due process?

[jaysway]

Hey guys, im Jeremy from Louisiana.

I am still unemployed, waiting on my appeal hearing date. So its been 3wks since i filed appeal, and according to there FAQ I should have my hearing within 3-4wks from the date the appeal was filed. So I called up there to see whats going on, and they said it will be 60-70 days MORE until a date is set. Guys can they do this?

 

[pattytx]

CAN they? They have. Is it LEGAL? Maybe. Call your state representative, maybe s/he can get you some info.

I would note, however, that "due process" is a concept in criminal or civil law; I doubt very seriously it would apply to this situation.

 

[swalsh411]

The unemployment system is burdened right now with record-setting volume. I know it's hard to wait but everybody is in the same boat. Make sure you certify for all your weeks and you will be paid for them if you win your appeal.

 

[jaysway]

I am continuing to file every week.

I can't see how this system is a good system. Its just like any other system that the government and state has taken, and made it work against the people, instead of for the people.

 

[commentator]

Naaah! It's just that in some states, the work load for the unemployment system didn't double, it didn't triple...in my state, it increased twelve times in the end of 08 and in 2009. And we were quite busy in the previous years, thanks.

And there was not a whole lot of extra staff hired. In fact, very few states got any extra staff. People have been hired in off the streets, which means they don't in most cases have a clue what they are doing. It takes quite a while to train staff in doing the more skilled aspects of unemployment administration. Tax revenues are down, staff is actually being cut. Many states are now at the end of their trust funds and borrowing from the federal government to keep going.

And the quality of work AND the speed of service have quite predictibly declined tremendously. Especially suffering is the "timeliness" guideline for hearings and appeals. There is a federal mandate that people be told within a reasonable period of time whether they will or will not be eligible to draw benefits. That hearings be scheduled within a reasonable amount of time. But in the last year or so, these guidelines have sort of gone to hell in a handbasket.

I agree with the person who suggested you contact your state representative. Getting some personal attention to your case can't hurt you. Keep filing. You'll be backpaid if you win.

I know this is terrible for you that you don't have the money now, but remember, it's not a certain thing that you'll have the money at all, and your income was not considered when you signed up. Unemployment isn't designed to keep low income people from starving, it's an insurance against being unemployed. And it is a system that is right now, floundering terribly. Just another example of our infrastructure that is crumbling.

But as for "the government and state has taken" I will argue you to the end on that point! I worked at one time for a private agency which contracted for federal dollars, and believe me, if you think the common man hasn't a chance in the government run system, you should see it in one that is not so closely monitored by federal auditors, not set up by lawmakers, and where the less I give you (the client), the more I get to keep for myself!

In other words, the only unemployment they were fighting was their own! The state programs are set up with great emphasis on fairness and equality between the parties. It doesn't make a bit more salary for the person doing your hearing if you are or are not approved. Civil servants for the most part just sit there and try to do the best we can with what's being thrown at us.

 

[jaysway]

Naaah! It's just that in some states, the work load for the unemployment system didn't double, it didn't triple...in my state, it increased twelve times in the end of 08 and in 2009. And we were quite busy in the previous years, thanks.

And there was not a whole lot of extra staff hired. In fact, very few states got any extra staff. People have been hired in off the streets, which means they don't in most cases have a clue what they are doing. It takes quite a while to train staff in doing the more skilled aspects of unemployment administration. Tax revenues are down, staff is actually being cut. Many states are now at the end of their trust funds and borrowing from the federal government to keep going.

And the quality of work AND the speed of service have quite predictibly declined tremendously. Especially suffering is the "timeliness" guideline for hearings and appeals. There is a federal mandate that people be told within a reasonable period of time whether they will or will not be eligible to draw benefits. That hearings be scheduled within a reasonable amount of time. But in the last year or so, these guidelines have sort of gone to hell in a handbasket.

I agree with the person who suggested you contact your state representative. Getting some personal attention to your case can't hurt you. Keep filing. You'll be backpaid if you win.

I know this is terrible for you that you don't have the money now, but remember, it's not a certain thing that you'll have the money at all, and your income was not considered when you signed up. Unemployment isn't designed to keep low income people from starving, it's an insurance against being unemployed. And it is a system that is right now, floundering terribly. Just another example of our infrastructure that is crumbling.

But as for "the government and state has taken" I will argue you to the end on that point! I worked at one time for a private agency which contracted for federal dollars, and believe me, if you think the common man hasn't a chance in the government run system, you should see it in one that is not so closely monitored by federal auditors, not set up by lawmakers, and where the less I give you (the client), the more I get to keep for myself!

In other words, the only unemployment they were fighting was their own! The state programs are set up with great emphasis on fairness and equality between the parties. It doesn't make a bit more salary for the person doing your hearing if you are or are not approved. Civil servants for the most part just sit there and try to do the best we can with what's being thrown at us.

Hi commentator,

My intentions were not to downgrade anybody or there job with that comment. I'm 25 yrs old, I have alot to learn. It seems that anytime I have business with a state agency, I'm the one who ends up with a headache. I know its not the civil servants fault. I'm not saying that at all. The ppl I come in contact with at the UI office have been very helpful. My whole thing is, if the system that is in place can't provide adequate service to claimants, why isn't anybody doing anything about this?

In terms of my discharge, I did nothing wrong. Its a one sided affair. They heard him speak, and made there decision. If they want me to wait 60 days for an appeal date, why wouldn't they of at least taken a statement from me? That's unfair and bias.

I contacted every state rep I could possibly find. I was very professional with my emails towards them. Ill just wait on responses.

 

[commentator]

Yes, I remember you. Maybe the reason they didn't call you back before making the initial decision is that they got the information you gave them when you filed the claim. I'm sure at that time you were given the opportunity to tell why you were terminated. Then the employer was contacted for their version of why you were terminated.

The only reason they would have called you back before the first decision is if you had said, "I was let go for blah, blah, blah...." and the company came back with something totally unrelated, like "he was let go for blee, blee, blee." Then they'd have called you and said "Well, what about blee, blee, blee?" But as long as the two stories were about the same issue, they'd make that initial decision from the two interviews, remember, counting the one you gave when you filed. (See why it takes a while to train someone to do this?)

So you did get to give a statement. Now you're waiting on a hearing to re-present your case. Remember that your major issue in the hearing is only the exact reason why the decision denied benefits in the first decision. The ajudicator had to screen out the unrelated parts of the issue. You'll get a whole fresh opportunity to present your case. But in the meantime, you can certainly be looking diligently for another job. You can be checking into educational opportunities.

I agree, dealing with civil service/government offices sometimes is a headache. But I do notice that sometimes there are better and worse ways to make it go for you. For example, my husband somehow decided that the very best time to go to our driver's license office was about lunchtime on a Monday. NOT! My brother demanded (when not hearing what he wanted from a county worker) "Is there somebody there with a brain I can speak to?" And this was a one person office. "No honey, I'm all you get!" and of course the level of service went down just a notch or two.

Dealing with systems is an important part of the whole educational process in life today. It's like learning to hunt was to the cavemen. Because people at the bottom do not deal with the systems in place well or professionally, they have continual trouble and hinder their own progress. Above all, try not to personalize things. The people at unemployment have probably not decided to steal your claim money and have a party on it simply because they don't like you. Absurd, I know, but I've been accused of such!

I hope you hear from your hearing and get it scheduled soon. Good luck, keep us posted.

 

[swalsh411]

In my experience (that of others may differ) the first level examiners rarely do any real fact-finding or weighing of evidence; probably due to workload. They just take whatever they were told by both parties as truth. That can present a problem for claimants if the employer pulls a termination reason out of thin air because it's impossible to defend yourself against an allegation that you don't know existed. You OP will have an opportunity to cross-examine their former employer at the next hearing and so should make sure he is prepared to punch holes through their story if what they are saying is not completely truthful.

 

[commentator]

When I was training ajudicators, back in the days when there was more time to do things right, we'd always tell them to look for that "two totally different issues" thing. Always to verify the testimony of the filer if the employer's story varied widely. It's difficult to reconcile anything if the claimant says he was fired for lateness and the employee says he was fired for cutting donuts in the parking lot, y' know?

I know Jeremy is just burning to tell his story. I hope it goes well for him.