How to tell unemployment that I'm able and willing to work for jobs that don't suck?

August 7, 2007 3:59 PM

Am I automatically going to lose unemployment benefits if I don't accept a job offer with the company that originally fired me? Can I maintain plausible deniability if I refuse to return their phone calls?

I was canned from a part-time job about a month and a half ago, not for cause, just because they were restructuring. I was not sorry to go, and in hindsight, it looks like I lost money working there because of my daycare expense. Now that I've finally negotiated the New York State unemployment website, I'll be getting a small pittance, which will result in actually netting more money than I did while working.

Yesterday the old employer called, and left a brief message with my husband that they wanted me back. I don't want to go back, and I expect that the pay would be the same and going back would cost me money. But every week, I have to certify that I did not work and did not turn down any job offers if I want to continue receiving unemployment benefits. That's where my plan to not answer the phone comes in. Your thoughts?

posted by anonymous to Work & Money (17 answers total)

This probably won't work out well. Unemployment is paid by the employer to the state; I imagine they know you've applied for unemployment. Likewise, they know they've offered you a job.
posted by headspace at 4:17 PM on August 7, 2007

My thought is that they'll probably figure it out, and then you'll be in the position of having to pay back the money. Take the job and try really hard to find one that doesn't suck as soon as possible.

I don't know the NY rules, but maybe they have some clause whereby, if you can genuinely prove that you'll be disadvantaged by taking the job, you don't have to?

I understand that you want to choose a job you like, but, barring that, it's your responsibility to work when you can. Unemployment benefits are for people who genuinely don't have jobs; they are not a cushion so you can cherry-pick a job you'll like.
posted by Lucie at 4:40 PM on August 7, 2007

Unemployment insurance is paid by the employer, but the dispersements are managed by the state. Once the former employer has agreed to release the money (they can petition not to, which they obviously have not done, and in any case it is rarely granted) there is no further connection between the two. If you turned down the job, and didnt inform the state (via that little box you check every week) unless your previous employer narcs on you, the state is none the wiser.

I'm not exactly suggesting that you lie to (or mislead) the state about this. Just pointing out the reality of it. I've been in the system a couple times over the years and sometimes I would even work part-time (several hours a week) for the company that laid me off. If I reported the money, I'd be screwed. So I never reported it, and I was eventually re-hired when the work picked up. Then again, you might even try telling the truth. Talk to someone at the unemployment department and ask about what the ramifications are if you are offered a job that you think would be horrible, or not likely to continue, etc and see what they say. They might be pretty helpful. You may want to phrase the scenario as "hypothetical" during your conversation though, just to be safe.

Personally, as someone who's regretfully been through the system a few times in my life, I follow the axiom that its often more advantageous to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

Good luck getting a new job!
posted by elendil71 at 4:42 PM on August 7, 2007

IANAL. In many states, your last employer is contributing to your unemployment benefit directly, particularly if you were or have since been named by an employer in a program such as New York's Shared Work program, and thus they know if you're receiving unemployment benefits from reports provided to them by the state. They may contest benefits for people that have been fired for cause, or who they believe to be ineligible for other reasons (voluntary quit, etc.). So, if you now refuse to return to work for that employer, you may well forfeit unemployment benefits. Whether you can refuse to work for a certain wage rate is apparently governed by the Prevailing Wage Program, and general provisions which state that "Any offered work must pay the prevailing wage for such work in your area." The state maintained database of job titles by area supporting the Prevailing Wage Program (at the link provided above) would be your first line of inquiry to finding out whether the employment being offered to you is within the prevailing wage rates for your area, and that is going to be the primary determinant of whether you'd be expected to take the job again, or not, while remaining eligible for unemployment benefits. You and the employer might have far different descriptions or job titles for the work involved, and if such discrepancies result in major differences in the calculation of prevailing wage rates, you may have a case for appeal. But you would probably not get unemployment benefits while that type of dispute was pending, although if it went your way, you could potentially collect on the back end.

The question of whether your pay would exceed your child care expenses is generally not directly relevant to the determination of eligibility or amounts of unemployment benefits, although it may have great practical interest to you. The assumption by the state is generally that you would be able to find lower cost child care alternatives, in order to afford to be able to work, so long as your employer is meeting minimum wage laws, etc. This may not always be the case in the real world, but that is the stance the Department of Labor is often required to take.
posted by paulsc at 4:42 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

While my initial reaction was that it doesn't seem you should be required to accept any job that you're offered, even if it does suck, the truth is that if the company hadn't canned you, you'd still be there and would be none the wiser (that you feel better off without the job). Definitely the moral (and likely legal) thing to do is to take the job back, and keep looking for a new one.
posted by iguanapolitico at 4:53 PM on August 7, 2007

My thoughts are that you should stop defrauding your fellow taxpayer.

Eh, maybe it's cuz in my income bracket I hardly pay any income taxes anyway (usually less than $2k/year or so). But I really don't mind my taxes going to things like this. OP getting an extra grand stretched out over a few weeks is going to cost each tax paper well under a cent, right? Contrast that with the OP's genuine hardship -- and the hardship to the child who has to stay in daycare instead -- with goodness knows what long-term implications -- and suddenly it doesn't seem that big of a deal.

If the OP was talking about literally defrauding the government of money, that'd be one thing. But the fact of the matter is that all that is happening is the OP is simply staying on unemployment slightly longer. Many, many people who could get hired at McDonalds tomorrow stay on unemployment instead because they want a better job -- why does this person have to suffer simply because they've been asked back by a company that fired them in the past -- and that is likely to fire them in the future?

I guess what seems fundamentally unfair is that this person is unable to climb upwards economically simply because they are in an unfortunate economic situation. I vividly remember sitting at a cafe with guy who was making more on unemployment than I was currently making while working my butt off. He hadn't been working for 3 months, and he said he planned to wait until close to when the unemployment ran out before getting a new job. I guess if I had to feel pissed off, I'd feel pissed off at that guy, not the OP.

I definitely feel that the transient nature of the work should be a factor here. Otherwise companies could just fire and hire to keep employees from finding a new job, while only having to pay for the high seasons.
posted by Deathalicious at 4:58 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

BTW, none of this is to say that OP has a legal basis to do this. I'm only arguing that on moral grounds, this is not so bad.
posted by Deathalicious at 5:02 PM on August 7, 2007

Oh, and if it really is a pittance and you can afford to do so, you might want to consider forgetting both the pittance and the company and spend a little quality time trying to find a better place. The time investment might pay off.
posted by Deathalicious at 5:05 PM on August 7, 2007

Do you think it's possible that the old employer is offering the job simply so they can stop paying your unemployment benefits? In which case, THEY are the ones defrauding YOU. (IANAL) What's to stop them just "restructuring" again? Why fire you in the first place, if it was really just a layoff?
posted by nax at 5:17 PM on August 7, 2007

You could also try telling the former and prospective employer that you were actually losing money by working for them, given the childcare costs, and that they should either a) pay you more, or b) provide childcare.

No one can reasonably expect you to take a job that it costs you to work.
posted by TonyRobots at 5:26 PM on August 7, 2007

I would use the cost/benefit ratio of the job to negotiate a pay that's worth it for you.

I would not lie on the unemployment forms. It's at best ethically questionable. If that doesn't move you, find out what the consequences are if you are found out.
posted by loiseau at 5:31 PM on August 7, 2007

Mod note: a few comments removed -- take righteous indignation to MetaTalk where it will be more than welcome nd appropriate.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:30 PM on August 7, 2007

Noone can reasonably expect you to take a job that is costing you money, but clearly if you were surviving on that then you can also survive without the unemployment benefits. Stop taking the money, tell your old company why you're not going back to work for them, and either congratulate yourself on your new life of time-with-kid, or keep looking for a better job.
posted by jacalata at 8:02 PM on August 7, 2007

1) Yes. 2) No. That's the way unemployment works. You only get monetary help if there's nothing else available. Otherwise, suck it up and take the job back, or stop taking the assistance.
posted by chundo at 9:22 PM on August 7, 2007

I had a similar thing happen to me last year. My entire department of thirteen people was laid off over 3 months. They asked me and two other employees to stick around until June. Then they let me go out of the blue in May. Three weeks later they asked me to come back in a different position, but still handling the work I did before (plus everything everyone else was doing). I really didn't want to go back because of the way they had treated me and the toxic work environment. I knew they would pay me more, but I tried to negotiate instead for a three day work week with my previous salary and full benefits. When that didn't work (no big surprise), I said no thanks, and continued to draw unemployment for another 4 months with not a peep from my previous employer. I don't know if it mattered that they were offering me a different position that the one I had before.
posted by kimdog at 7:53 AM on August 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

They wan't you back?

Then set your terms - if they don't go for it, oh well - continue to collect your UI.

See - you did not apply for a job and refuse it - you were approached unsolicitated. You have no obligation to work for them if you did not apply for a position.

For all those who say it's fraud, what about the dozens of "jobs" one gets through spam email? Are they legit?
No!
posted by jkaczor at 9:39 AM on August 8, 2007

OP here with follow-up.

Based on Paulsc's link on the prevailing wage program, it seemed that I could turn down the job without jeopardizing my unemployment. I let unemployment know I'd turned down the job, and they sent a letter requesting more information. I had to list where the offer was from, what the rate was, hours offered, etc. While the letter was being processed, I did not receive any benefits. As of yesterday, they seem to have decided that I was within my rights to refuse the job, and they've paid me my last three weeks benefits.

And thank god I didn't take the job, because my boss also quit. They're selling the company and the whole office will be out of work come October anyway.
posted by saffry at 12:36 PM on August 29, 2007 [1 favorite]