Unemployment - working in multiple states

[justalayman]

I really can't. I processed two separate TEXAS UI claims this week for employees of two different clients. In both cases the employees have been employees have been employed and living in Arkansas and have been with the client full time for over three years (so we are well outside the chance of there being base period wages in TX). I've had them before with pretty much the same fact set. If they don't get disqualified for cause they get paid by the Texas Workforce Commission and I see it as a CWC on the quarterly statement of charges against the client Arkansas UI account.

I'll admit I haven't had this with every state in the union and certainly not with every possible permutation of pairs of states. But I've seen it with enough states over the last almost two decades to call it more than an occasional accident.

Did you read my link? Does any of that apply to your (presumably) Texas employer with Arkansas employees?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Did you read my link? Does any of that apply to your (presumably) Texas employer with Arkansas employees?

You misread me. These were Arkansas employees who when they worked for my Arkansas clients were living in Arkansas and moved to Texas after being terminated and once there applying for UI with Texas Workforce Comm within less than a month and telling TWC (though I didn't mention this before) that the Arkansas employer was their last employer.

I've read that link many times in the past. I assume you are referring to this...

"Generally, you should file your claim with the state where you worked. If you worked in a state other than the one where you now live or if you worked in multiple states, the state UI agency where you now live can provide information about how to file your claim with other states. You may also click on the link above to find contact information for all states."

It may well say that but that isn't how it seems to be working in the real world. I do hate it when the government starts a sentence with the work "Generally".

 

[justalayman]

You misread me. These were Arkansas employees who when they worked for my Arkansas clients were living in Arkansas and moved to Texas after being terminated and once there applying for UI with Texas Workforce Comm within less than a month and telling TWC (though I didn't mention this before) that the Arkansas employer was their last employer.

Well, you may have mistyped but I didn’t misread;

I really can't. I processed two separate TEXAS UI claims this week for employees of two different clients. In both cases the employees have been employees have been employed and living in Arkansas and have been with the client full time for over three years (so we are well outside the chance of there being base period wages in TX). I've had them before with pretty much the same fact set. If they don't get disqualified for cause they get paid by the Texas Workforce Commission and I see it as a CWC on the quarter

There is nothing in that statement about the employees moving to Texas.
You were speaking of employees of clients. Given that Arkansas and Texas abut each other, for all I know they lived near the state line but in Arkansas while the employer is in Texas. So please, next time, before correcting me, make sure your statement is clear.

Maybe Texas functions as MA used to function. I wouldn’t be surprised more than one state had similar laws that allows it. Apparently the folks in MA thought it was a good idea at one time. Maybe others did as well.

Did you read the other link? It actually speaks to this and provides more clarity than the .gov site.

 

[cbg]

Don't make me come back there, boys. There's plenty of prior experience to go around. You don't have to fight over it.

 

[commentator]

Quote: "I really can't. I processed two separate TEXAS UI claims this week for employees of two different clients. In both cases the employees have been employees have been employed and living in Arkansas and have been with the client full time for over three years (so we are well outside the chance of there being base period wages in TX). I've had them before with pretty much the same fact set. If they don't get disqualified for cause they get paid by the Texas Workforce Commission and I see it as a CWC on the quarter "

These people have filed their claims through the Texas unemployment system, and they are being processed by the interstate unit of the Texas Workforce Commission, therefore your paperwork inquiring about them comes from the Texas Workforce Commission offices and on their stationery, but if they were set up in Arkansas, and worked only in Arkansas, they will, if approved, be drawing claims set up from Arkansas wages, and as you said, it appears on the quarterly wage statements, etc. of the employer who paid in taxes on them in Arkansas. It is not a Texas claim, though it is being processed by the TWC.

If you doubt this, ask the adjudicator the next time you speak with one of them working on one of these claims.

This is the way all claims were done before internet filing became an option. Each state had an interstate unit, with interstate claims adjudicators who, if you came in and requested to file a claim in their state, in their office, could work with you to set up a claim. You provided the work history and addresses and contact numbers of each company you'd worked for, and they would, using wages pulled from another state, set up one of that state's claims for you, using that state's unemployment law to adjudicate the claim.

If necessary these workers would pull in wages from several states where you had covered wages reported by the employer. (And even show you your choice of which state to draw from, if you had the choices). You filed the claim in the place where you were going to live, because, as I have mentioned before, this is the state where you want to report for call ins and job searches, ask your questions, etc.

The "generally" part of the doleta statement has to do with how things have changed as we have gone electronic. Now that they've gone so on line, and there is so much total internet filing, some states have done away with their interstate units, and will instruct the claimant who has tried to file with no wages from their particular state to go on line and handle their claim remotely through the state (or states) where they may have wages reported.

It sounds like Hawaii is one of these, and Texas isn't yet. I suspect it will come soon in all states. The unemployment system used to be much more claimant friendly. But you always draw your claim, regardless of the state you FILE from, set up from the state or one of the states you have wages reported in, based on the reporting of the employer. Always has been, always will be.