NJ Gov. Christie Proposes Tougher Rules for Unemployment

Feb 5, 2003
5,561
926
753
With a stranger
#1
Gov. Christie wants to make it so that anyone collecting unemployment in NJ has to register on a state-run job search website and run a search at least once per week. Of course the usual suspects are crying over this and are claiming that the rule would make it "too hard" and say it's unfair to people without the Internet or who don't understand technology. Ummm, every public library offers free use of its computers and Internet and if someone seraching for a job finds it too ahrd to use the Internet then they probably aren't looking for a job since most places want you to apply online rather than filling out a paper application. If the hardest part of your day is running a search on the Internet then maybe you have it a little too easy. Being forced to use the Internet is a good thing if you dont' know how to use it because you're learning a "skill" that makes you qualified for a slightly better job than you were before. Right now, all it takes is a phone call in which you press 1 button to say that you are actively seeking work. There are no checks in place to see if you're telling the truth. You can also do it online, but somehow requiring the use of a website to actaully look for work is "too hard" and "unfair." 1 fucking phone call every week and there are actually people trying to pass legislation to make it EASIER to keep collecting. How much easier can it get? Keep catering to the lazy and stupid and see where we wind up.

Jobless residents would have to search for openings online, on a state-run jobs board called Jobs4Jersey.com, every week. The only current requirement is that they check in with state officials by phone, mail, in person or online.

The state Department of Labor and Workforce Development said a weekly search of the jobs board is "the very least that a claimant can do" and the governor expects to save money for New Jersey taxpayers by putting more people back to work.

. . .

But some worry the added requirement could have unintended consequences for people who lack Internet access at home.

"To create these super-technical conditions on benefits for workers who are spending every waking hour trying to find a job, it looks pretty mean-spirited," said Maurice Emsellem, co-policy director at the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for lower wage workers. "These are people who are already having trouble navigating the system."

Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo (D-Mercer), who has sponsored legislation to make it easier for residents to get unemployment benefits, said such a change "would prove very cumbersome for those without access to the Internet, those who may not feel comfortable using technology and those who may have trouble understanding the directions."
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
15,254
4,692
693
South Jersey
#2
Those same fucks can access the Internet on their gubment phones can't they?
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,519
22,181
398
Northern California
#3
Don't have a problem with this, but he should start by making it tougher to collect welfare and food stamps. At least someone on unemployment has worked long enough to become eligible.

Then again, maybe he doesn't have as much power over federal entitlements as he does unemployment.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,997
5,390
838
Wilmington, NC
#4
Good for him...the unemployment system is riddled with fraud.

He's still an Obamacare/Big Government-lovin, Conservative-In-Name-Only scumbag.
 

mikeybot

SPANAKOPITA!!!
Jul 25, 2005
19,294
3,592
623
philly
#5
Unemployment office has computers too.
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,316
8,623
918
JERZ
#6
This will certainly make easier than what were supposed to do to prove were looking. Keep hand written records of where we applied plus all it's info plus who we spoke to if anybody because I'm sure whoever you spoke to will instantly remember your name if they called and asked if you came in looking for work. Many places now won't even let you fill at an application if they are not hiring because they already have a shit ton on file for when they do hire so it's not like they can pull out your application to be able to say yes he did come in
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,316
8,623
918
JERZ
#8
Too lenient. They need drug testing too.
I wouldn't go that far this isn't a free handout. You actually had to have a job and held it for 4 months to get it and you paid into it. Welfare different story
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,519
22,181
398
Northern California
#9
I wouldn't go that far this isn't a free handout. You actually had to have a job and held it for 4 months to get it and you paid into it. Welfare different story
I don't have any problem drug testing people on unemployment... if you can't pass a drug test, your employment options are greatly reduced... but I do agree people on welfare should be drug tested before people on unemployment.
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,316
8,623
918
JERZ
#10
I don't have any problem drug testing people on unemployment... if you can't pass a drug test, your employment options are greatly reduced... but I do agree people on welfare should be drug tested before people on unemployment.
I just disagree because solely because its not a handout
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
103,514
16,825
919
Your house, behind the couch
#12
I just disagree because solely because its not a handout
It is to a point. You pay into it but you can get more out of it
than you put in. As with any pogram like that, it will be abused
and the cash being handed out should go to food, housing and
bills. It shouldn't be used to support drug habits.
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,316
8,623
918
JERZ
#13
It is to a point. You pay into it but you can get more out of it
than you put in. As with any pogram like that, it will be abused
and the cash being handed out should go to food, housing and
bills. It shouldn't be used to support drug habits.
well then we will just agree to disagree
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,332
37,391
628
In a porn tree
#15
Sounds good on paper... but more oversight always means more bureaucracy and more bureaucrats... more mouthes on the government teat... more government.

So what you'll end up with is more money spent on "oversight" bureaucracy than the money you'd save by cracking down on fraud. More and bigger government is always a net loser at the end of the day.(copyright- KyleDriven Enterprises LLC)
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#16
Sounds good on paper... but more oversight always means more bureaucracy and more bureaucrats... more mouthes on the government teat... more government.

So what you'll end up with is more money spent on "oversight" bureaucracy than the money you'd save by cracking down on fraud. More and bigger government is always a net loser at the end of the day.(copyright- KyleDriven Enterprises LLC)


more bureaucrats means lower unemployment
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,561
926
753
With a stranger
#17
Sounds good on paper... but more oversight always means more bureaucracy and more bureaucrats... more mouthes on the government teat... more government.

So what you'll end up with is more money spent on "oversight" bureaucracy than the money you'd save by cracking down on fraud. More and bigger government is always a net loser at the end of the day.(copyright- KyleDriven Enterprises LLC)
The website already exists and is in use. The only thing they need to do to make this rule work is connect the website to the Unemployment database and set up a rule in that database that requires a search to have been run before a check is generated for that person. It really doesn't require any additional useless government jobs, just one of the existing guys from the IT Department to link the 2 systems. Once that's done then it will all be automated.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,332
37,391
628
In a porn tree
#18
The website already exists and is in use. The only thing they need to do to make this rule work is connect the website to the Unemployment database and set up a rule in that database that requires a search to have been run before a check is generated for that person. It really doesn't require any additional useless government jobs, just one of the existing guys from the IT Department to link the 2 systems. Once that's done then it will all be automated.
And if a givesmedat fraudster files a claim and protests the denial of their claims? Who do you think is going to handle that, a computer? Trust me... the givesedats don't just roll over and take it when they don't get their free shit... they are professional bitchers, moaners, and system cloggers. They've got nothing better to do all day, and they know the bleeding hearts are always sympathetic to their sob stories, and if they can't work the system, they'll throw a wrench in it and laugh while it grinds to a halt.

You can either cut a "free shit" check in 30 seconds, or you can deal with a givesmedat bitching about not getting "they check" for 30 days straight.
 

JonBenetRamsey

well shit the bed
Aug 30, 2005
17,432
8,790
693
woodland critter christmas park nj
#19
It is to a point. You pay into it but you can get more out of it
than you put in. As with any pogram like that, it will be abused
and the cash being handed out should go to food, housing and
bills. It shouldn't be used to support drug habits.
neither should the tax dollars that pay politicians, maaaaaaaaaaaaaan. but no, if one group of people receiving government money is getting drug tested, ALL people receiving government money should be drug tested.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,997
5,390
838
Wilmington, NC
#20
As a former, longtime unemployment teet sucker...I can say with confidence that the unemployment commissions in most states are a colossal mess. My state is a perfect example. The system is automated...you file your weekly claim online or by phone and the automated system pays out. Problem is, this system was about 12 years old and not capable of handling double, triple, or even quadruple the amount of traffic that hit in 2008-2009. In addition, there just isn't enough staff to properly handle and manage claims the way they should. So essentially, you had a great big free for all. There is no need for people to come up with a "Vandelay Industries" and expect that the unemployment office is going to call that company to make sure you've been in contact. There's not enough staff to do that.

My state's requirement was that you had to be in verbal contact with 3 different companies regarding employment each week and be able to provide the name of the person you contacted, their title, and when you contacted them. And you can't use the same contact over multiple weeks. For those who have been unemployed over the last 5 years, you know that's just not possible. You can't even get these HR reps on the phone to begin with. And when you do, they won't remember who you are or what job you applied for since you're 1 out of sometimes 50+ applicants. I just did the best I could and applied for whatever was out there and kept track of those who I spoke to. When you begin collecting the federal Extended Benefits, you are required, by law, to report to the agency each month and present them with your three HR/job contacts for each previous week. I had 4 such mandatory appointments scheduled over the course of 20 weeks...and the day before each of them, my online account would have a notation saying "Appointment cancelled, Requirement Satisfied". There was just no one there to review my case.

I'm sure it's still the case today...and those collecting unemployment know damn well they can just fuck around and just collect if they wanted to. That's what has to stop. Unemployment claims are still elevated, but they're not as bad as 2009 when you had 700K+ weekly claims. And those people are no longer active claimants...so there should be significantly less traffic down there. They should be able to start holding these appointments and putting the heat on the applicants to actively seek work.
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,316
8,623
918
JERZ
#21
As a former, longtime unemployment teet sucker...I can say with confidence that the unemployment commissions in most states are a colossal mess. My state is a perfect example. The system is automated...you file your weekly claim online or by phone and the automated system pays out. Problem is, this system was about 12 years old and not capable of handling double, triple, or even quadruple the amount of traffic that hit in 2008-2009. In addition, there just isn't enough staff to properly handle and manage claims the way they should. So essentially, you had a great big free for all. There is no need for people to come up with a "Vandelay Industries" and expect that the unemployment office is going to call that company to make sure you've been in contact. There's not enough staff to do that.

My state's requirement was that you had to be in verbal contact with 3 different companies regarding employment each week and be able to provide the name of the person you contacted, their title, and when you contacted them. And you can't use the same contact over multiple weeks. For those who have been unemployed over the last 5 years, you know that's just not possible. You can't even get these HR reps on the phone to begin with. And when you do, they won't remember who you are or what job you applied for since you're 1 out of sometimes 50+ applicants. I just did the best I could and applied for whatever was out there and kept track of those who I spoke to. When you begin collecting the federal Extended Benefits, you are required, by law, to report to the agency each month and present them with your three HR/job contacts for each previous week. I had 4 such mandatory appointments scheduled over the course of 20 weeks...and the day before each of them, my online account would have a notation saying "Appointment cancelled, Requirement Satisfied". There was just no one there to review my case.

I'm sure it's still the case today...and those collecting unemployment know damn well they can just fuck around and just collect if they wanted to. That's what has to stop. Unemployment claims are still elevated, but they're not as bad as 2009 when you had 700K+ weekly claims. And those people are no longer active claimants...so there should be significantly less traffic down there. They should be able to start holding these appointments and putting the heat on the applicants to actively seek work.
i guess they no longer require the meetings for federal extensions. i have had zero meetings scheduled and i was told have those notes on record just in case they call you. I cant even get an application to fill out these days so its not like it matters if i write down the persons name they have nothing to back up if showed up there to reference when unemployment calls
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,997
5,390
838
Wilmington, NC
#22
i guess they no longer require the meetings for federal extensions. i have had zero meetings scheduled and i was told have those notes on record just in case they call you. I cant even get an application to fill out these days so its not like it matters if i write down the persons name they have nothing to back up if showed up there to reference when unemployment calls
I'm in the same boat. Nothing has really changed though, mainly because the 8+ million that lost their jobs over the past 5 years haven't actually been able to find full-time "meaningful" employment. They'll (like myself) keep applying to anything and everything...and will likely never be able to reach a live person at this company, or when we do, it's usually, "Sir, I have over 100 applications to look over for this position...I'm sorry I cannot help you." Unemployment agencies know this, but they still want to at least scare you a bit into thinking they're going to check your job search history. But as time goes by...and they never call you in or check your shit...I could definitely see people getting too comfortable collecting. But, eventually it runs out, and that's why you've got all of this opposition to those trying to cut back benefits and hold the claimant's feet to the fire a bit more. I definitely wouldn't be for drug-testing or anything like that (welfare is a different story), but actually being forced to enter the names of positions you've applied for each week and those you've contacted while you're filing your weekly claim online, might motivate these people...albeit slightly. But, the "Keep track of those you talk to each week because ya never know, we may just call you down to present them" isn't really strict enough.
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,316
8,623
918
JERZ
#23
I'm in the same boat. Nothing has really changed though, mainly because the 8+ million that lost their jobs over the past 5 years haven't actually been able to find full-time "meaningful" employment. They'll (like myself) keep applying to anything and everything...and will likely never be able to reach a live person at this company, or when we do, it's usually, "Sir, I have over 100 applications to look over for this position...I'm sorry I cannot help you." Unemployment agencies know this, but they still want to at least scare you a bit into thinking they're going to check your job search history. But as time goes by...and they never call you in or check your shit...I could definitely see people getting too comfortable collecting. But, eventually it runs out, and that's why you've got all of this opposition to those trying to cut back benefits and hold the claimant's feet to the fire a bit more. I definitely wouldn't be for drug-testing or anything like that (welfare is a different story), but actually being forced to enter the names of positions you've applied for each week and those you've contacted while you're filing your weekly claim online, might motivate these people...albeit slightly. But, the "Keep track of those you talk to each week because ya never know, we may just call you down to present them" isn't really strict enough.
The problem I have is I live in the middle of bumfuck south jersey. So once you can only apply to so many places before it no longer because financially feasible to apply to just any job. The further you get away from home how much the job must pay goes up exponentially to pay for gas and wear and tear on your vehicle.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,519
22,181
398
Northern California
#24
After thinking about this more, I would be fine if drug testing kicked in after six months or whatever. When I worked in logging, those companies had a higher unemployment insurance rate because it was assumed everyone working the seasonal job would collect it during the winter. These companies had no problem with this, and if the state didn't force them to pay unemployment insurance they would fund it privately on their own. If it wasn't for unemployment, logging companies would have a tough time getting experienced workers back the next season. With unemployment, they can usually get by working odd jumps during the winter, but without it they'd be forced into a year-round industry (if they could even find a job).

So I would put seasonal employees who fully expect on returning to a job in a different class than someone on their 4th federal extension. They already are to the extent that they don't have to record their job search information.