Vermilion Voice

Wanted to run this past you and get your thoughts on the idea.

Unemployment is very high. Employers are reluctant to hire as they don't know if things will improve. Government budgets are astronomical.

Possible idea:

Many people on unemployment compensation are making more than they would if they took a job.

I'm thinking that the government should allow people to take jobs while receiving unemployment benefits. They would take jobs at less pay than they received at their former employment. The government would supplement their income to keep their income at a level comparable with the unemployment compensation they are receiving currently and would extend their benefits minus their job income for as long as the total of income doesn't exceed what the employee would have received if they had remained on unemployment compensation only.

I see a benefit to all involved. The person works and has incentive to work. The government brings in more taxes. The employer has flexibility according to his needs.

Please let me know what I'm missing here?

And the crowd grew quiet............

Is this a really bad idea?

As expressed in yesterday's Cn, there are jobs available in Danville.  Problem is that the potential employers can't fill them because applicants can't pass the criminal background check and the drug test.

Actually the government does allow for that. You can be working so many hours a week ( I can't remember how many) while drawing unemployment and you include the hours worked and rate of pay for weeks claimed of unemployment when calling in.

Personally...I think people on unemployment should be able to go to school...but I don't think you can because you must be available if you do get a job. If you only have a HS education there are programs at DACC for different types of certifications (like certification in MicroSoft programs) they only take about a year to complete (maybe less) and that can really improve your job qualifications and there are programs and grants to cover the cost.

I'm not sure that one would end up receiving the same as they would if they just continued to receive the UC:

(820 ILCS 405/402) (from Ch. 48, par. 402)
    Sec. 402. Reduced weekly benefits. Each eligible individual who is unemployed in any week, as defined in Section 239, shall be paid, with respect to such week, a benefit in an amount equal to his weekly benefit amount (plus dependents' allowances) less that part of wages (if any) payable to him with respect to such week which is in excess of 50% of his weekly benefit amount, provided that such benefit for any benefit week shall be reduced by: (1) the amount of any holiday pay which the individual is entitled to receive, and receives, for any workday in such week, and (2) the amount of any vacation wages allocated to such week by the individual's employer pursuant to Section 610 of this Act, and (3) one fifth of the weekly benefit amount for each normal workday during which such individual is unable to work or unavailable for work, and provided, further, that this subsection shall not be construed so as to effect any change in the status of part time workers as defined in Section 407. Such benefit, if not a multiple of $1, shall be computed to the next higher multiple of $1.
(Source: P.A. 82 22.)

Ok....say if your benefit amount is $300.00 weekly and any wages you made for that week that totaled  less than 50% (which you could earn up to $149.00) then there would be no decrease in your benefit. Do you see what I mean?

Then a person has to work at least 3 days at $10/hr to get to the $149. So you start with not having your benefit reduced and end up with $449 minus 3/5  of the benefit amount for the days that you are unable to seek work and/or unavailable for work which would give you $300 minus 60% = $120 + $149 for a total of $369 for that week minus taxes for the initial $149 in wages and a tax hit possibly at the end of the year for the unemployment compensation which will probably eat up the $69 that you thought you were ahead with. Add to that gas, etc for getting to the job.

OK...now I'm confused...I don't know where you are getting the part about....minus 3/5  of the benefit amount for the days that you are unable to seek work and/or unavailable for work? Isn't it 1/5? But just say you worked 5 or 6 hours...or even 8 hours, in a twenty-four hour day you would still have plenty of hours to be available for work wouldn't you? You could make $15.00 hour or more....it doesn't matter...isn't it just anything you make over 50% of your benefit amount will be deducted? I don't know??? It used to be that unemployment benefits weren't taxed...you and you're employer "pay in" for the 'unemployment insurance'....I mean the same money gets taxed over and over...seems like this goes on a lot.  :-\

It's 1/5 for each day that you are unable/unavailable for work. If it takes you 3 days of work to receive $1 < than your benefit amount then the amount deducted from your benefit amount would be 3 (days you worked) X 1/5 which would = 3/5 deduction from your benefit amount. It all depends upon what your hourly wage would be and how many hours in a day you would work.

I don't know if this is how it really works, but apparently the formula (as is) isn't favorable to providing an incentive to work while in receipt of UC. If it were then many would be jumping at the opportunity.

Remembering that those in receipt of UC had to work in order to be eligible for UC and are not working due to no fault of their own so I would think that they would be inclined to work at a </hr wage if it made sense while in receipt of UC.

Do UC?

I may be totally wrong in how I'm interpreting this stuff.

When a recipient goes over the 50% benefit amount via wages than I'm thinking that it is a dollar for dollar decrease in benefit amount for every dollar exceeding 50%.

I went to http://www.ides.state.il.us/ to get some answers and was unable to locate information on this issue and how wages impact UC. Maybe someone out there can enlighten us?