another unemployment question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Q: Who can receive Unemployment Insurance benefits in the District of Columbia?
A: Any worker who is unemployed or who is working less than full-time may file a claim for
Unemployment Insurance benefits.

http://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/page_content/attachments/UI%20Website%20FAQs%20-%20For%20Benefits%20%28Updated%206-25-14%29.pdf

It's somewhat misleading, PP, to only quote that part of your link. To be eligible, the unemployed person has to prove they are actively looking for full time work. The OP is not actively seeking a new job now that her former job has ended. She is continuing to choose to be underemployed because she doesn't have a share family. That would disqualify her. If she gets laid off by her employer, she has a better chance of getting unemployment as long as she shows she is actively seeking full-time employment.

There are other requirements she should review in your link, but this a major disqualifier. If one chooses to be underemployed, they don't get unemployment. If that were so, tons of people would work ten hours a week and expect unemployment to pay the rest. Makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

She is actively looking for another share family, right? And how do we know she isn't looking? She said this was just dropped on her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q: Who can receive Unemployment Insurance benefits in the District of Columbia?
A: Any worker who is unemployed or who is working less than full-time may file a claim for
Unemployment Insurance benefits.

http://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/page_content/attachments/UI%20Website%20FAQs%20-%20For%20Benefits%20%28Updated%206-25-14%29.pdf

It's somewhat misleading, PP, to only quote that part of your link. To be eligible, the unemployed person has to prove they are actively looking for full time work. The OP is not actively seeking a new job now that her former job has ended. She is continuing to choose to be underemployed because she doesn't have a share family. That would disqualify her. If she gets laid off by her employer, she has a better chance of getting unemployment as long as she shows she is actively seeking full-time employment.

There are other requirements she should review in your link, but this a major disqualifier. If one chooses to be underemployed, they don't get unemployment. If that were so, tons of people would work ten hours a week and expect unemployment to pay the rest. Makes no sense.

Actually, she might not need to prove she's looking for another family for the current share. She can get unemployment simply because one family dropped her to unsustainable hours with the intention of reinstating normal hours in the fall, similar to what happens when someone in construction is out of work for 3 months but has a guaranteed job when the weather turns warm again (they don't have to look for a job while waiting). If she has a contract stating that the families are responsible for finding another family, she can get unemployment for the family that left. Yes, she may be required to prove that she is actively looking for a new share or single family, but she doesn't have to accept any position in which she would make less than she was making before the changes.

[Anonymous]

She doesn't have to accept any position INITIALLY in which she would make less than she was making before the changes.

After a period of time (it's different for each state) on Unemployment you do not get to be so picky with your job selections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q: Who can receive Unemployment Insurance benefits in the District of Columbia?
A: Any worker who is unemployed or who is working less than full-time may file a claim for
Unemployment Insurance benefits.

http://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/page_content/attachments/UI%20Website%20FAQs%20-%20For%20Benefits%20%28Updated%206-25-14%29.pdf

It's somewhat misleading, PP, to only quote that part of your link. To be eligible, the unemployed person has to prove they are actively looking for full time work. The OP is not actively seeking a new job now that her former job has ended. She is continuing to choose to be underemployed because she doesn't have a share family. That would disqualify her. If she gets laid off by her employer, she has a better chance of getting unemployment as long as she shows she is actively seeking full-time employment.

There are other requirements she should review in your link, but this a major disqualifier. If one chooses to be underemployed, they don't get unemployment. If that were so, tons of people would work ten hours a week and expect unemployment to pay the rest. Makes no sense.

Actually, she might not need to prove she's looking for another family for the current share. She can get unemployment simply because one family dropped her to unsustainable hours with the intention of reinstating normal hours in the fall, similar to what happens when someone in construction is out of work for 3 months but has a guaranteed job when the weather turns warm again (they don't have to look for a job while waiting). If she has a contract stating that the families are responsible for finding another family, she can get unemployment for the family that left. Yes, she may be required to prove that she is actively looking for a new share or single family, but she doesn't have to accept any position in which she would make less than she was making before the changes.

You bring up good points, and you are basically correct that she doesn't have to accept a lower paying job. Where it gets tricky is that her looking for a new family for the share might not be considered actively looking for full time work. A share is optional, and she might be denied because she is choosing to stay underemployed as opposed to seeking a new FT position.

She should certainly try to get unemployment, especially while she tries to find a new family for the share, but it isn't clear that she would get it.

Frankly, I think it is odd that the nanny is looking for the replacement family in a share, unless she set up the share herself. If I were a nanny in a share, I would make sure the contract stated that it is the other family who is responsible for replacing a departing family, or pay the nanny the single family rate and the share is dissolved. The nanny should not have to suffer when a nanny departs if the share is set up for the convenience of the families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q: Who can receive Unemployment Insurance benefits in the District of Columbia?
A: Any worker who is unemployed or who is working less than full-time may file a claim for
Unemployment Insurance benefits.

http://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/page_content/attachments/UI%20Website%20FAQs%20-%20For%20Benefits%20%28Updated%206-25-14%29.pdf

It's somewhat misleading, PP, to only quote that part of your link. To be eligible, the unemployed person has to prove they are actively looking for full time work. The OP is not actively seeking a new job now that her former job has ended. She is continuing to choose to be underemployed because she doesn't have a share family. That would disqualify her. If she gets laid off by her employer, she has a better chance of getting unemployment as long as she shows she is actively seeking full-time employment.

There are other requirements she should review in your link, but this a major disqualifier. If one chooses to be underemployed, they don't get unemployment. If that were so, tons of people would work ten hours a week and expect unemployment to pay the rest. Makes no sense.

Actually, she might not need to prove she's looking for another family for the current share. She can get unemployment simply because one family dropped her to unsustainable hours with the intention of reinstating normal hours in the fall, similar to what happens when someone in construction is out of work for 3 months but has a guaranteed job when the weather turns warm again (they don't have to look for a job while waiting). If she has a contract stating that the families are responsible for finding another family, she can get unemployment for the family that left. Yes, she may be required to prove that she is actively looking for a new share or single family, but she doesn't have to accept any position in which she would make less than she was making before the changes.

I feel the same. It's not a nanny's responsibility to find a list of families for the other family to meet, only to find that the original family won't get along with any of them, or there's some other issue.

You bring up good points, and you are basically correct that she doesn't have to accept a lower paying job. Where it gets tricky is that her looking for a new family for the share might not be considered actively looking for full time work. A share is optional, and she might be denied because she is choosing to stay underemployed as opposed to seeking a new FT position.

She should certainly try to get unemployment, especially while she tries to find a new family for the share, but it isn't clear that she would get it.

Frankly, I think it is odd that the nanny is looking for the replacement family in a share, unless she set up the share herself. If I were a nanny in a share, I would make sure the contract stated that it is the other family who is responsible for replacing a departing family, or pay the nanny the single family rate and the share is dissolved. The nanny should not have to suffer when a nanny departs if the share is set up for the convenience of the families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q: Who can receive Unemployment Insurance benefits in the District of Columbia?
A: Any worker who is unemployed or who is working less than full-time may file a claim for
Unemployment Insurance benefits.

http://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/page_content/attachments/UI%20Website%20FAQs%20-%20For%20Benefits%20%28Updated%206-25-14%29.pdf

It's somewhat misleading, PP, to only quote that part of your link. To be eligible, the unemployed person has to prove they are actively looking for full time work. The OP is not actively seeking a new job now that her former job has ended. She is continuing to choose to be underemployed because she doesn't have a share family. That would disqualify her. If she gets laid off by her employer, she has a better chance of getting unemployment as long as she shows she is actively seeking full-time employment.

There are other requirements she should review in your link, but this a major disqualifier. If one chooses to be underemployed, they don't get unemployment. If that were so, tons of people would work ten hours a week and expect unemployment to pay the rest. Makes no sense.

Actually, she might not need to prove she's looking for another family for the current share. She can get unemployment simply because one family dropped her to unsustainable hours with the intention of reinstating normal hours in the fall, similar to what happens when someone in construction is out of work for 3 months but has a guaranteed job when the weather turns warm again (they don't have to look for a job while waiting). If she has a contract stating that the families are responsible for finding another family, she can get unemployment for the family that left. Yes, she may be required to prove that she is actively looking for a new share or single family, but she doesn't have to accept any position in which she would make less than she was making before the changes.

You bring up good points, and you are basically correct that she doesn't have to accept a lower paying job. Where it gets tricky is that her looking for a new family for the share might not be considered actively looking for full time work. A share is optional, and she might be denied because she is choosing to stay underemployed as opposed to seeking a new FT position.

She should certainly try to get unemployment, especially while she tries to find a new family for the share, but it isn't clear that she would get it.

Frankly, I think it is odd that the nanny is looking for the replacement family in a share, unless she set up the share herself. If I were a nanny in a share, I would make sure the contract stated that it is the other family who is responsible for replacing a departing family, or pay the nanny the single family rate and the share is dissolved. The nanny should not have to suffer when a nanny departs if the share is set up for the convenience of the families.

I feel the same. It's not a nanny's responsibility to find a list of families for the other family to meet, only to find that the original family won't get along with any of them, or there's some other issue.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks for all advises. Just to be clear I am looking for a new job. I'm not looking for a share family because my MB doesn not want to do a share any more. She wants me to work full time in 3-4 months and work 10-15 hours till she goes back to work. I cannot afford making $300 a week for 3-4 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for all advises. Just to be clear I am looking for a new job. I'm not looking for a share family because my MB doesn not want to do a share any more. She wants me to work full time in 3-4 months and work 10-15 hours till she goes back to work. I cannot afford making $300 a week for 3-4 months.

Don't you have any savings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for all advises. Just to be clear I am looking for a new job. I'm not looking for a share family because my MB doesn not want to do a share any more. She wants me to work full time in 3-4 months and work 10-15 hours till she goes back to work. I cannot afford making $300 a week for 3-4 months.

In that case, you definitely qualify for unemployment, and because MB is saying that she will pay full salary in X time, you should be able to get unemployment for that length of time. I don't think she realizes that it's going to raise her unemployment rates, but it's either that or pay you for full time work when she doesn't want/need it.

[Anonymous]

OP again. Of course I have savings but why would I want to use my savings if I want to work ??!? I will use it when I decide that I don't want to work. Now, it's not my choice not to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for all advises. Just to be clear I am looking for a new job. I'm not looking for a share family because my MB doesn not want to do a share any more. She wants me to work full time in 3-4 months and work 10-15 hours till she goes back to work. I cannot afford making $300 a week for 3-4 months.

Don't you have any savings?

What a stupid response. Really stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She would not be eligible in DC. Nor should she be.

DC has the most liberal unemployment comp . she will be eligible and she should be.