Out of Sync

Recommendations

Info

longer live on the premises and wished to return to hisformer 40-hour work week. He then quit. Kentucky’ssecond-level administrative appellate body held thatthe claimant had acquiesced in the changes by waiting10 months to leave and he was disqualified fromreceiving UI for leaving the job without good cause. Theappellate court reversed the decision, terming the agency’sacquiescence holding as “disturbing” and statedthat it “runs counter to the underlying philosophy ofunemployment compensation which is to encourageindividuals to work.” 38A case considered in an Illinois appellate court showsthat in some cases quitting early in a test period for newemployment arrangements leads to disqualification. Aclaimant was denied benefits by the court because shetried working under a new schedule for a period deemedtoo short. The case involved a factory assembly workerwhose hours were reduced by 25 percent (from 40 hoursa week to 30). 39 The court’s unfavorable decision wasgrounded in the fact that the claimant quit only threeweeks after the reduction of hours took effect. Theclaimant had asked for more hours from her employerwhen the reductions were announced and then told heremployer she would quit at the end of the next week ifthey were unable to provide more hours.State agencies are therefore applying these rules inways that find claimants have either stayed at jobs withnew conditions too long or not long enough. Theseinconsistencies result in benefit denials where thereis little doubt that substantial modifications of wages,hours, and working conditions would otherwise beseen as good cause for leaving. And, unlike the requirementto seek alternatives to quitting, which is at leastfound in some statutes and rules, policies that interpretduration of time in a position as “acquiescence” arenot spelled out in state statutes or rules, making theirapplication even more variable and difficult to predict.In effect, such acquiescence policies require that claimantsshould test the waters prior to quitting a job withgood cause – but not for too long – despite the fact thatthe underlying voluntary leaving statutes contain norequirements that they do so.D. Child Care ConflictsIn addition to these restrictive practices, other commonissues arise under UI rules for workers impacted byvolatile schedules. For the most part, an erratic schedulein and of itself is not considered good cause forleaving a job. However, in some cases, such as thoseinvolving child care arrangements, the conflicts createdby the schedule could lead to a favorable determinationwhen a worker applies for UI. For example, Oregonofficials noted that loss of child care would constitute a“grave situation” under their rules, which could makethe worker eligible. Said an adjudicator in Oregon,“Quitting for childcare could be grave. We would justhave to review it. Most often people who work erraticschedules have some type of care setup for those differentschedules when they start working [the job]. Andso most often what we see is when a care provider saysI can no longer watch your child, and then we look atwhat they did to try and secure new childcare duringthat shift. And if they’ve done everything they couldthen we would definitely allow them.” (This official’scomments also speak to the need to try to preserve thejob by seeking alternate arrangements, as noted above.)An adjudicator in Arkansas also indicated that theinteraction between an erratic schedule and child caremight be seen favorably when benefit determinationsare made – however she suggested that the “hiringagreement” would still be pertinent. She explained,“if it’s a situation where [the worker] lost their childcare and they had to leave because the hours just keptchanging and they couldn’t keep child care for thatreason, then we’re going to go back and kind of look atthe situation […] and again go [to see if it was] a breachin the hiring agreement.”In contrast, a Wisconsin official indicated that childcare conflicts would not be likely to lead to a favorabledecision regarding benefits access; rather, a worker whocould not secure child care would be seen as unavailablefor work. This is the case despite the fact that thechallenges of finding child care during nontraditionalwork hours are well documented. 4012 NELP | HOW UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE RULES FAIL WORKERS WITH VOLATILE JOB SCHEDULES
E. Trial Work Provisions Permit Quits inSome StatesSome states have trial work provisions, which permita jobless worker to accept a position that is possiblyunsuitable and leave that job without a penalty withincertain limits. These provisions can permit workers toavoid disqualifications when they quit to accept workthat falls within their specific requirements.Such provisions may be especially helpful for claimantswho elect to work part time and claim partial benefitswhile they search for a permanent job, especially ifthe worker experiences volatile scheduling practices inthe part-time job. In certain states, if a worker acceptsa part-time job and becomes separated from the job fora reason other than a layoff, her eligibility and weeklybenefit amount may be subject to change. This policyacknowledges the inherent risk in trying any new job;at the same time, it complements recommendations inthis paper to hasten claimant returns to work by relaxingpartial UI rules.A Connecticut advocate noted that a worker couldtake a job knowing it had a volatile schedule, but ifshe quit before 30 days (or in some cases longer), shewould avoid disqualification. “If they give it an honesttry because they’re trying to get back to work andthen they find out it’s not working out for them, thenthat’s considered a trial period to quit.” An official inConnecticut also pointed to such a possibility. “If theindividual went into that job just basically to try it or […]they didn’t do [the job] for very long, we could actuallyapprove them on what we call a trial period, they tried itand then they realized […] it was too difficult to maintainchild care. We give them credit for trying,” she said.Similarly, a New Hampshire adjudicator pointed toa trial period of 12 weeks in her state as a possible wayfor a worker to retain eligibility when quitting due toscheduling challenges. Yet, in contrast, a Wisconsinofficial indicated that if the reason for terminating the“trial period” (10 weeks in Wisconsin) is due to a featurethat is typical of jobs in the labor market, even quittingduring the trial period can be disqualifying. In the caseof many jobs that have volatile job schedules, such asthose in the retail and restaurant industries, UI agencyanalysis of the labor market would likely find schedulevolatility to be a feature typical of such jobs.While trial period rules offer some relief from quitrules in states that have them, they have specific limitations.Workers who stay in their jobs beyond the trialperiod permitted will not be exempt from voluntaryquitting disqualifications. And, many claimants donot know these limitations at the time they are makingdecisions about leaving work.F. Low-Income Thresholds and EarningDisregards for Partial UI Disincentivize Workand Limit Effectiveness of Safety NetWorkers with unstable weekly schedules who areemployed in states with narrow definitions of partialunemployment are deprived of a crucial source ofincome replacement, even though their earnings maybe significantly lower than they were under their regularschedule. At the same time, unemployed claimantswho are offered a part-time job that pays more thanwhat their state’s program deems as partially unemployedare forced to choose between accepting the joband earning just a fractional amount more than theywould by claiming full benefits or turning down the job,possibly weakening future prospects.Similar challenges emerge as a result of low disregards,which when not tied to a variable measure likewages or benefits—or if defined as a small percentageof either measure—have the effect of reducing employees’UI benefits by a rate of almost one dollar for everydollar of earnings; this is especially true in states wherethe maximum allowable earnings do not exceed theclaimant’s full benefit. The result is that a worker’s totalincome is still much lower than it was before the workhoursreduction (see Figure 1 on next page).G. Some States Have Particularly EgregiousPartial UI RulesState UI programs specify a maximum dollar amountper year that claimants can receive in UI benefits;that amount is usually divided by the weekly benefitfor total unemployment to determine the maximumpotential duration of benefits receipt. Since the maximumdollar amount may be used for weeks of total orpartial unemployment, claimants can receive benefitsNELP | OUT OF SYNC 13
Page 1 and 2: Out of Sync:How Unemployment Insura
Page 3 and 4: Executive SummaryMillions of Americ
Page 5 and 6: 1 IntroductionMillions of American
Page 7 and 8: improve workers’ job schedules, b
Page 9 and 10: 4 Overview of UI RulesUI is a fede
Page 11 and 12: 5ApplyingUI Rules to Workerswith Vo
Page 13: time of hire. A Connecticut agency
Page 17 and 18: Figure 1 helps to explain these phe
Page 19 and 20: employers engage in unfair scheduli
Page 21 and 22: AppendixAppendix Table 1. UI Rules
Page 23 and 24: Appendix Table 2. UI Rules for Excu
Page 25 and 26: Notes for Table 2: There are 51 sta
Page 27 and 28: Appendix Table 3. State Partial UI
Page 29 and 30: Endnotes1. In the summer of 2014, t
Page 31 and 32: enefits are less than the costs of

Out of Sync

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?