unemployment insurance policies/procedures

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

The general laws of Massachusetts (chapter 151a, section 25) read in part:

...no benefits shall be paid to an individual under this chapter for [...] any week in which an otherwise eligible individual fails, without good cause, [...] to accept suitable employment whenever offered to him, and for the next seven consecutive weeks....

'Suitable employment', as used in this subsection, shall be determined by the commissioner, who shall take into consideration whether the employment is detrimental to the health, safety or morals of an employee, is one for which he is reasonably fitted by training and experience, [...] is one which is located within reasonable distance of his residence or place of last employment....

No work shall be deemed suitable ... [i]f the remuneration, hours or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality....

Basically this seems to say that I can be denied unemployment benefits for 8 weeks if I am offered a job and I choose not to accept it. "Detrimental to the health, safety or morals" is fairly vague but doesn't seem like it would cover such things as "I don't think I'd fit in to this company personality-wise" or "the job requires a lot of overtime which would take me away from my kids" or "I don't find the work interesting."

Does anyone know how, or whether, this is actually enforced? Nothing in the materials I've received from the unemployment insurance (UI) people says anything about me being required to report to them when I receive a job offer. So is this one of those things where, if they find out that I refused a job they'll disqualify me, but they'll never find out so it's moot? Or am I in fact supposed to inform them of every offer that I receive?

Does anyone here know anyone who has ever actually gotten burned by this? I'm really more curious than worried.

(x-posted)

Comments

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

Your tax dollars don't pay my unemployment benefits, though. UI is funded entirely by employers.

I understand and appreciate your point about the "perfect" job, but at the same time, I think one could argue that the state (and the employer) has an interest in allowing some leeway on this. Because when you force people to take jobs they don't really want, you increase the chances that they're going to wind up unemployed again and drawing on the system. Still, I do recognize that the state needs to have some kind of structure to prevent people from just blatantly mooching off of it.

And in case it isn't clear, I am talking about hypotheticals here. I have not actually refused a job offer (I have not actually RECEIVED a job offer) nor have I any plans to do so.

Civility sighted on the intarwebs!

[larksdream]

I am impressed by the polite and reasonable tone of both of you. That's all I wanted to say. :)

a small business owner's perspective

[loravarnion.livejournal.com]

I think unemployment benefits are quite important, but they do come at a price.

You are correct that employers pay for unemployment insurance, and the rates (like any insurance) are variable.

Small business owners get worse rates than large employers, and (I have read, though don't have a citation handy) in aggregate small business owners pay to insure more employees total. This works like a regressive tax that shifts more of the burden of supporting the recently out-of-work on to the backs of those businesses that are least able to pay for it, and at a higher cost.

I don't really think an insurance model is the right way to pay for unemployment benefits — it makes sense for employers to pay part of the costs, but the burden shouldn't be disproportionately shifted onto small businesses.

A better model would be to combine the risks across a geographic region, an industry, etc.. That way each employer would pay the same per employee, and the overhead associated with multiple insurance policies could be eliminated, thus saving everyone money.