in general, in general, it's all in general.....
Unemployment insurance is a neat system, I enjoyed working with it, came to appreciate the intricate workings of any legal system through association with this one. There is a general structure, set up by the federal Department of Labor, and there is a state system in each state that administers the program under their direction and supervision. It is true that states can be quite different in their interpretation of the program, but it is also true that all state systems meet periodically together to compare and work with each other, making arrangements to exchange information and policies and undergo frequent federal monitoring. It's safe to say we're all using the same federal structure and are pretty much on the same page. In my opinion, states tend to be either "claimant friendly" and have more liberal requirements, higher employer taxes, and more generous allotments, or "employer friendly" paying lower benefits, tending to allow fewer people to draw and taxing employers less. Generally the southern "right to work" states are employer friendly, while the heavily unionized northeast has a lot of very generous states for claimants and employer taxes are high.
Since every case is so individual, in some cases, a hard and fast policy would be a negative factor. I dare to say that in every state there is probably a mileage that is mentioned in training people to adjudicate claims as being a "reasonable commuting distance", but not having it set in concrete gives adjudicators a certain amount of leeway in making decisions.
The commuting distance question reminds me of a situation I saw where a group of workers were approved to draw though the new plant was only 16 miles from the place that was closing. The key was that the old work site was downtown in a little Mayberry-sized town, and many of these people had walked to work most of their lives. They, in many cases, did not have transportation available to get them to the new worksite. In this case, the adjudication was based on two issues. How far they had been commuting to their job before, and the difficulty of the commute. There were jobs available in the 3 mile radius, just not at this place. So they were approved to draw benefits and did not have to accept the transfer. This was after a couple of appeals, they had been denied initially. It depends, it depends...
If you have been driving 40 miles to a job, and you are asked to transfer to another job site that is 10 or 12 miles further, you would probably have to take the new job. If you've been driving 20 miles to one end of town, and the new location is 30 miles on the other side of town from where you live....in my state this would've been a big "it depends." Driving across a city, though it may not be over 20 miles, is naturally a more arduous commute (and may be considered "an hour" commute.) If I were you, and curious about whether I would be approved, I'd drive the distance at the time I'd be driving it to go to work and time it, so that you could present the argument that it's a 45 minute commute or a two hour commute, not just a 20 mile or a 60 mile commute. See, can't give you a definite, even in my own state! It is always very individual. And I always reminded people, so much that it became second nature, that the system does not ask people to worsen their lives in order to take jobs. However, you always must remember even if approved to draw benefits in a situation like this, you're leaving a job you have to go to a program of much less money which will inevitably end, so you must always consider very carefully. Can I find another job to replace this one? And always remember that once you have made the choice to take the relocation or new job, there is no trial period, and if you quit, it's a voluntary quit. It was your choice to quit. Another issue to be determined.