quincy
Senior Member
Debatable? How so?
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Do you think I will be disqualified for EDD benefits?
- Thread starter Sadguy78
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Shadowbunny
Queen of the Not-Rights
And your opinion on UPL is worth as much as your opinion on UIC. What matters is the LAW. Which you clearly don't understand.
OP: please ignore Chyvan. We do.
I sure hope Isabelle didn't ignore me.
I'm picturing the OP's next post: I reported my $50, and now EDD is setting up a phone interview because of the possible separation when I had no income reported in the following week, and my benefits are on hold, and my rent's due. Now what do I do?
By then though, it'll be too late. Working AFTER the separation from the bank would make it the new last employer/self employment, and the OP will have to deal with it.
I'm picturing the OP's next post: I reported my $50, and now EDD is setting up a phone interview because of the possible separation when I had no income reported in the following week, and my benefits are on hold, and my rent's due. Now what do I do?
By then though, it'll be too late. Working AFTER the separation from the bank would make it the new last employer/self employment, and the OP will have to deal with it.
Just Blue
Senior Member
Please post the law/policy that would back up your assertion. Thanks.
https://www.edd.ca.gov/UIBDG/Misconduct_MC_5.htm#DischargeforMisconductConnectedWithMostRecentWork
Of two jobs held simultaneously, Title 22, Section 1256-2 (d) (1) states:
If a claimant holds two or more jobs simultaneously, the most recent work is with the employer for whom the claimant performed any compensated services prior to and nearest to the actual filing date of the claim. . .
EXAMPLE 3
The claimant held two jobs simultaneously. Although the claimant was on leave of absence from Employer E, he worked part time for Employer F. The claimant was separated by Employer F, and thereafter by Employer E without performing further service for Employer E. The claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits.
The most recent work is for Employer F, since the claimant neither performed services nor received wages from Employer E.
The above example applies to new, additional, and reopened claims. For continued claims, the most recent work will be with the employer for whom the claimant last performed any compensated services during the calendar week claimed.
Of two jobs held simultaneously, Title 22, Section 1256-2 (d) (1) states:
If a claimant holds two or more jobs simultaneously, the most recent work is with the employer for whom the claimant performed any compensated services prior to and nearest to the actual filing date of the claim. . .
EXAMPLE 3
The claimant held two jobs simultaneously. Although the claimant was on leave of absence from Employer E, he worked part time for Employer F. The claimant was separated by Employer F, and thereafter by Employer E without performing further service for Employer E. The claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits.
The most recent work is for Employer F, since the claimant neither performed services nor received wages from Employer E.
The above example applies to new, additional, and reopened claims. For continued claims, the most recent work will be with the employer for whom the claimant last performed any compensated services during the calendar week claimed.
commentator
Senior Member
"I reported my $50, and now EDD is setting up a phone interview because of the possible separation"
This will not happen. It is simply not the way the system operates, what it picks up, how claims are processed. And this is the very kind of overthinking over anxious poster who will be frightened by wild advice. The poster already has income in this quarter from work at this part-time job, Which MAY, or MAY NOT be covered income. Not our call, by any means. She needs to report it.
If she quits this part time work at this point, never reports any income from it on her weekly certifications, then it'll be a non- issue UNTIL they notice the income in the same time frame that this person was not drawing a claim. That is NOT going to be in the week she does or does not report it (and they call you in, stopping your claim, yada yada....)
It is out several quarters in the future when they cross match quarters of reported work with quarters of unemployment drawn. That's the time at which they will check the claimant's certifications to see if this income has been reported as it should have been. And when the fraud investigation will go into great detail researching over whether this person did in fact quit a job while drawing benefits, thus becoming ineligible for her entire claim, and committing unemployment fraud.
This OP needs to honestly and correctly report the work done in the week it has been done. It will not miraculously become her separating employer unless she quits the job. If some weeks they don't have any work for her, or she doesn't work, that's not quitting. She is not, in that case obligated to tell them she has quit a job. Them's the facts. Any tricky maneuver of total work stoppage she pulls off will lead her directly into either failing to report income for work done while filing a claim OR quitting a job at this point, which she would be obligated to report that she had done, which would then stop the claim... blah blah blah. All the stuff predicted.
I hope this poor poster is gone to have a good weekend. Now we can sit around here and beat this issue to death for three or four more pages so somebody who has to have the last word can get it, or we can have a good evening.
This will not happen. It is simply not the way the system operates, what it picks up, how claims are processed. And this is the very kind of overthinking over anxious poster who will be frightened by wild advice. The poster already has income in this quarter from work at this part-time job, Which MAY, or MAY NOT be covered income. Not our call, by any means. She needs to report it.
If she quits this part time work at this point, never reports any income from it on her weekly certifications, then it'll be a non- issue UNTIL they notice the income in the same time frame that this person was not drawing a claim. That is NOT going to be in the week she does or does not report it (and they call you in, stopping your claim, yada yada....)
It is out several quarters in the future when they cross match quarters of reported work with quarters of unemployment drawn. That's the time at which they will check the claimant's certifications to see if this income has been reported as it should have been. And when the fraud investigation will go into great detail researching over whether this person did in fact quit a job while drawing benefits, thus becoming ineligible for her entire claim, and committing unemployment fraud.
This OP needs to honestly and correctly report the work done in the week it has been done. It will not miraculously become her separating employer unless she quits the job. If some weeks they don't have any work for her, or she doesn't work, that's not quitting. She is not, in that case obligated to tell them she has quit a job. Them's the facts. Any tricky maneuver of total work stoppage she pulls off will lead her directly into either failing to report income for work done while filing a claim OR quitting a job at this point, which she would be obligated to report that she had done, which would then stop the claim... blah blah blah. All the stuff predicted.
I hope this poor poster is gone to have a good weekend. Now we can sit around here and beat this issue to death for three or four more pages so somebody who has to have the last word can get it, or we can have a good evening.
Last edited:
Great job cherry picking the part to make your point. When no income is reported following the reporting of income, there is always the possibility of a separation.
So what? So long is it not money for work performed AFTER the last day at the bank, it doesn't matter.
This is exactly like the concurrent job situation I posted. The job that the client was fired from first, was the last job because it was the last place he worked.
You mean "he" most likely (sadguy78). Yes, if it falls within the dates on the claim form. However, if the last time he did this kind of work was prior to his last day at the bank, it doesn't need to be reported, and he doesn't need to keep doing the "work."
Depends on when the last day this work was performed.
You are so out of date.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/resource/a-guide-to-the-national-directory-of-new-hires
From page 3 of the guide, new hires are reported within 20 days. Those days of it taking quarters to figure this out are over.
No one's telling him not to. However, sometimes keeping a crap job when you don't have to isn't very smart.
I've read enough stories of:
I started working part-time at Domino's delivering pizzas, and I was "fired" because my car broke down, and then the claimant gets the dreaded, "you quit your job without good cause. Transportation is the responsibility of the employee." The claimant lost the part-time income and the partial UI benefit.
Look, if this were a $50/wk job, I still wouldn't want to keep it, but I can see why someone might be ok with it. However, this is a $50 payment once per month, and I can tell you right now that come that next claim form with no income that the claimant is going to realize it's not worth the hassle.
Hopefully, he tells us how it goes.
Last edited:
quincy
Senior Member
I sent you a private message, Chyvan, with a link to information on UPL. Please read through the cases cited. Thanks.
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">