Liberal Forum

impartialobserver » 01 Jun 2023, 1:12 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 1:12 pm

No, he agreed with me. State law backs me up and besides... there is this text on the form that lays out the dollar amounts. The claimant not reading it.. is not my problem

RedheadedStranger » 01 Jun 2023, 1:14 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 1:14 pm

the idiot claimant tried playing victim/ the race card.. I admit to getting great satisfaction from seeing his appeal go down in flames and as of yet.. there has not been a second appeal. It was both sad and comical that he claimed that he was owed a weekly check of $350 because he had worked so hard. He had two paychecks in the last 5 quarters totaling $425.00... 30 hours or so in total. Would you say that is working hard? 30 hours in 15 months. 

impartialobserver » 01 Jun 2023, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 1:18 pm

the idiot claimant tried playing victim/ the race card.. I admit to getting great satisfaction from seeing his appeal go down in flames and as of yet.. there has not been a second appeal. It was both sad and comical that he claimed that he was owed a weekly check of $350 because he had worked so hard. He had two paychecks in the last 5 quarters totaling $425.00... 30 hours or so in total. Would you say that is working hard? 30 hours in 15 months.

I've never filed for UI so the whole process is foreign to me.

My basic understanding is that 1) You have to be actively seeking work to get it, and 2) it's based on how much you have worked and/or made prior to filing.

It's also my understanding that it depends on how you found yourself unemployed... like if you quit, then your not eligible. I've heard that an employer can dispute the claim as well, but I'm not sure on that part.

​​​​
 

Sumela » 01 Jun 2023, 12:42 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 12:42 pm

One can favorably sabotage a poll simply by how questions are posed.

or by doing it in person with the person's name and address and these days email address and cell phone, it is called intimidation.

RedheadedStranger » 01 Jun 2023, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 1:29 pm

I've never filed for UI so the whole process is foreign to me.

My basic understanding is that 1) You have to be actively seeking work to get it, and 2) it's based on how much you have worked and/or made prior to filing.

It's also my understanding that it depends on how you found yourself unemployed... like if you quit, then your not eligible. I've heard that an employer can dispute the claim as well, but I'm not sure on that part.

​​​​

2) it's based on how much you have worked and/or made prior to filing.


So based on that (which is correct), would you say that he is eligible for $325 per week for 21 weeks based on total earnings of $425? 
 

RedheadedStranger » 01 Jun 2023, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 1:29 pm

I've never filed for UI so the whole process is foreign to me.

My basic understanding is that 1) You have to be actively seeking work to get it, and 2) it's based on how much you have worked and/or made prior to filing.

It's also my understanding that it depends on how you found yourself unemployed... like if you quit, then your not eligible. I've heard that an employer can dispute the claim as well, but I'm not sure on that part.

​​​​

I have had to fire employees and occasionally UI comes up.  One time I had to fire someone because I found out she was drunk on the job.  Her medical doctor divulged this to me because she called me from a hospital for me to give her a ride back to her car.  Long story, but I fired her the next day.  I reported the reason I fired her was because she was drunk.  So, the unemployment office scheduled a hearing to determine whether she was eligible for unemployment benefits. It went something like this:

Hearing Officer:  "So, did Betty resign or did you fire her?"
Skans:  "I fired her."
HO:  Why did you fire her?
Skans:  "I discovered she was intoxicated while on the job".
HO:  "Did you send her for a blood test"?
Skans:  "No"
HO:  Why do you think she was intoxicated?
Skans: "When I went to the hospital to pick her up (she called me asking that I do this), her doctor asked where I was taking her.  I told him I was taking her back to her car so she can go home".  He said "I can't let you do that".  I said "Well, I suppose that's her choice".  He said "no it isn't.  She's intoxicated - high as a kite right now, I will not allow you to take her."  I just said "OK" and left.
HO:  "So, Betty's claiming that the doctor shouldn't have told you that".
Skans: "Well, the doctor did tell me that and I have no choice but to fire her for being drunk on the job, as well as causing me to loose substantial time for having to deal with hit"
HO:  "So, Betty's contesting this, and she says..........."
Skans: "Let me stop you right there.  I'm not contesting her right to UI benefits.  Give it to her, if you want.  That's not my problem.  I am simply telling you truthfully what went down.  She was drunk.  I fired her.  She is not eligible for re-hire.  Ever!

The dumb bitch hearing officer was trying to be the fired employee's advocate.  Personally, I would have wanted her to get UI - the lady was good at what she did, but obviously had a problem.  I suspected as much anyway. I could not allow her to be MY problem any longer.
 

impartialobserver » 01 Jun 2023, 1:56 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 1:56 pm

2) it's based on how much you have worked and/or made prior to filing.

So based on that (which is correct), would you say that he is eligible for $325 per week for 21 weeks based on total earnings of $425?

That's hard to say without knowing his personal situation.

Maybe he had money put back when he lost the job and tried living on that until he found work again, and only decided to file for the benefit once those funds started running short some months later?

Not sure how that would play into the grand scheme of things though.

Trying to make it about race most likely means he's just a slacker either way though. Lol

 
 

RedheadedStranger » 01 Jun 2023, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 2:02 pm

That's hard to say without knowing his personal situation.

Maybe he had money put back when he lost the job and tried living on that until he found work again, and only decided to file for the benefit once those funds started running short some months later?

Not sure how that would play into the grand scheme of things though.

Trying to make it about race most likely means he's just a slacker either way though. Lol

Here is the bare bones edition. Your weekly check amount is based on the highest total wages of your last five quarters. So in his case.. 4 of the last 5 quarters were $0 in reported earnings. the middle of the 5, he had $425 in total earnings. Of that, his employer paid $5.15 in unemployment tax. So, in short, he was wanting to be paid $325 per week from an account that only had $5.15 in it. 

impartialobserver » 01 Jun 2023, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 2:12 pm

Here is the bare bones edition. Your weekly check amount is based on the highest total wages of your last five quarters. So in his case.. 4 of the last 5 quarters were $0 in reported earnings. the middle of the 5, he had $425 in total earnings. Of that, his employer paid $5.15 in unemployment tax. So, in short, he was wanting to be paid $325 per week from an account that only had $5.15 in it.

Ahh... so anything he had earned prior to the last 5 quarters is irrelevant... even if he had held the job for years before losing it.

I'm guessing if someone loses their job then it's best to file for unemployment  on day one to receive the maximum allowable benefit... even if they can coast a quarter or two or longer on their own dime while looking for work. Correct?

That's kinda backwards to me, but hey, this is Government were talking about here.

 



 

Punch » 01 Jun 2023, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 12:16 pm

Are you a hater?

GLAAD Report Finds 75% of Non-LGBT Adults Are Comfortable Seeing Queer People in Ads (msn.com)

The majority of non-LGBT adults are comfortable seeing queer people in ads, TV and movies, according to a new GLAAD survey.The survey — results for which were released Thursday, June 1, the first day of Pride Month — was part of GLAAD's annual Accelerating Acceptance Study. Based on a national respondent pool of 2,533 U.S. adults in February, the study also concluded that a vast majority of non-LGBT adults support equal rights for the LGBT community (at 84%), 75% of non-LGBT adults are comfortable seeing queer representation in ads and 73% are comfortable seeing an LGBT character included in a movie or a TV show.
 (Translation: we want our perversions normalized. -Punch)

 (9) Ford’s Very Gay Raptor Redefines ‘Tough’ for a New Generation - YouTube

Ford ***

GLADD reports everyone loves ***, degenerates and pedophiles.....ROTFLMFAO!!

OK...here we go...I was waiting until some **** *** pulled the fake 97% of all scientists approve of *** just like in Global Warming.  Once these idiots start talking about high percentages while realities like in  "AB Ibev, Disney and the other WOKE companies floundering around after embracing what normal people see as degenerate disgusting behavior.

This thread is *** generated from the start
 

impartialobserver » 01 Jun 2023, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 2:12 pm

Here is the bare bones edition. Your weekly check amount is based on the highest total wages of your last five quarters. So in his case.. 4 of the last 5 quarters were $0 in reported earnings. the middle of the 5, he had $425 in total earnings. Of that, his employer paid $5.15 in unemployment tax. So, in short, he was wanting to be paid $325 per week from an account that only had $5.15 in it.

In other words - it's really just all about the numbers.  No one has the inclination or time to fart around with what race someone is.
 
 

RedheadedStranger » 01 Jun 2023, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 2:39 pm

Ahh... so anything he had earned prior to the last 5 quarters is irrelevant... even if he had held the job for years before losing it.

I'm guessing if someone loses their job then it's best to file for unemployment  on day one to receive the maximum allowable benefit... even if they can coast a quarter or two or longer on their own dime while looking for work. Correct?

That's kinda backwards to me, but hey, this is Government were talking about here.

Time           Gross Earnings           Taxable Earnings             UI Tax paid

2021 q1     10,0000              10,000          150
2021q2       25,000                25,000          325
2021q3       35,000                33,500          525
2021q4      42,500                  33,500         525
2022q1      44,000                 33,500          525

so lets say that you have not worked since this time... we would base your benefit on the wage data contained in 2022q1. You could file at any time between 2022q2 and 2023q2. 
 

Skans » 01 Jun 2023, 2:50 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 2:50 pm

In other words - it's really just all about the numbers.  No one has the inclination or time to fart around with what race someone is.

Why does it matter in the least what race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. they are? Discrimination based on that is done in the courts not unemployment insurance. 

impartialobserver » 01 Jun 2023, 3:00 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 3:00 pm

Why does it matter in the least what race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. they are? Discrimination based on that is done in the courts not unemployment insurance.

It's just something for some ******* to say to try and get some money, that's all.  You do know the guy is unemployed, right?  Probably means he's strung out on meth or crack and can't scrape up enough bubble-gum wrappers for his next hit.
 

Skans » 01 Jun 2023, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 12:19 pm

Is there any possibility that GLAAD (run by a radical New York leftist lesbian) would have done a study or published a report that found that 75% of Straight people can't stand seeing homosexuals *** off with each other in advertisements?

None at all.

impartialobserver » 01 Jun 2023, 2:59 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 2:59 pm

Time           Gross Earnings           Taxable Earnings             UI Tax paid

2021 q1     10,0000              10,000          150
2021q2       25,000                25,000          325
2021q3       35,000                33,500          525
2021q4      42,500                  33,500         525
2022q1      44,000                 33,500          525

so lets say that you have not worked since this time... we would base your benefit on the wage data contained in 2022q1. You could file at any time between 2022q2 and 2023q2.

So, the benefit is based on the last of five quarters you worked, up to a year ago?

For instance, if the guy you're referring to in your post had made $60k in Q2 of 2022, he would have until Q2 of 2023 to file, and the benefit would be based on the $60K he made in the last quarter he actually worked?

It makes more sense if that the case.
 
 
 

RedheadedStranger » 01 Jun 2023, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 1:03 pm

Notice the use of "Non-LGBT"... like being LGBT is the norm instead of the exception.

The subliminal propaganda is woven into everything these days.

impartialobtuser would disagree.

RedheadedStranger » 01 Jun 2023, 3:23 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 3:23 pm

So, the benefit is based on the last of five quarters you worked, up to a year ago?

For instance, if the guy you're referring to in your post had made $60k in Q2 of 2022, he would have until Q2 of 2023 to file, and the benefit would be based on the $60K he made in the last quarter he actually worked?

It makes more sense if that the case.

In my example, the highest wages were paid in the last quarter but it could any of the five. Your middle paragraph hits the nail on the head. 


 

Skans » 01 Jun 2023, 3:06 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 3:06 pm

It's just something for some ******* to say to try and get some money, that's all.  You do know the guy is unemployed, right?  Probably means he's strung out on meth or crack and can't scrape up enough bubble-gum wrappers for his next hit.

I do not know.. Given that this guy was 47 years old.. you are probably correct or close to it. If he was 27, probably someone who lives with mom and dad. Only reason my name gets brought into this is because in his desperate attempt to reach a person.. he calls every number in the book and I was the first to pick up. I told him that I do not adjudicate claims.. I am the analytical/programming support behind such actions. 

impartialobserver » 01 Jun 2023, 4:08 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 4:08 pm

In my example, the highest wages were paid in the last quarter but it could any of the five. Your middle paragraph hits the nail on the head.

Yes, I get it now. I thought at first you were saying it was based on the last 5 quarters from when he actually filed, but I see now that's not the case.

​​​​​​Thanks for the info. My thirst for knowledge has been quenched.