Author Topic: Unemployment Claims (Read 395020 times)

Already Gone · « **Reply #325 on:** Feb 13, 2009, 10:07 »

Quote from: Old HP on Feb 13, 2009, 09:48

It seems that Mr. Bittercourt has done it all and seen it all. It must have been tough mowing lawns in Pittsfield after that failed snow removal business in Miami.
As always , thanks for the insight, but lighten up on the negativity.

I'm sorry that you think it is negativity when I expect people to earn their way and play by the rules.

I made a joke about mowing lawns, and somebody followed up with a totally screwed up idea that could get you in deep if you tried it.

Negativity didn't get me to where I am today.. but it could get me to be an old HP if I'm not careful.

thenukeman · « **Reply #326 on:** Feb 14, 2009, 04:21 »

I bumped this forward, I got a semi permanent job so it does not help me, but Mass has helped me before. Maybe it will help my old road warriors who work for Bartlett, Has anyone tried the below? and does it work?

Since Bartlett is in Mass and if you are paid out of Mass can you claim Mass. The way I read above you can. Problem is no one has tried or got this in writing yet that I know of. I would like to know if anyone has information on this.

thenukeman · « **Reply #327 on:** Feb 14, 2009, 07:40 »

I wrote the following to see What Massachusetts says, Always trying to help my Fellow Nukes!!!

webmaster@detma.org

I use to file combined wages in Massachusetts, But now have told you can not do this. I work for Bartlett Nuclear who's main base is out of Plymouth Mass. According to this, PART I.
TITLE XXI.
Chapter 151A: Section 3.
(b)
(1) the individual’s base of operations is in the commonwealth or, if there is no base of operations, then the place from which such service is directed or controlled, is within the commonwealth.

Our base of Operation is Bartlett Nuclear from Plymouth Mass. and we work diffrent states directed from Plymouth Mass , would we qualify to file unemployment in Massachusetts based on this?

Lorrie Henson · « **Reply #328 on:** Feb 15, 2009, 06:29 »

"K" to ya NukeMan!! I'm sure many of us will be very interested to see what reply you receive from them!!

Already Gone · « **Reply #329 on:** Feb 15, 2009, 01:35 »

Quote from: thenukeman on Feb 14, 2009, 07:40

I wrote the following to see What Massachusetts says, Always trying to help my Fellow Nukes!!!

webmaster@detma.org

I use to file combined wages in Massachusetts, But now have told you can not do this. I work for Bartlett Nuclear who's main base is out of Plymouth Mass. According to this, PART I.
TITLE XXI.
Chapter 151A: Section 3.
(b)
(1) the individual’s base of operations is in the commonwealth or, if there is no base of operations, then the place from which such service is directed or controlled, is within the commonwealth.

Our base of Operation is Bartlett Nuclear from Plymouth Mass. and we work diffrent states directed from Plymouth Mass , would we qualify to file unemployment in Massachusetts based on this?

I hope this works out for you, but it could be a problem too.

Not all nukeworkers actually work for Bartlett.

Bartlett now owns Numanco, which probably still exists on paper and is headquartered in Tulsa. Hmmmm! They could easily claim that you are based in Tulsa.

Still, I hope it works out that the Bartlett employees can use this clause to their benefit. It looks legitimate on the face of it. But you don't have a base of operations unless you work out of one of the satellite offices. This is okay, because, according to the above, if you have no base, then the place from which the work is directed, being in Massachussetts, is your ticket. So, be careful not to take all your jobs from the Pennsylvania or Oklahoma offices and you should be okay.

Rennhack · « **Reply #330 on:** Feb 15, 2009, 10:12 »

Quote from: thenukeman on Feb 14, 2009, 07:40

I wrote the following to see What Massachusetts says, Always trying to help my Fellow Nukes!!!

webmaster@detma.org

I use to file combined wages in Massachusetts, But now have told you can not do this. I work for Bartlett Nuclear who's main base is out of Plymouth Mass. According to this, PART I.
TITLE XXI.
Chapter 151A: Section 3.
(b)
(1) the individual’s base of operations is in the commonwealth or, if there is no base of operations, then the place from which such service is directed or controlled, is within the commonwealth.

Our base of Operation is Bartlett Nuclear from Plymouth Mass. and we work different states directed from Plymouth Mass , would we qualify to file unemployment in Massachusetts based on this?

Please keep us updated on this.

retired nuke · « **Reply #331 on:** Feb 16, 2009, 11:29 »

I'm willing to bet that except for the rare independent duty jobs, anyplace with a site coordinator will be considered the base of operations as far as the techs go. Hope not, but my gut is telling me that's how it will fall.
$:-\$

thenukeman · « **Reply #332 on:** Feb 19, 2009, 09:33 »

I tried to send a Email to Massachusetts at 3 different Emails they list and I get blocked, I try my friends and they get my email, I guess they are reading MY IPaddress and blocking me from communicating with them on my EMAIL I wrote above, These are my 3 addresses I have tried and they all come up blocked, Maybe someone else can Email them my letter from Mass or another IP. dcscustomerfeedback@detma.org
   Permanent Failure: 550_Blocked
   Delivery last attempted at Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:26:01 -0000
webmaster@detma.org
   Permanent Failure: 550_Blocked
   Delivery last attempted at Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:45:07 -0000

ProblemResolutionUnit@detma.org
   Permanent Failure: 550_Blocked
   Delivery last attempted at Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:41:30 -0000

I bet they do not want to answer my question in writing. Please can someone trythis. Sorry I tried, I plan on trying some more. Getting blocked 3 times can be frustrating, Trying to help my Fellow nukers out!!!

Lorrie Henson · « **Reply #333 on:** Feb 19, 2009, 10:20 »

Nukeman,

I have copied your quote and emailed them, using two of the email addresses you supplied. I'll let you know if I get a reply or a failure notification.

Lorrie

SloGlo · « **Reply #334 on:** Feb 20, 2009, 09:46 »

Quote from: thenukeman on Feb 19, 2009, 09:33

I bet they do not want to answer my question in writing. Please can someone trythis. Sorry I tried, I plan on trying some more. Getting blocked 3 times can be frustrating, Trying to help my Fellow nukers out!!!

use snail mail. yinz'll git yer reply in a cupla weaks in a nice brown envelope.

Lorrie Henson · « **Reply #335 on:** Feb 20, 2009, 10:57 »

I just received the following response.....

Please contact (617) 626-6800 and the unemployment department will help you with your situation.

Nikisha (Nykky) Glasgow
Administrative Assistant
Division of Career Services
(617) 626-5361

Mike L · « **Reply #336 on:** Mar 18, 2009, 08:31 »

Does anyone know about applying for a combined wage claim in NC? Do you have to do it in person?

Melrose · « **Reply #337 on:** Apr 10, 2009, 06:46 »

Quote from: BeerCourt on Feb 13, 2009, 10:07

Negativity didn't get me to where I am today.. but it could get me to be an old HP if I'm not careful.

Too funny...........

pappy · « **Reply #338 on:** Apr 29, 2009, 10:09 »

Has anyone tired to file in Mass since the new rules went in effect, using the Bartlett based in Mass basis? Mine runs out in June, IF i ever get to be laid off......

Dave Warren · « **Reply #339 on:** May 06, 2009, 07:33 »

HEY ERIC BARTLETT:

This would be very beneficial to alot of people to have this information. Is there any way that you might be able to shake the bushes and find out who's right and who's not? We can put a million posts on here and every one could be handled differently. If you can get some concrete information and post it, you would be given "The Man" status by about 50 people within the FENOC system that are about to get laid off for 3 months. Not to mention all of the others around the country.

Thanks...

Lorrie Henson · « **Reply #340 on:** May 06, 2009, 10:10 »

I have a question... any information/advise would be greatly appreciated.

After a 2.5 yr hiatus, I went back to work in January and worked 2 outages. The second one ended April 23. I live in Michigan and worked both Michigan and Iowa. I believe when filing for unemployment, they go back 5 quarters, not including the quarter you're in. So, if I file now, they would only take Jan-March income, right? Should I wait until July to file so my April earnings will count?.... will it even be worth it??

Thanks everyone!

Already Gone · « **Reply #341 on:** May 06, 2009, 04:20 »

Lorrie,
Some states will use an alternate period that can include the current quarter. But, once you use those wages to establish one claim, you can't use them again on your next one. So, your next benefit year might be lacking. However, some states base your benefit on your two highest quarters. You might be okay if the first quarter plus zero as your second highest actually maxes you out. Also, some states require that you have earned a minimum dollar amount or worked a minimum number of weeks. And still, there are states where you would max out based on the average weekly wage, but they will pay only a percentage of your total earnings in the period. (Example: you made $20k in one quarter, and 6k in your second highest quarter. Based on that, if the benefit is half of your AWW, you would max out if the max was $500--BUT if they also limit your benefit to 30 or 40 or 45% of your total earnings for the year, you might get a little less. Complicated, huh?

Best to ask both states and see who gives you the better deal both with and without using the alternate period. Then, take your pick.

You'll need your calculator. Would you be better off getting ten more dollars a week for 26 weeks if it means getting nothing for three months? How about if you get 50 or 100 more per week? Can you be sure that you will collect all 26 weeks? It's kind of a crap-shoot, but my gut feeling is that you take the money as soon as you can get it.

The way it looks without actual numbers is that you might break even by waiting if you are lucky, but that all depends on what number they calculate for you.

Lorrie Henson · « **Reply #342 on:** May 06, 2009, 04:48 »

Thank you Troy!! Yes, complicated, but I understood it all!! I'll have to call them soon. Hopefully, I won't be waiting too much longer and will have a job offer, then I won't have to worry about it. I know if I claim in Michigan, I'll have to go to Michigan Works, and since I'm in SC with Jim right now, that's not a possibility... so, I'll wait till I get home and make some phone calls....

Thanks again!!

to ya!!

Eric_Bartlett · « **Reply #343 on:** May 07, 2009, 01:15 »

Quote from: BeerCourt on Feb 15, 2009, 01:35

...Bartlett now owns Numanco, which probably still exists on paper and is headquartered in Tulsa. Hmmmm! They could easily claim that you are based in Tulsa...

Hey Troy - how ya been? To clear things up, yes we bought Numanco and Sun Technical. Sun is still in existence out of Reno, NV, however Numanco is no more, that company has like so many others become yet another distant memory. Tulsa is but a satellite office of the Plymouth, MA office, as is our Pennsylvania office that Anne works out of and our TN office that Butch Smith works out of.

Quote from: DaveWarren on May 06, 2009, 07:33

HEY ERIC BARTLETT:

This would be very beneficial to alot of people to have this information. Is there any way that you might be able to shake the bushes and find out who's right and who's not? We can put a million posts on here and every one could be handled differently. If you can get some concrete information and post it, you would be given "The Man" status by about 50 people within the FENOC system that are about to get laid off for 3 months. Not to mention all of the others around the country.

Thanks...

I myself know very little about un-employment as I was never eligible for it being self employed before starting here so long ago - I will talk to my HR folk and see what they can explain to me so I can relay it to you all ASAP.

Already Gone · « **Reply #344 on:** May 07, 2009, 03:13 »

Thanks Eric. Lots of people are really interested in this topic since the federal rules changed this year. Everyone wants to file in Mass. because the benefit is so high.

Lorrie Henson · « **Reply #345 on:** May 07, 2009, 04:20 »

Supposedly, someone went to PA to file and they were rejected, saying they must first file with MASS because that's where the Bartlett office is.... and if they get rejected from MASS, then go back to PA with that rejection notification.

thenukeman · « **Reply #346 on:** May 08, 2009, 08:03 »

Yes , Eric would get the MAN status and BARTLETT would get THE COMPANY status if you can file in Mass. I know my checks said Plymouth Mass not the site I was working at if I remember correctly!!! I guess your stub would say Plymouth Mass if you got direct deposit. Hmmm who would I want to work for a company stationed in TN where I get 275 a week unemployment or THE COMPANY on an outage or short DOE contract when I get 625 a week unemployment with 2 children at Mass. All things being equal, THE COMPANY BARTLETT, Someone say it is so!!! LOL It does not matter to me because I have a semipermanent job, but Bartlett has been good to me when the chips were down!! I would like them to be THE COMPANY and Eric to be DA MAN!!!!!

inrad · « **Reply #347 on:** May 12, 2009, 11:23 »

Fellow travelers, it's time to take ACTION.

Here is my sample letter to our US Senators and Congressmen. Please feel free to reproduce it, edit it, distribute it via any and all means and above all use it yourself to contact your government officials. We MUST stand up for each other on this because who else will?

Dear Senator,
I received a very disturbing letter in December 08, it reads:
"Dear Combined Wage Claimant:
The US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration amended the regulations governing combined wage claims filed under the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program. Beginning January 6, 2009, the definition of "Paying State", when filing a Combined Wage Claim, has been changed...
...this means, effective January 6, 2009 onward, that in order to file a Combined Wage Claim, you must have had employment and earned wages in the paying state's base period.
This notice is to inform you that for new claims effective January 11, 2009 and after, you cannot file a Combined Wage Claim with a certain State as the "Paying State" unless you had employment and earned wages in that certain State during it's base period, regardless of whether you traveled to be physically present in that certain State. Since this is a US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration ruling, all States must follow this amendment."

As a traveling worker this will hurt me and many other travelers. Before this new rule, we were allowed to file a Combined Wage Claim in ANY state as long as we had worked in at least 2 states. Please, work for us traveling workers to get this ruling reversed, and restore the old law.
Thanks, (Your Name)

nowhereman · « **Reply #348 on:** May 14, 2009, 08:56 »

From my point of view, I do not see any chance of getting this law changed, we do not have enough numbers of people to force this change.....and when you look at the new law objectively, it kind of makes sense...

What Bartlett could help us with is one thing, work to classify our job as a "construction worker"...that would allow the states to base our unemployment benefits averaging the one highest quarter instead of the two highest quarters.

With outage work the way it is and having to file in different states, each state may have a different look back periods or you may have to get the state to use an alternate base period.
and that is when you start to have trouble, you thought you had worked in a state, but lo and behold the wages are missing(they went to your previous claim in another state) and then you stuck using the wages of a bad quarter (say you were held over and worked one week in July....and that would be a bad quarter to average your wages against).

oh yea, and this federal extension on unemployment benefits does not seem to be much value to the rent a tech's in general, if you return to work(an outage) you don't qualify for a federal extension after you are laid off.

disneyfanatic · « **Reply #349 on:** May 14, 2009, 07:39 »

my friend you are sadly mistaken about reopening the federal extension, as long as you meet the usual criteria, you are good to go. rest easy,the new math is 18 equals 79

Author Topic: Unemployment Claims (Read 395020 times)

Mike L

Melrose

pappy