks to be in your position, but it happens. When supply goes up and demand goes down, wages fall. Your options are to either be grateful for the opportunity to work sitting on your arse in air conditioning for a low wage, or go try your hand in another craft. If you are a programmer, chances are you have an IQ above room temperature, so use it, rather than lamenting the end of your glory days.

Don't worry America, Mitch Daniels is going to run for president in 2012, and rest assured, he'll sell your future too.

Greedy farker will do anything for short term gains, mostly for himself. The bottom line holds far more value to him than humanity and charity.

rat_brain_flies_plane: Fark Me To Tears: This is state-sponsored extortion on behalf of employers.

What's to stop an Indiana employer from laying off half its work force and then publicly offering the laid-off employees their jobs back after 4 four weeks, but at 50% of what they were making before? According to the new rules, the laid-off employees who are still drawing unemployment benefits at that point would be required to take the offer.

I just want to know: Whose dick(s) did Indiana businesses have to suck in order to get this passed? Now you have the state dictating to laid-off workers they they must take the first offer they get, even if the offer is a low-ball? What if the offer isn't enough to cover the employee's needs?

Somebody at the state level thinks they're being clever with this. In fact, this risks destroying what's left of the housing market in Indiana. Think about it: How can you apply for a 30 year mortgage (or any long-term financial commitment) in a state that mandates that you can be forced to take a lower-paying (and perhaps loan-disqualifying) job in the event of a lay-off?

The Great Screwing continues... We'll be just like Mexico in the next 10 years if this crap keeps up.

But how does the govt. of Indiana even PROVE that you ever got a job offer from anyone at all in the first place?

As far as I can see, you can pretty turn them all down anyways...

But maybe they already have this worked out.

In Oregon, after the first 52 weeks of unemployment are exhausted, one simply lists 3 places each week that they applied to for the next 13 weeks. Then between the 65th and 78th week of unemployment, people have to report to a job office and discuss their employment options.
My town is hitting %30 unemployment rate with my county at 20.... May have to either become a foster parent or sell my house if I don't get a job in the next 4 months that pays equal to or better than my current unemployment. I am required to find a job that pays 1 penny above my current unemployment check. So far it has been impossible for me to find anything that pays even close to that.
Thank goodness I had a savings account when I was laid off. Instead of being in hock up to my ears AND being over-extended on credit, I lived within my means and saved as I earned.

It is OK to drive a 12 year old car, live in a 100 year old house and not have a plasma screen TV on the wall in every room of yer house. Cell phones are not a necessity and life is livable without an iPod with $5,000 in music from iTunes.

pugsleythegreat: Who would want to live on unemployment?

Sitting at home all day sucks.

I mean, you can only fap, eat, and stare at Xbox FARK so long before you want to kill yourself.


-- FTFY

Come to Canada! Here in Ontario, you're required only to fill out an online web form that has a couple of checkboxes to certify that you're looking for work each week. Sometimes you have to go attend a course on "job seeking skills". Presto! Free money.

Then again, we're also going to hell in a handbasket at the speed of light here, so make your decision to move carefully...

Majick Thise: Yes starting Jan l Hoosiers are no longer entitled to the unemployment insurance that we and our employers paid for. Thanks Mitch! I am sure you know better than I do as to what to do with that money...


Uncle Sam puts his hand in your
shirt and squeezes your tit till
it's purple. (we) Always get the short
end. That's a fact. - Byron Hadley

Might want to RTFA -- all it says is you have to lower expectations a little after being on the dole for a long time.

In today's economy it is only reasonable to expect that wages have gone down a bit.

If you're an abuser, couldn't you circumvent this entire clause by applying for jobs you're grossly mis-qualified for? And pray you don't get an offer, of course.

You could probably last your entire life by applying for stuff on USAJobs that you're not qualified for. They're by-the-book for minimum qualifications. And enough job openings cycle through there that you could last quite some time.

Fark Me To Tears: This is state-sponsored extortion on behalf of employers.

What's to stop an Indiana employer from laying off half its work force and then publicly offering the laid-off employees their jobs back after 4 four weeks, but at 50% of what they were making before? According to the new rules, the laid-off employees who are still drawing unemployment benefits at that point would be required to take the offer.

If you can really get away with paying only 50% of what you pay them now, then you are overpaying for labor. Why fire anyone and incur the trouble of doing all the work with half the people for 4 weeks, you could just tell the employees you're reducing their pay and see what happens . . .

Weaver95: Bippal: It sounds like a cheap way to get skilled labor.

That's what I'd do were I the evil corporate type. Abuse the shiat outta the situation to snarf up skilled labor and come in under industry salary averages.

You have never had a REAL job, have you?

Weaver95: None of this situation is sounding very good.

When people lose everything, and have nothing to lose, they lose it.

EyeForgot:

The unemployment lady followed up and called the place and they said i was hired but refused the job. Then i was called in to the unemployment office and she told me that my unemployment was terminated because i refused the job.

Thanks for filling me in.

Sadly, I'd rather drive a hot knitting needle through my eye than go back to work for minimum wage.

I can imagine that it would be 40 times as painful for someone who made $38 an hour (with that level of income reflected in bills as well) to take on an $8 an hour job.

I dunno about programming, but food service full time can really make a person want to blow their brains out, and when you get home with your meager little paycheck it really doesn't help you to feel like life is very much worth living.

Everything is such a rip off these days.

It's odd...

I keep seeing people whining about how they just KNOW some eeevil employer is going to fire (and rehire) their $40/hour employees (computer programmers and other skilled jobs) at minimum wage. Except for the little problem that, even in a really crappy economy, if you're honestly "skilled" at those jobs, there's going to be SOMEONE out there who would love to hire you for $20-$25 per hour, and screw the original employer. Heck, most of their competitors would be waiting outside the doors of the first company to hire all of their good programmers for 10% to 15% less, and think it's a good deal.

If the economy is so bad that an honestly skilled employee is not being offered an appropriate position except at minimum-type wage, then taking those $8.50 McJobs is probably a really, really good idea. A crappy job at Wal-Mart is probably a better bet than most, as far as that goes.

As far as the lawyer glut goes, oh, well. Everyone who spends more than a couple of minutes researching the legal job market knows that there's been a glut of law school graduates for almost two DECADES now (I was reading about this problem in the late 1980s, and it's only gotten worse). If you're a recent law school graduate, you just learned a little lesson in supply and demand.

budsterr: Isn't this going to force people to only look for high paying jobs or jobs that they are completely unqualified for? Which would make the likelihood of staying on unemployment longer. Not to mention employers are going to get screwed because they are going to be overwhelmed by applications from unqualified people.

I always thought the best way to deal with this unemployment issue would be to require people to do 10-15 hours of community service a week in order to receive benefits. Maybe not the first 4 weeks after losing your job but after a certain time you should be picking up garbage on the highway or doing something productive for society.

There is a simple solution to that -- have the unemployment people review the applications and jobs they applied for, and only count the reasonable applications. Oh, you applied to be the CEO of Microsoft? Yeah, that's not reasonable burger-boy, try again.

nickerj1: If you're an abuser, couldn't you circumvent this entire clause by applying for jobs you're grossly mis-qualified for? And pray you don't get an offer, of course.

You could probably last your entire life by applying for stuff on USAJobs that you're not qualified for. They're by-the-book for minimum qualifications. And enough job openings cycle through there that you could last quite some time.

I would hope that there is a control built in on that. Say, review of the job applications they turn in and report.

altinos: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: There is a solution. It's called the Free State Project. Everyone just has to decide for themselves where the line in the sand is and what it will take to make the move.

I've heard one of the problems with the Free State Project are all the people moving into NH from MA who are sick of paying high taxes, but when they get to NH, they ask where all the social programs are, and that these people are outnumbering the Free Staters. Any truth to that?

There is truth to that, a lot of the Massholes who turned Boston into an over-expensive Orwellian socialist hell-hole move to New Hampshire to escape the oppressive tax burden, and they don't put two and two together to realize that they are the ones that made Boston the sucky place to live that it is in the first place.

But even with this effect, New Hampshire is still consistently ranked as the freest state. From what I've heard, they've fairly successfully stopped the growth of government there and shot down a lot of really bad bills that the statists would have otherwise pushed through, as has been happening in essentially every other state. Now that it's been contained, and they are starting to get sufficient numbers and activism, they can start to reverse the process. It's important to remember that the Free State Project is only now really beginning to kick into gear. Porcfest has been doubling in size each year if reports are accurate, and the last election season was the first in which FSP members and friends of the FSP were elected into the state legislature and a meaningful number of local offices. And that's only with the few people who chose to move early. Really the FSP only starts when 20,000 people have signed up to move. They're between 9,000-10,000 now.

I'm going to be looking for a job there next year and try to make the move.

lajimi: Now THAT'S a well thought out plan. I mean, after all, unemployed people don't have the time to go to the polls and vote, RIGHT?

That's a good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. If they're taking something from the state such as unemployment they shouldn't be allowed to vote to change the rules in their favor so they can continue to be lazy and not to try and find work.

eggi541: In Oregon, after the first 52 weeks of unemployment are exhausted, one simply lists 3 places each week that they applied to for the next 13 weeks. Then between the 65th and 78th week of unemployment, people have to report to a job office and discuss their employment options.

I didn't even realize people could collect unemployment for that long. I was under the impression that in Ga (where I used to live) you could only collect 4 months. So I assumed most other places were similar.

My town is hitting %30 unemployment rate with my county at 20....

May have to either become a foster parent or sell my house if I don't get a job in the next 4 months that pays equal to or better than my current unemployment. I am required to find a job that pays 1 penny above my current unemployment check. So far it has been impossible for me to find anything that pays even close to that.

That's the crazy thing... the national unemployment rate is around 10% which imo is awful... but it seems sort of acceptable if you're prone to optimism. A few months ago I read that in the town neighboring me unemployment was at 26%. :( Not farking cool! A lot of people are under the impression that it isn't that bad... Geez I wish I was one of them.

This is a military town and basically there are pretty much ZERO job opportunities here besides food service, and retail... unless you have some kind of military clearance that is. I suppose one could become a nurse or a doctor. Mostly everything here is tailored to feeding or clothing the military (or lending them furniture -- selling them used cars, etc). I didn't hate life half as badly until I began to look for a job here. My husband is facing a medical discharge from the military and I'm pretty sure that we're just completely screwed at this point.

Its all rather ironic considering why many people enlist into military service in the first place.

Thank goodness I had a savings account when I was laid off. Instead of being in hock up to my ears AND being over-extended on credit, I lived within my means and saved as I earned.

It is OK to drive a 12 year old car, live in a 100 year old house and not have a plasma screen TV on the wall in every room of yer house. Cell phones are not a necessity and life is livable without an iPod with $5,000 in music from iTunes.

This is all very true. I wish teh husband had subscribed to your newsletter. A decent amount of savings is paramount, pretty much no matter what a person's present situation may be.

Eowunyth: That's a good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. If they're taking something from the state such as unemployment they shouldn't be allowed to vote to change the rules in their favor so they can continue to be lazy and not to try and find work.

Maybe people who pay taxes also shouldn't be allowed to vote, since they might vote for lower taxes, thus changing the rules in their favor so they can continue being greedy and keeping their paychecks to themselves...

Eowunyth: lajimi: Now THAT'S a well thought out plan. I mean, after all, unemployed people don't have the time to go to the polls and vote, RIGHT?

That's a good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. If they're taking something from the state such as unemployment they shouldn't be allowed to vote to change the rules in their favor so they can continue to be lazy and not to try and find work.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!

If you are not paying taxes/contributing as a whole to the system -- you have *no* right to say how the state should be spending it's money. So many problems can be solved that way.

Welfare reform would be easier, and not just unemployment welfare, if that was done.

Bohemian: Weaver95: I wonder what's going to happen when the unemployment system runs out of money? We've already got 15 states that can only fund unemployment with loans from the federal government, and next year that number could double. So what happens when we keep adding hurdles to get the money, then the money dries up? With more and more people getting put out of work and the job situation only getting worse and not better...what next?

None of this situation is sounding very good.

This is why they need to start more of those evil socialist programs to keep people employed. High unemployment and a large amount of people unable to pay their debt is going to get really ugly if we don't do something. We need to bring back the WPA type programs for a while. There are plenty of things that have been left to rot and need repair. Let the govt. develop the programs and either direct hire or contract employees to do the work. Energy efficiency modifications to buildings, low cost green retrofits for houses, repairing schools, putting up to date computers in schools, electronic learning materials so we can dump the bloated private book sales scam, repair roads and infrastructure.

We need to quit listening to the conservatives whining about govt. intervention and anything that doesn't pad some companies wallet.

The WPA paid MINIMUM WAGE !!!
You whining Left-wing cellar-dwellers have no idea how the real world operates. You actually believe taht since the government is running out of tax money, they should hire people at minimum wage, to do worthless projects. So, where does government get the money to pay these people?
But you do have a good point; it's better for the government to pay you minimum wage to get sweep the streets than for an evil business-owner to pay you less than the going rate to work at a job where you can actually produce something of value, and have a chance to get a raise and advance in your career.

You and Weaver are great examples of the Democrats being the Party of the Stupid. If you can't figure out why what you have written is extremely stupid, then you are destined to be a Dumb-o-crat for the rest of your life.

Here's an interesting fact. There are many Canadians who pay into Michigan's unemployment system (when they have jobs here) and are allowed to receive Michigan's unemployment benefits. Yet they have no right to vote.

altinos: Eowunyth: That's a good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. If they're taking something from the state such as unemployment they shouldn't be allowed to vote to change the rules in their favor so they can continue to be lazy and not to try and find work.

Maybe people who pay taxes also shouldn't be allowed to vote, since they might vote for lower taxes, thus changing the rules in their favor so they can continue being greedy and keeping their paychecks to themselves...

What would be wrong with that? It's their money -- they earned it. They ought to get to decide how it gets spent. The difference being non-payers, and welfare recipients are not paying in at all, so it is not their money.

(ignoring sales tax for simplicity. We could always eliminate that to make the system truly consistent)

ZOMG! People are actually being required to look for a job when they are unemployed and not getting a free ride!!!!!!

They should do the same for WelFare! Require welfare recipients to look for at least 3 jobs a week or go to school full/part time to better themselves. Welfare should be temporary!

amanogowa: What would be wrong with that? It's their money -- they earned it. They ought to get to decide how it gets spent. The difference being non-payers, and welfare recipients are not paying in at all, so it is not their money.

Except in order to collect unemployment, you have to pay into it by having a job, at least for a while. The amount of weeks you can collect is related to how many weeks you've been working. It's not the same as just walking in and collecting food stamps or whatever they call the system these days.

And while I'm sure we've all known someone who works jobs just long enough to collect unemployment later, that is not the norm.

Virginia requires you submit two resumes a week. It's horrible. It's like they want people to eventually get off unemployment.

altinos: Here's an interesting fact. There are many Canadians who pay into Michigan's unemployment system (when they have jobs here) and are allowed to receive Michigan's unemployment benefits. Yet they have no right to vote.

I like that. Makes it simple paperwork wise (keep unemployment -- always), and is fair to the Canucks (you pay in, you can get some out), and fair to the locals (no unfair cross-border competition)

Dick_Hertz

You and Weaver are great examples of the Democrats


Is anyone else amused by this statement? Times surely do change.

altinos

Except in order to collect unemployment, you have to pay into it by having a job, at least for a while. The amount of weeks you can collect is related to how many weeks you've been working. It's not the same as just walking in and collecting food stamps or whatever they call the system these days.

And while I'm sure we've all known someone who works jobs just long enough to collect unemployment later, that is not the norm.


While all of that is true, it will fall on deaf ears as it has so many times. The rabid and spittle-flecked "unemployment is WELFARE" types won't let facts interfere with their babbling.

And then there is the problem of people who get laid off in the last six weeks of the year. As one one who has looked for a job in the US from right before Thanksgiving, very few companies are doing any hiring and you will get screwed again.

If you are a driven & successful salesperson and want to work in the Southeast Louisiana area selling hurricane replacement windows to contractors, remodelers and homeowners, we need more salespeople. Our company grew 75% over last year. Three guys I work with are from Michigan. We'll hire you. We are growing. You should earn six figures. It is a 1099 position.

altinos: amanogowa: What would be wrong with that? It's their money -- they earned it. They ought to get to decide how it gets spent. The difference being non-payers, and welfare recipients are not paying in at all, so it is not their money.

Except in order to collect unemployment, you have to pay into it by having a job, at least for a while. The amount of weeks you can collect is related to how many weeks you've been working. It's not the same as just walking in and collecting food stamps or whatever they call the system these days.

And while I'm sure we've all known someone who works jobs just long enough to collect unemployment later, that is not the norm.

Right -- and while they are paying in, they get to vote on the regulations covering it.

smallonion: This is crap.
These people have paid into unemployment INSURANCE for these times. It's not like they are receiving welfare for having done nothing.

This is crap? Did you actually read the article? They're asking people collecting unemployment to actually apply for at least one job a week. Oh the humanity! Unemployment insurance is not vacation insurance you lazy tit. If you don't have any more initiative than to look for three jobs a week that's probably the reason you got let go in the first place.

This probably explains why I receive job apps from:
- out-of-state
- ridiculously underqualified/overqualified/outside of industry
- resume highlights/objectives irrelevant to the advertised position
- massive misspellings/typos/weird formats
- missing pieces ("send cover letter/writing sample")
etc.

When I call overq'd apps and tell them pay range, they decline interview. I don't want to waste their time or mine. I went thru that myself and u/e office continued my u/e after they confirmed what I said, 2-3 promos before I'd be working at my level/pay (3x what that job paid). Don't know if our state is being unreasonable about that now. But it seems to put more of a burden on employers to screen/review unnecessarily and maybe hire someone who doesn't want the job but has to take it... and jumps in a few months.

/end whine

Imari: This probably explains why I receive job apps from:
- out-of-state
- ridiculously underqualified/overqualified/outside of industry
- resume highlights/objectives irrelevant to the advertised position
- massive misspellings/typos/weird formats
- missing pieces ("send cover letter/writing sample")
etc.

When I call overq'd apps and tell them pay range, they decline interview. I don't want to waste their time or mine. I went thru that myself and u/e office continued my u/e after they confirmed what I said, 2-3 promos before I'd be working at my level/pay (3x what that job paid). Don't know if our state is being unreasonable about that now. But it seems to put more of a burden on employers to screen/review unnecessarily and maybe hire someone who doesn't want the job but has to take it... and jumps in a few months.

/end whine

I once had a roommate deliberately put the wrong phone number down on his applications. "I NEVER GET CALLS BACK*SOB*" when it was time for the unemployment office call.

journeymd: Bippal: As someone currently unemployed in Indiana, this law has me on both sides of the fence. I have already been doing the 3 actual applications a week, I had no idea that wasn't how it was done already.

I'm currently unemployed in SC and was quite surprised with how little you have to do to prove you're "looking for work as instructed." They give you a form with these columns: Employer Contacted, Type of Work Sought (Be Specific), Type of Contact (ex. telephone, in-person, resume, wants ads, family) and Results (ex. interview, application taken). There isn't even a date line. We're supposed to have at least 1 entry per week and I would bet good money there is no oversight/ verification.
I also had to register for work with their online system, but seeing as how their postings are riddled with errors and blind links, I doubt it will be any help.

/almost 6 months in
//genuinely trying to get a job

Good luck. I spent a year looking for work and dealing with unemployment in SC before I moved here to Alaska. The upside was that it was the best thing I've ever done for myself.

ZAZ: I wonder how this works for highly skilled people

I was wondering that too, but in a different way. I can submit my resume to the company's HR computer -- or email it to my friend the hiring manager -- and that counts as an application. But two tech jobs are not as similar as two burger flipping jobs. And it may take a few weeks to set up all the interviews.


google takes several months to go through the interview process, and historically people will interview 6-8 times over a few weeks before getting a no. If only google had offices in Indiana, you could apply for weeks while getting a check partly funded now with federal tax dollars and never actually have to work!

gadian: Good luck. I spent a year looking for work and dealing with unemployment in SC before I moved here to Alaska. The upside was that it was the best thing I've ever done for myself.

Thanks :) I'm going back to school part-time online for a Master's, which is also not helping when someone directly asks if I'd have a problem working anytime they might possibly want me (classes are only 2 evenings a week) or when they figure I may not want to be a secretary for the next 30 years.

/based on your profile, we seem pretty similar
//yay Dr. Who & INTJs

Bippal: As someone currently unemployed in Indiana, this law has me on both sides of the fence. I have already been doing the 3 actual applications a week, I had no idea that wasn't how it was done already. But the lower pay thing could really be a bummer. Not because of accepting a lower paying job on my end, I'll do what I have to do for my family, but on the employer's end like has been mentioned above. It sounds like a cheap way to get skilled labor.

That is probably the bigger thing, if all employers know of the new rules, they are likely to immediately lower the wage they are paying for all but the jobs they must fill right now no delays. This means that the bar drops for salary of every profession where there is sufficient unemployment. Basically expect most companies in the state to use this as a tactic to lower the wages that they pay - which in turn lowers income tax to the state, which means the state will have budget problems so they will kneejerk react by raising taxes, all of this will cause people to leave the state to go elsewhere for work, leaving only the poor who cant afford to go to a different state, people so hopelessly underwater in their homes they cant sell even if they tried, or farmers who need the land remaining. When a large enough quantity of the state ends up having less money, or leaves, you will find that businesses will close down because fewer items are sold, causing more people to go on unemployment, and a cascade effect will basically make California look good :)

I cant wait for the announcement that tax revenues are dangerously low and they must increase the tax rate to make up for the shortfall. I am sure it will happen.

Fark Me To Tears: This is state-sponsored extortion on behalf of employers.

What's to stop an Indiana employer from laying off half its work force and then publicly offering the laid-off employees their jobs back after 4 four weeks, but at 50% of what they were making before? According to the new rules, the laid-off employees who are still drawing unemployment benefits at that point would be required to take the offer.

I just want to know: Whose dick(s) did Indiana businesses have to suck in order to get this passed? Now you have the state dictating to laid-off workers they they must take the first offer they get, even if the offer is a low-ball? What if the offer isn't enough to cover the employee's needs?

Somebody at the state level thinks they're being clever with this. In fact, this risks destroying what's left of the housing market in Indiana. Think about it: How can you apply for a 30 year mortgage (or any long-term financial commitment) in a state that mandates that you can be forced to take a lower-paying (and perhaps loan-disqualifying) job in the event of a lay-off?

The Great Screwing continues... We'll be just like Mexico in the next 10 years if this crap keeps up.

gadian: journeymd: Bippal: As someone currently unemployed in Indiana, this law has me on both sides of the fence. I have already been doing the 3 actual applications a week, I had no idea that wasn't how it was done already.

I'm currently unemployed in SC and was quite surprised with how little you have to do to prove you're "looking for work as instructed." They give you a form with these columns: Employer Contacted, Type of Work Sought (Be Specific), Type of Contact (ex. telephone, in-person, resume, wants ads, family) and Results (ex. interview, application taken). There isn't even a date line. We're supposed to have at least 1 entry per week and I would bet good money there is no oversight/ verification.
I also had to register for work with their online system, but seeing as how their postings are riddled with errors and blind links, I doubt it will be any help.

/almost 6 months in
//genuinely trying to get a job

Good luck. I spent a year looking for work and dealing with unemployment in SC before I moved here to Alaska. The upside was that it was the best thing I've ever done for myself.

I was in month 7 before finding a under-paying contract job that may lead to better things.

trixter_nl: Bippal: As someone currently unemployed in Indiana, this law has me on both sides of the fence. I have already been doing the 3 actual applications a week, I had no idea that wasn't how it was done already. But the lower pay thing could really be a bummer. Not because of accepting a lower paying job on my end, I'll do what I have to do for my family, but on the employer's end like has been mentioned above. It sounds like a cheap way to get skilled labor.

That is probably the bigger thing, if all employers know of the new rules, they are likely to immediately lower the wage they are paying for all but the jobs they must fill right now no delays. This means that the bar drops for salary of every profession where there is sufficient unemployment. Basically expect most companies in the state to use this as a tactic to lower the wages that they pay - which in turn lowers income tax to the state, which means the state will have budget problems so they will kneejerk react by raising taxes, all of this will cause people to leave the state to go elsewhere for work, leaving only the poor who cant afford to go to a different state, people so hopelessly underwater in their homes they cant sell even if they tried, or farmers who need the land remaining. When a large enough quantity of the state ends up having less money, or leaves, you will find that businesses will close down because fewer items are sold, causing more people to go on unemployment, and a cascade effect will basically make California look good :)

I cant wait for the announcement that tax revenues are dangerously low and they must increase the tax rate to make up for the shortfall. I am sure it will happen.

Are there any entities in the world (barring a 16-year-old with her dad's credit card at the mall) more reckless, irresponsible and fiscally retarded than the government?

SecretAgentWoman: 3???

We have to do 6 job searches in Texas a week. My (required to keep) work log looks something like this:

1 Searched, nuttin'
2 Sent resume
3 Searched, nuttin'
4 Searched, nuttin'
5 Sent application online
6 Searched, nuttin'

It is insane to think that you are going to be able to find 6 jobs to apply for a week in this economy. I'm hard pressed to find 2 (and that is me lowering my standards).

The only jobs available where I live look something like this:

Babysitter at local church. They probably pay in communion wafers.

Nurse at nursing home.

Carpenter, must have 4 years experience, your own truck and tools and "medical card".

I'm not qualified for any of that shiat.

Bonus: I just found out that the 10% pay cut I am expecting may be more like 25%-40%. That's a great way to avoid paying unemployment: cut our wages so we quit.

Methinks though that if you're worried at being rehired at a lower wage by an unscrupulous employer that part of you realizes that you were getting paid way too much to begin with. It feels good and all, but we're competeing on a global market now. If someone is willing to work for less than you make, that under cuts your true value. You'll have to work for less to become employed. No one likes it, but its the truth these days.

This is all part of a greater agenda of the elite,economically ruin the working man and his family,disarm them financially,so basically all they can fight back with is with the pitchfork and gun.

i
It all happened before,and it will happen again.
So don't rob and steal from your neighbor,work together and find the REAL robbers.

Dick_Hertz: You and Weaver are great examples of the Democrats being the Party of the Stupid. If you can't figure out why what you have written is extremely stupid, then you are destined to be a Dumb-o-crat for the rest of your life.

I used to be a Republican, but I got tired of being lied to and manipulated by idiots more interested in religion than the good of this country and my fellow citizens.

Now i'm a libertarian, and i'm much much more happy.

spidermann: Last time I was on unemployment was when I was still in California. This was NorCal, so not sure if it still applies elsewhere, but I had to apply for 15 jobs per week. If I didn't hit that number I didn't get my check.

Yeah, 15 per week. Good luck finding that many jobs in one week to apply for, even in a good economy.

At that rate around here, I'd have contacted every place of business in a matter of about 3 weeks, and that's going to a town 20 miles away. Beyond that it'd be almost a 60 mile one way drive for jobs. There isn't 15 places of business in town where I live.

If you want to stay home and reel in the unemployment checks, just apply for jobs you're grossly unqualified for.

/Still waiting to hear back from Harvard Law

ck1938: 43 Days, 13 hours, and 17 minutes to be precise

No takers yet? Fine, I'll do it:

28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds

A step in the right direction. Now mandate random drug testing for welfare recipients and we're cooking with gas!

I like the unemployment process in Canada. fast, easy and based on how much you made while employed, and how long you worked. Currently looking for work in Edmonton. Used to do phone support. I will find something I am a little less overqualified for, or I will farking murder anyone who offers a phone monkey position to me.

I was downsized from a highly paid tech job in February (12 years of technical experience). Was on unemployment for almost 4 months before I found a contracting gig that paid an hourly rate similar to what I was making before but now I get 10 hours overtime a week - which means I am making about 30% more than my previous position. the down side is that now I work in an office whereas I had been a remote worker for the past 10 years. I had to wade through (and reject) many opportunities that represented a 30-50% decrease in pay before this contract came along.

I feel lucky to have found a good position with a good company at a decent rate.

Can't wait till the job market recovers so i can go back to being a remote worker again.

We have the approximately the same rules in my state. The last time I was unemployed my ending wage was $72,000/year. I got the clear impression from every state unemployment worker I talked to that they did not realistically expect me to take any damn job that came along and always wished me well in my continued search for satisfactory work in my career field. The checks kept coming and eventually I did find another job that fit my experience and qualifications.

I think it would take either an incredibly dumb or incredibly mean state unemployment worker to bust your job search balls over this. Socially these rules are government policy to create an under-employed peon society.

Indiana is now requiring the deadbeats to actually look for work?

How innovative!

budsterr: Isn't this going to force people to only look for high paying jobs or jobs that they are completely unqualified for? Which would make the likelihood of staying on unemployment longer. Not to mention employers are going to get screwed because they are going to be overwhelmed by applications from unqualified people.

I always thought the best way to deal with this unemployment issue would be to require people to do 10-15 hours of community service a week in order to receive benefits. Maybe not the first 4 weeks after losing your job but after a certain time you should be picking up garbage on the highway or doing something productive for society.

They do something like that here for the long-term unemployed, they get paid usually about €1/hour tax free in addition to the benefits, it is quite good in getting those not used to working, working again even if it doesn't really raise their income.

Fark Me To Tears: This is state-sponsored extortion on behalf of employers.

What's to stop an Indiana employer from laying off half its work force and then publicly offering the laid-off employees their jobs back after 4 four weeks, but at 50% of what they were making before? According to the new rules, the laid-off employees who are still drawing unemployment benefits at that point would be required to take the offer.

I just want to know: Whose dick(s) did Indiana businesses have to suck in order to get this passed? Now you have the state dictating to laid-off workers they they must take the first offer they get, even if the offer is a low-ball? What if the offer isn't enough to cover the employee's needs?

Somebody at the state level thinks they're being clever with this. In fact, this risks destroying what's left of the housing market in Indiana. Think about it: How can you apply for a 30 year mortgage (or any long-term financial commitment) in a state that mandates that you can be forced to take a lower-paying (and perhaps loan-disqualifying) job in the event of a lay-off?

The Great Screwing continues... We'll be just like Mexico in the next 10 years if this crap keeps up.

Indiana has pretty weak labor laws and is one of the many reasons I would never move back. I grew up there and the majority of those that I went to high school with that got a good university education went elsewhere, even if just to the next state. Those that aren't mobile because of one reason or another (sick parents, etc.) or don't really have the skills or education suffer.

I can think of some companies in Indiana that lay off people only to rehire with lower benefits that will love this. Probably why the rehiring that was supposed to happen "soon" back in January at the company one of my cousins works for hasn't happen yet.

ar_gyrion: budsterr: Isn't this going to force people to only look for high paying jobs or jobs that they are completely unqualified for? Which would make the likelihood of staying on unemployment longer. Not to mention employers are going to get screwed because they are going to be overwhelmed by applications from unqualified people.

I always thought the best way to deal with this unemployment issue would be to require people to do 10-15 hours of community service a week in order to receive benefits. Maybe not the first 4 weeks after losing your job but after a certain time you should be picking up garbage on the highway or doing something productive for society.

They do something like that here for the long-term unemployed, they get paid usually about €1/hour tax free in addition to the benefits, it is quite good in getting those not used to working, working again even if it doesn't really raise their income.

Fark Me To Tears: This is state-sponsored extortion on behalf of employers.

What's to stop an Indiana employer from laying off half its work force and then publicly offering the laid-off employees their jobs back after 4 four weeks, but at 50% of what they were making before? According to the new rules, the laid-off employees who are still drawing unemployment benefits at that point would be required to take the offer.

I just want to know: Whose dick(s) did Indiana businesses have to suck in order to get this passed? Now you have the state dictating to laid-off workers they they must take the first offer they get, even if the offer is a low-ball? What if the offer isn't enough to cover the employee's needs?

Somebody at the state level thinks they're being clever with this. In fact, this risks destroying what's left of the housing market in Indiana. Think about it: How can you apply for a 30 year mortgage (or any long-term financial commitment) in a state that mandates that you can be forced to take a lower-paying (and perhaps loan-disqualifying) job in the event of a lay-off?

The Great Screwing continues... We'll be just like Mexico in the next 10 years if this crap keeps up.

Indiana has pretty weak labor laws and is one of the many reasons I would never move back. I grew up there and the majority of those that I went to high school with that got a good university education went elsewhere, even if just to the next state. Those that aren't mobile because of one reason or another (sick parents, etc.) or don't really have the skills or education suffer.

I can think of some companies in Indiana that lay off people only to rehire with lower benefits that will love this. Probably why the rehiring that was supposed to happen "soon" back in January at the company one of my cousins works for hasn't happen yet.

So, I don't suppose that Arkansas could be actually trying to save companies from bankruptcy? So companies that provided great benefits and pay start to falter..they lay people off or fire people so they don't go under. When things do start to get better then maybe they can think about hiring two or three people without the bennies and high pay, increasing production without severely decreasing profits..then..say..after years when things are better they can start with the bennies again..or not since we will have a failing national healthcare by then.

I am sure the Ark government never thought about this..just trying to screw all of you "highly qualified" folks.

6502programmer: So you have to apply for one job per week? Sure, no problem...

Week 1: Applied to be General Counsel with the Church of Scientology
Week 2: Applied to be Chief of Surgery at local hospital.
Week 3: Applied to be Governor of Alaska
Week 5: Applied to be head of MI6 research division
Week 6: Applied to be the owner of FARK.com

See? This is easy!

FTW!

will have to use this one next week.

EF5C EF5C: ck1938: 43 Days, 13 hours, and 17 minutes to be precise

No takers yet? Fine, I'll do it:

28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds

4 days, 3 hours, 29 min, 45 seconds

TheGreatGazoo: Not only that, but as people are forced to take lower paying jobs, the state will end up making less tax revenue, so they'll have to raise tax rates.

And really, 3 job applications/week? Perhaps you could do one a day? I managed to do that the last time I was on unemployment.

If you're looking for low-level work there are plenty of places to apply. If you're looking for something that requires specialized training then the number of jobs might not be all that many.

Terrydatroll: A person shouldn't get unemployment benefits unless he can prove that he/she is actively seeking employment. People who think that their "highly skilled" status is grounds for sitting back on their laurels and collecting unemployment because they don't want to perform "menial labor" tasks just need a better perspective on life. Do what you can and keep trying for what you want. The experience will be good for you.

Taking that menial job will interfere with finding the skilled job.

Occam's Nailfile: It sucks to be in your position, but it happens. When supply goes up and demand goes down, wages fall. Your options are to either be grateful for the opportunity to work sitting on your arse in air conditioning for a low wage, or go try your hand in another craft. If you are a programmer, chances are you have an IQ above room temperature, so use it, rather than lamenting the end of your glory days.

Except that's not what's happened. Supply is actually down except for the H1-B's being used to drive down wages.

Even then $8/hr is insane. If it weren't for the unemployment insurance I can't imagine someone even offering that.

Priapic:
I think it would take either an incredibly dumb or incredibly mean state unemployment worker to bust your job search balls over this. Socially these rules are government policy to create an under-employed peon society.

Or there is some incentive in place to bust people.

Loren:
Or there is some incentive in place to bust people.

Maybe they win an office pizza party.

pugsleythegreat: Who would want to live on unemployment?

Sitting at home all day sucks.

I mean, you can only fap, eat, and stare at Xbox so long before you want to kill yourself.

You left out being on Fark every waking hour.

amanogowa: budsterr: Isn't this going to force people to only look for high paying jobs or jobs that they are completely unqualified for? Which would make the likelihood of staying on unemployment longer. Not to mention employers are going to get screwed because they are going to be overwhelmed by applications from unqualified people.

I always thought the best way to deal with this unemployment issue would be to require people to do 10-15 hours of community service a week in order to receive benefits. Maybe not the first 4 weeks after losing your job but after a certain time you should be picking up garbage on the highway or doing something productive for society.

There is a simple solution to that -- have the unemployment people review the applications and jobs they applied for, and only count the reasonable applications. Oh, you applied to be the CEO of Microsoft? Yeah, that's not reasonable burger-boy, try again.

Good idea in theory, but since there's probably one UE person for every, oh, I dunno...5000+ people collecting, it won't work.

altinos: Kareeshus: They can offer minimum wage for even highly skilled jobs, and they'll get takers.

Say you make $50,000/year as a programmer. Then you get laid off. Someone offers you minimum wage as a programmer. Do you take it?

No. You try to hold out for a better paying job, or move to an area where there are comparable wages.

You are forgetting several things, as all the "move" people tend to forget:
- Spouse (and their job)
- Kids (and their school, friends etc.)
- a house you have a snowball's chance in hell of selling, even at break even or a loss

All of us aren't single, 22 and living with a couple of roommates, with all of what we own able to fit in the bed of our pickup truck. What if your spouse not only makes more than you do, but their company provides your family with the medical and other benefits you need? You manage to sell your house and move, and now there's two of you looking for work in another city with kids, no medical insurance, nothing.

It just isn't that simple later in life.

ck1938: They call it insurance to make it more palatable for people with a sense of pride but it really is a welfare program. I'm not condemning it, I'm just saying that it's not what it pretends to be.

It's certainly not an Insurance but if I and my employer PAY for it it isn't welfare either. Welfare IMHO is free $ from the gov't. Unemployment is money I PAID IN to cover the proverbial rainy day. If all politicians and gov't were totally and completely honest there should NEVER be a shortage of $ for a persons unemployment until the money I and my employer paid in is gone then I should be cut off but it should only be me and not everyone. The trouble with Indiana is that we haven't had a decent government since Evan Bayh left the governors office. The 'leadership' we have had since has spent and spent just like the example set for them by washington these last 8+ years, when they over spent they took some out of MY unemployment account (and probably every other account the state has). Now the state accounts are short money and none of the dipshiates in office know what to do.

I live in Indiana and good quarter of the workforce is illegal.
Go figure they want a plan to underpay the legal workers to fit in with the under the table wages they give the mexicans.

Be carefull when dealing with government. It rarely turns out for your benefit.

John Buck 41: amanogowa: budsterr: Isn't this going to force people to only look for high paying jobs or jobs that they are completely unqualified for? Which would make the likelihood of staying on unemployment longer. Not to mention employers are going to get screwed because they are going to be overwhelmed by applications from unqualified people.

I always thought the best way to deal with this unemployment issue would be to require people to do 10-15 hours of community service a week in order to receive benefits. Maybe not the first 4 weeks after losing your job but after a certain time you should be picking up garbage on the highway or doing something productive for society.

There is a simple solution to that -- have the unemployment people review the applications and jobs they applied for, and only count the reasonable applications. Oh, you applied to be the CEO of Microsoft? Yeah, that's not reasonable burger-boy, try again.

Good idea in theory, but since there's probably one UE person for every, oh, I dunno...5000+ people collecting, it won't work.

If only there was some place where we could find a large number of unemployed people we could hire to do something like that....

rewind2846: You are forgetting several things, as all the "move" people tend to forget:
- Spouse (and their job)
- Kids (and their school, friends etc.)
- a house you have a snowball's chance in hell of selling, even at break even or a loss

I am married, have kids, and a house that I have no chance of selling if I were to lose my job. I'm prepared to move if I cannot find another job in my area that pays over half of what I'm making now.

Mitch Daniels is a cock sucker.

/lives in Indiana
//did not vote for him
///wishes he would DIAF

amanogowa: John Buck 41: amanogowa: budsterr: Isn't this going to force people to only look for high paying jobs or jobs that they are completely unqualified for? Which would make the likelihood of staying on unemployment longer. Not to mention employers are going to get screwed because they are going to be overwhelmed by applications from unqualified people.

I always thought the best way to deal with this unemployment issue would be to require people to do 10-15 hours of community service a week in order to receive benefits. Maybe not the first 4 weeks after losing your job but after a certain time you should be picking up garbage on the highway or doing something productive for society.

There is a simple solution to that -- have the unemployment people review the applications and jobs they applied for, and only count the reasonable applications. Oh, you applied to be the CEO of Microsoft? Yeah, that's not reasonable burger-boy, try again.

Good idea in theory, but since there's probably one UE person for every, oh, I dunno...5000+ people collecting, it won't work.

If only there was some place where we could find a large number of unemployed people we could hire to do something like that....

I see where you're going with this...and I like the way you think.

phoxxy: Mitch Daniels is a cock sucker.

/lives in Indiana
//did not vote for him
///wishes he would DIAF

This

/also from Indiana

Psst...if you take the lower paying job, you can still look for something else!

I know, I know, it sounds amazing, but it's true!

Hmm, yet another case of the government handing corps a club to beat employees over the head with.

Those quarterlies looking a little low? Let loose 4 or 5 employees for a few weeks, hire a cheap-ass intern to muddle through or just dump the work on their coworkers 'temporarally'. Then contact the employee, offer him his job back at a 50% cut, no benefits. If/when he refuses, call the unemployment office and let them know he's turning down jobs. The state will tell him to take the job or lose his unemployment, and chances are you've got back at least 3 of those employees at a massively cut pay with no benefits to muck things up. Rinse, lather, repeat through everyone else in the corporation that is on the low end and won't be likely to get a job elsewhere. Be sure to tip off your competitors on how lousy of a worker the guy is too, just for that extra gutpunch (a phony Yahoo email addy run through a proxy works wonders there).

Remember people, corporations are NOT your friends. They don't exist to do anything but make money for shareholders. The managers and CEO's that try to be 'employee friendly' at the cost of shareholder wealth will be fired, or the company will be torn apart by a competitor who does screw their employees because the evil corp can outperform the good one. The employee is the weak player here, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it anymore because the government is in the corp's pocket and doesn't give a flying fark if they take us to the washers.

America is a corporate ogliarchy, not a representative republic. The day you forget that, go ahead and look up the payment to your 'elected' officials from lobbists.

hardercase: Psst...if you take the lower paying job, you can still look for something else!

I know, I know, it sounds amazing, but it's true!

Psst, if I'm working my ass off at a shiatty 9-5 McCrappy job, then when am I going to do all this searching? On my non-existant days off, in the shiatty job the state shoved down my throat?