# Crazy thing about working union construction



## henderson14 (Oct 23, 2010)

One week I'm on unemployment making 400/week. The next week I'm working 60 hours a week making the equivalent to 145k a year.

Luckily there is a huge project in the local next to mine that went into book 2 and will last a while.:thumbup:


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

.............


----------



## henderson14 (Oct 23, 2010)

sbrn33 said:


> You make $400 a week on unemployment?? I had no clue. No wonder so many people don't work. Luckily the King just extended them.


If you have kids you can make 600. Plus our local gives us a subfund of $300 a week. Ya, thats exactly why so many don't work. A lot of guys won't pick up short calls for that reason or travel or find new lines of work.


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

No supplements in our local. You get your unemployment and thats it. Thankfully I've been damn lucky in my local and haven't been out of work since 2004 and that was a short down time.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

That is the beauty and the beast of the business.


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

eejack said:


> That is the beauty and the beast of the business.


 Hopefully you see more beauty than beast.:thumbsup:


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

sbrn33 said:


> You make $400 a week on unemployment?? I had no clue. No wonder so many people don't work. Luckily the King just extended them.


Do you have any understanding of how the unemployment system actually works?


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

sure, People like me that never use it pay into it so people that don't want to work can take money out of it.
Seem pretty simple.


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

sbrn33 said:


> sure, People like me that never use it pay into it so people that don't want to work can take money out of it.
> Seem pretty simple.


So you really have no clue how it works.

You should see how the system is set up for "middle america".

Of course...it is much simpler to just spew nonsense w/o any real knowledge of the subject matter.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

So are you saying I am wrong?

People that use the system on a regular basis are milking the system and you know it. You just don't like to hear it.


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

sbrn33 said:


> So are you saying I am wrong?


Are you claiming your assessment is the correct explanation?



sbrn33 said:


> People that use the system on a regular basis are milking the system and you know it. You just don't like to hear it.


You might like to think that, but if you understood how the system worked - you might think differently....that's the weird thing about having some knowledge.


----------



## halfamp (Jul 16, 2012)

*Unemployment insurance* are payments made by the state or other authorized bodies to unemployed people. Benefits may be based on a compulsory para-governmental insurance system. Depending on the jurisdiction and the status of the person, those sums may be small, covering only basic needs, or may compensate the lost time proportionally to the previous earned salary. They often are part of a larger social security scheme.


Unemployment benefits are generally given only to those registering as unemployed, and often on conditions ensuring that they seek work and do not currently have a job.


*Unemployment compensation* is money received from the United States and a state by a worker who has become unemployed through no fault of their own. In the United States, this compensation is classified as a type of social welfare benefit. According to the Internal Revenue Code, these types of benefits are to be included in a taxpayer's gross income.[29]
* Federal-state joint programs*

The idea of unemployment insurance in the United States originated in Wisconsin in 1932.[30] In the United States, there are 50 state *unemployment insurance* programs plus one each in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and United States Virgin Islands. Through the Social Security Act of 1935, the federal government of the United States effectively encouraged the individual states to adopt unemployment insurance plans.
Unemployment insurance is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal and state UI taxes).[31] Generally, employers must pay both state and federal unemployment taxes if:
(1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1,500 or more in any quarter of a calendar year; or,[31](2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether the weeks were consecutive. However, some state laws differ from the federal law.[31] To facilitate this program, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect an annual federal employer tax used to fund state workforce agencies. FUTA covers the costs of administering the Unemployment Insurance and Job Service programs in all states. In addition, FUTA pays one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provides for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits. As originally established, the states paid the federal government.[31]
The FUTA tax rate was originally three percent of taxable wages collected from employers who employed at least four employees,[32] and employers could deduct up to 90 percent of the amount due if they paid taxes to a state to support a system of unemployment insurance which met Federal standards,[30] but the rules have changed as follows. The FUTA tax rate is now, effective after June 30, 2011, 6.0 percent of taxable wages of employees who meet both the above and following criteria,[31] and the taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year.[31] Employers who pay the state unemployment tax on a timely basis receive an offset credit of up to 5.4 percent regardless of the rate of tax they pay their state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.6 percent (6.0 percent - 5.4 percent), for a maximum FUTA tax of $42.00 per employee, per year (.006 X $7,000 = $42.00). State law determines individual state unemployment insurance tax rates.[31] In the United States, unemployment insurance tax rates use experience rating.[33]
Within the above constraints, the individual states and territories raise their own contributions and run their own programs. The federal government sets broad guidelines for coverage and eligibility, but states vary in how they determine benefits and eligibility.
Federal rules are drawn by the United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. For most states, the maximum period for receiving benefits is 26 weeks. There is an extended benefit program (authorized through the Social Security Acts) that may be triggered by state economic conditions. Congress has often passed temporary programs to extend benefits during economic recessions. This was done with the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program in 2002-2003, which has since expired,[34] and remained in force through June 2, 2010, with the Extended Unemployment Compensation 2008 legislation.[35] In July, legislation that provides an extension of federal extended unemployment benefits through November was signed by the President. The extension restored unemployment benefits to the 2.3 million unemployed Americans who had run out of basic unemployment benefits. However, the current extensions in place expire on November 30 unless legislation is passed by Congress providing for an additional extension. Congress is considering extending the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation program again.[36]
The federal government lends money to the states for unemployment insurance when the states run short of funds. In general, this can happen when the unemployment rate is high. The need for loans can be exacerbated when a state cuts taxes and increases benefits. All loans must be repaid with interest.
Congressional actions to massively increase penalties for states incurring large debts for unemployment benefits led to state fiscal crises in the 1980s.[_citation needed_]
Because it is a joint federal/state program run by the states, taxing business for the benefit of labor, the politics of unemployment insurance are very complex.
* Macroeconomic function*

To Keynesian economists the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program acts as an automatic stabilizer. When employment grows, UI program revenue rises through increased tax revenues while UI program spending falls as fewer workers are unemployed. This creates a surplus of funds for the UI program to draw upon during a recession. In a recession, UI tax revenue falls and UI program spending rises as more workers lose their jobs and receive UI benefits. The increased amount of UI payments to unemployed workers puts additional funds into the economy; however, others argue that the taxation necessary to support this system serve to decrease employment.[_citation needed_]
* Eligibility and amount*

Americans out of work who do not qualify for unemployment insurance include part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers, and school graduates. There are five main reasons unemployment benefits would be declined: not being able or available to work, voluntary separation from work without a good cause, discharge connected to misconduct, refusal of suitable work, and unemployment resulting from a labor dispute.[37][38]
Generally, the worker must be unemployed through no fault of his/her own (generally through lay-offs). The unemployed must also meet state requirements for wages earned or time worked during an established period of time (referred to as a “base period”) to be eligible for benefits. In most States, the base period is usually the first four out of the last five completed calendar quarters prior to the time that the claim is filed.[39] Unemployment benefits are based on reported covered quarterly earnings. The amount of earnings and the number of quarters worked are used to determine the length and value of the unemployment benefit. The average weekly payment is 36 percent of the individual's average weekly wage.[40]
As a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by Congress in February 2009, many unemployed people can receive up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits; this may depend on State legislation. Before the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the maximum weeks one could collect was 26 weeks.
* Application process*

It generally takes two weeks for benefit payments to begin, the first being a "waiting week", which is not reimbursed, and the second being the time lag between eligibility for the program and the first benefit actually being paid.
To begin a claim, the unemployed worker must apply for benefits through a state unemployment agency.[39] In certain instances, the employer initiates the process. Generally, the certification includes affected person affirming that they are "able and available for work", the amount of any part-time earnings they may have had, and whether they are actively seeking work. These certifications are usually accomplished either over the Internet or via an interactive voice response telephone call, but in a few states may be by mail. After receiving an application, the state will notify the individual if they qualify and the rate they will receive every week. The state will also review the reason for separation from employment. Many states require the individual to periodically certify that the conditions of the benefits are still met.
* Disqualification*

If a worker's reason for separation from their last job is due to some reason other than a "lack of work", a determination will be made about whether they are eligible for benefits. Generally, all determinations of eligibility for benefits are made by the appropriate State under its law or applicable federal laws. If a worker is disqualified or denied benefits, they have the right to file an appeal within an established time-frame. The State will advise a worker of his or her appeal rights. An employer may also appeal a determination if they do not agree with the State's determination regarding the employee's eligibility.[39]
* Measurement*

* Current data*

Each Thursday, the Department of Labor issues the _Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report_.[41] Its headline number is the seasonally adjusted estimate for the initial claims for unemployment for the previous week in the United States. This statistic, because of its timeliness, is an important indicator of the health of the labor market, and more broadly, the vigor of the overall economy.
* UI outlook*

Twice a year, the Office of Management and Budget delivers an economic assessment of the unemployment insurance program as it relates to budgetary issues.[42] As it relates to the FY 2012 budget, the OMB reports that: the insured unemployment rate (IUR) is projected to average 3.6% in both FY 2011 and in FY 2012. State UI regular benefit outlays are estimated at $61 billion in FY 2011 and $64.3 billion in FY 2012, down somewhat from Midsession estimates.[42] Outlays from state trust fund accounts are projected to exceed revenues and interest income by $16.0 billion in FY 2011 and $15.1 billion in FY 2012.[42] State trust fund account balances, net of loans, are projected to continue to fall, from -$27.4 billion at the end of FY 2010 to -$62.7 billion at the end of FY 2013, before starting to grow again.[42] Net balances are not projected to become positive again until well beyond FY 2016. Up to 40 states are projected to continue borrowing heavily from the Federal Unemployment Account (FUA) over the next few years.[42] The aggregate loan balance is projected to increase from $40.2 billion at the end of FY 2010 to a peak end-of-year balance of $68.3 billion in FY 2013. Due to the high volume of state loans and increased EB payments, FUA and EUCA are projected to borrow $26.7 billion from the general fund in FY 2011 and an additional $19.4 billion in FY 2012, with neither account projected to return to a net positive balance before 2016.[42] The general fund advances must be repaid with interest.[42]


----------



## halfamp (Jul 16, 2012)

*Economic rationale and issues*

The fact that a compulsory government program and not the private market provides unemployment insurance can be explained using the concepts of adverse selection and moral hazard.
* Adverse selection*

Adverse selection refers to the fact that “workers who have the highest probability of becoming unemployed have the highest demand for unemployment insurance.”[43] Adverse selection causes profit maximizing private insurance agencies to set high premiums for the insurance because there is a high likelihood they will have to make payments to the policyholder. High premiums work to exclude many individuals who otherwise might purchase the insurance. “A compulsory government program avoids the adverse selection problem. Hence, government provision of UI has the potential to increase efficiency. However, government provision does not eliminate moral hazard.”[43]
* Moral hazard*

“At the same time, those workers who managed to obtain insurance might experience more unemployment otherwise would have been the case.”[43] The private insurance company would have to determine whether the employee is unemployed through no fault of their own, which is difficult to determine. Incorrect determinations could result in the payout of significant amounts for fraudulent claims or alternately failure to pay legitimate claims. This leads to the rationale that if government could solve either problem that government intervention would increase efficiency.
* Unemployment insurance effect on unemployment*

In the Great Recession, the “moral hazard” issue of whether unemployment insurance (UI)—and specifically extending UI past the maximum 99 weeks—significantly encourages unemployment by discouraging workers from finding and taking jobs, has been expressed by Republican legislators. Conservative economist Robert Barro found UI raised the unemployment rate 2%.[44][45] Disagreeing with Barro's study were Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein, who found the “vast majority” of unemployment was due to “demand shocks” not “UI-induced supply reductions.”[45][46] A study by Rothstein of extensions of unemployment insurance to 99 weeks during the Great Recession to test the hypothesis that unemployment insurance discourages people from seeking jobs found the overall effect of UI on unemployment was to raise it by no more than one-tenth of one percent.[47][48]
A November report by the Congressional Budget Office found that even if UI benefits convince some unemployed to ignore job openings, these openings were quickly filled by new entrants into the labor market.[45][49] A survey of studies on unemployment insurances’s effect on employment by the Political Economy Research Institute found that unemployed who collected UI did not find themselves out of work longer than those who _didn’t_ have unemployment benefits; and that unemployed workers did not search for work more or reduce their wage expectations once their benefits ran out.[45][50]
One concern over unemployment insurance increasing unemployment is based on experience rating UI uses which can sometimes be imperfect. That is, the cost to the employer in increased taxes is less than the benefits that would be paid to the employee upon layoff. The firm in this instance believes that it is more cost effective to lay off the employee, causing more unemployment than under perfect experience rating.[43]
* Alternative policy*

An alternative to unemployment insurance intended to reduce the moral hazard costs would introduce mandated individual saving accounts for workers to draw on after being laid off. The plan, by Martin Feldstein would pay any positive account balance at retirement to the employee.[51]
* Effect on state budgets*

Another issue with unemployment insurance relates to its effects on state budgets. During recessionary time periods, the number of unemployed rises and they begin to start drawing benefits from the program. The longer the recession lasts, depending on the state’s starting UI program balance, the quicker the state begins to run out of funds. The recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009 has significantly impacted state budgets. According to The Council of State Governments, by March 18, 2011, 32 states plus the Virgin Islands had borrowed nearly $45.7 billion. The Labor Department estimates by the fourth quarter of 2013, as many as 40 states may need to borrow more than $90 billion to fund their unemployment programs and it will take a decade or more to pay off the debt.[52]
* Insurance funds*

Possible policy options for states to shore up the unemployment insurance funds include lowering benefits for recipients and/or raising taxes on businesses. Kentucky took the approach of raising taxes and lowering benefits to attempt to balance its unemployment insurance program. Starting in 2010, a claimant’s weekly benefits will decrease from 68% to 62% and the taxable wage base will increase from $8,000 to $12,000, over a ten year period. These moves are estimated to save the state over $450 million.[53]
* Taxing or exempting UI*

The argument for taxation of social welfare benefits is that they result in a realized gain for a taxpayer. The argument against taxation is that the benefits are generally less than the federal poverty level.
Unemployment compensation has been taxable by the federal government since 1987.[54] Code Section 85 deemed unemployment compensation included in gross income.[55] Federal taxes are not withheld from unemployment compensation at the time of payment unless requested by the recipient using Form W-4V.[54][56] In 2003, Rep. Philip English introduced legislation to repeal the taxation of unemployment compensation, but the legislation did not advance past committee.[54][57] Most states with income tax consider unemployment compensation to be taxable.[54] Prior to 1987, unemployment compensation amounts were excluded from federal gross income.[58] For the US Federal tax year of 2009, as a result of the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by Barack Obama on February 17, 2009 the first $2,400 worth of unemployment income received during the 'tax year' of 2009 will be exempted from being considered as taxable income on the Federal level, when American taxpayers file their 2009 IRS tax return paperwork in early 2010.
* Job sharing / short-time working*

Job sharing or work sharing and short time or short-time working refer to situations or systems in which employees agree to or are forced to accept a reduction in working time and pay. These can be based on individual agreements or on government programs in many countries that try to prevent unemployment. In these, employers have the option of reducing work hours to part-time for many employees instead of laying off some of them and retaining only full-time workers. For example, employees in 18 states of the United States can then receive unemployment payments for the hours they are no longer working.[59]


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Thanks Halfamp that really helped.


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

36% of my normal pay is not enough of an incentive for me to "milk the system"
Mortgage and other financial responsibilities mean I need to gainfully employed.
on the occasions where I have been on unemployment, I had the benefit of having saved money in advance of the pending unemployment stint.


----------



## henderson14 (Oct 23, 2010)

sbrn33 said:


> sure, People like me that never use it pay into it so people that don't want to work can take money out of it.
> Seem pretty simple.



Thats how "insurance" works. A young health person like me who never goes to the doctor pays into the same insurance that the unhealthy people use. In insurance usually a small percentage use a majority of the funds.

You can talk about adverse selection and moral hazard all you want, because yes, it is not a perfect system. It is not required to be a perfect system or to be completely free of inefficiencies or waste for it to still be a good system. Any social social program is not perfect, but so what? It still works well for the majority of people. I'm actually conservative on a lot of issues like this (including federal extended benefits), but we need SOME safety nets in society.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

That would make a large section of people in this thread uninsurable if the government didn't sponsor it.


----------



## icefalkon (Dec 16, 2007)

Thank you for that Halfamp. That was informative and I'm sure a lot of us weren't aware of the intricacies of how UI worked.


----------



## acro (May 3, 2011)

Celtic said:


> 36% of my normal pay is not enough of an incentive for me to "milk the system"
> Mortgage and other financial responsibilities mean I need to gainfully employed.
> on the occasions where I have been on unemployment, I had the benefit of having saved money in advance of the pending unemployment stint.



No36% is not enough for some, BUT there are MANY on unemployment who will not find another job until it runs out. And from my understanding, that could be up to two years. But the time does not matter much. They just ride it till it runs out.

I know for a fact that we have tried to hire labors who have told us that by the time they buy gas, they would loose money coming to work as compared to unemployment or whatever govt. handout they are getting. Fact.


----------



## icefalkon (Dec 16, 2007)

Yeah, I know what you mean Acro...I had a young journeyman this last semester who was taking a class I was teaching...who started with the...I make as much on unemployment as I do working...

All of us were floored! We were like...kid...are you kidding us? He goes...well...lets see...say I start with $800/wk...minus Long Island Railroad, minus child care for the baby, minus food and incidentals...I'm left with about $425/wk. On unemployment we get $405/wk...so why the hell should I "rush" to get a job.

Well, needless to say...18 other people in the class were kind enough to explain to him the errors in his thought process. 

What kills me is that there are too damn many people these days thinking like that!


----------



## acro (May 3, 2011)

Lazy SOB's is what I call them.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

In SC, the maximum is under $300.00 a week. That is the max.
I know of few people that could actually live on that amount without other social programs to help.
Possibly with Food stamps they could squeeze by?


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

acro said:


> No36% is not enough for some, BUT there are MANY on unemployment who will not find another job until it runs out. And from my understanding, that could be up to two years. But the time does not matter much. They just ride it till it runs out.


:blink:
What you are telling me is that someone who makes $1000/wk is content to make $360/wk "until it runs out".

This is *assuming* that these people you are talking about are receiving MAXIMUM benefits....conversely, someone not making a livable wage is going to receive a greatly reduced benefit check.

I gotta call shenanigans here.







acro said:


> I know for a fact that we have tried to hire labors who have told us that by the time they buy gas, they would loose money coming to work as compared to unemployment or whatever govt. handout they are getting. Fact.


How much were you willing to pay the laborers?
If you are paying them less than unemployment does, there is more than one thing wrong going on here.


----------



## henderson14 (Oct 23, 2010)

Celtic said:


> :blink:
> What you are telling me is that someone who makes $1000/wk is content to make $360/wk "until it runs out".
> 
> This is *assuming* that these people you are talking about are receiving MAXIMUM benefits....conversely, someone not making a livable wage is going to receive a greatly reduced benefit check.
> ...



It does happen a lot. IF they are on the books, what they made before is irrelevant because they have to wait their turn to work, no matter if they want to work or not. IF they found a new line of work, it would most likely pay close to unemployment at $360 a week. Lets say it was $500 a week at the new job they would have found. They would still rather sit at home and not work for $140 less a week. I know a lot of guys won't even take short calls because of UI.


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

henderson14 said:


> It does happen a lot. IF they are on the books, what they made before is irrelevant because they have to wait their turn to work, no matter if they want to work or not. IF they found a new line of work, it would most likely pay close to unemployment at $360 a week. Lets say it was $500 a week at the new job they would have found. They would still rather sit at home and not work for $140 less a week. *I know a lot of guys won't even take short calls because of UI.*


How do these guys maintain H&W?
Pension credits?

Eventually, the UI "gravy train" runs dry....even if they are working "off the books", the rate is substantially lower than if they were legitimately employed....and by not having contributed to the system, the downward spiral just picked up speed.


I am not saying you are wrong or it doesn't happen...I am saying some people really don't look much further than the tip of their nose.


----------



## union347sparky (Feb 29, 2012)

henderson14 said:


> It does happen a lot. IF they are on the books, what they made before is irrelevant because they have to wait their turn to work, no matter if they want to work or not. IF they found a new line of work, it would most likely pay close to unemployment at $360 a week. Lets say it was $500 a week at the new job they would have found. They would still rather sit at home and not work for $140 less a week. I know a lot of guys won't even take short calls because of UI.


When times were tough a few years back I was laid off for 5.5 months. After the first three weeks I was climbing the walls. I started looking for work that I wouldn't feel guilty quitting when work picked up. I couldn't find any night stock, janitorial, or cash register job that paid more than unemployment. I knew work would pick up in spring so I just rode unemployment. Pretty sad that I could make more money on unemployment than a base salary on a starting position. I can't say I blame some people for staying on unemployment when low level jobs pay less. There's no incentive to get off it.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

John Valdes said:


> In SC, the maximum is under $300.00 a week. That is the max.
> I know of few people that could actually live on that amount without other social programs to help.
> Possibly with Food stamps they could squeeze by?


And this is the way it should be. Work and be rewarded. sit home and struggle a little.


----------



## MIKEFLASH (Apr 14, 2012)

I blame the ones who dont try to find work.... I was off almost a year on unemployment and couldnt find nothing tried to even look outside of electrical and nothing.... Luckly found something and been working steady for the last 3 years. Its the ones who dont try i get pissed at.


----------



## Stan B. (Jul 25, 2008)

union347sparky said:


> When times were tough a few years back I was laid off for 5.5 months. After the first three weeks I was climbing the walls. I started looking for work that I wouldn't feel guilty quitting when work picked up. I couldn't find any night stock, janitorial, or cash register job that paid more than unemployment. I knew work would pick up in spring so I just rode unemployment. Pretty sad that I could make more money on unemployment than a base salary on a starting position. I can't say I blame some people for staying on unemployment when low level jobs pay less. There's no incentive to get off it.


That's part of the point of it though. It keeps the skilled labor pool at the ready for when work picks up, rather than people having to change careers which flushes all their training down the toilet.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

sbrn33 said:


> And this is the way it should be. Work and be rewarded. sit home and struggle a little.


I am thinking that is how it is? No?


----------

