Imagine you work for a company in the usual fashion in that you have regular hours and you have a manager where you schedule vacations, etc. the only difference is that you happen via the wonders of modern technology reside in - oh, lets say florida - and you virtually work for a company in - I dunno, lets say New york. You work, you pay taxes including "unemployment insurance". Lets say that due to a new management style you are told you either have to physically move to NY leaving your spouse and children behind or you are "laid off". So you decline the move. Where do you file for unemployment while you look for a new job? Never mind the fact that you will never recieve back all the money you paid in over the years (sounds familiar doesn't it) surely you are "entitled" aka should get some money back out of that "insurance" that you so regularly paid for, right? Wrong. According to a recent actual case both the states of New York and Florida have ruled that said individual is "entitled" to nothing despite all the money involuntarily donated over the years. Nada, ningune, nothing, bu. I'm not making this up, you can find the specific story pretty easily if you google cleverly. That which on the NGO scale is regarded as RICO violation is common practice when it comes to your government.10 responses total.
hello
Yeah, I saw that case. I think it's nuts.
What percentage of take-home is paid by emplyees into unemployment insurance? (I thought most if not all was paid by the employer.)
Moreover, I thought that the rate paid by the employer is related to the stability of the employer's workforce. An employer who regularly lays off lots of people pays a higher rate than one which generates few unemployment claims.
This response has been erased.
How is this situation handled, when, for example, an Ohio resident is laid off from a job in Detroit?
This response has been erased.
They ought to get benefits from the state where the employer is paying into the pool.
Yeah, when I was laid off by Texas Instruments, maybe 5 to 6 months the state took into account wages I had made in another state before working with TI. I was given unemployment benefits estimated on those wages and current wages but only what I had put in.
The company I used to work for that had people working all over the world declared peoples' office locations to be in the places where they actually worked, and paid people according to some interpretation of the laws of whatever state they worked in, making the "I work in one state but get paid as if I work in another state" something employees didn't have to worry about. I suspect the answer here is to make sure before it becomes a problem that you and your employer agree on which state you work in. It certainly sounds to me as if this person lived and worked in Florida, and it sounds like that's what the New York court found. That's presumably a very different issue from people who work in one state and actually show up in an office in a different state on a regular basis. New York must have estabilished precident dealing with that, considering that a significant chunk of the New York City suburbs are in New Jersey and Connecticut.
You have several choices: