Wednesday, April 1, 2009

April 1st


NO JOKE, THIS IS THE GUMMIT'!

The feds have authorized funds to extend unemployment benefits for another 20 weeks. Of course, there are people out there who think that those of us who have been unemployed for this long are slackers who just love getting less than half of our previous earnings to sit on our butts and eat bon-bons. Well, maybe that would be true, if we could afford bon-bons. Most of us are lucky to still have a roof over our heads and Top Ramen in the cupboard. Not to mention that those of us with the stigma of having worked in the mortgage business can't even get hired to clean toilets, our resumes go directly into the trash.

This is from the EDD website about who qualifies:

"Federal and State law does not allow payments to be made on a FED-ED extension once you are qualified to file a new regular claim in any state, regardless of the benefit amount on the new regular claim. So if you’ve earned wages that qualify you for a new regular claim in any state, all payments on your FED-ED extension must stop. This means that, if you qualify for a new regular claim, you cannot continue to collect benefits on your FED-ED extension."

What does this mean? Someone who had been receiving the maximum benefit amount and thought that they were doing a good thing by taking a temp job, or took a job that didn't last through no fault of their own (another lay off) and didn't earn at least $11,674.01 during a quarter (not just any three months, it had to be during the period of Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, or Sept-Dec) is now basically screwed. Let's say they earned $1500 doing a temp job. Instead of $475 a week they would now get $60. That's a $415 per week penalty for working. Sweet!

Another new thing. Back in the old days you weren't required to accept a job that paid less than your old one. Now, you will be disqualified if you refuse a job that pays at least what you're getting from UE. Since the maximum amount is $450 a week (they aren't counting the extra $25 Obama dollars in this requirement) it's possible that someone who used to make $100,000 a year would be obligated to put in 40 hours a week earning $11.25 an hour, and have the privilege of being treated like a peon on top of that. Anyone who has ever worked for low wages knows that you get very little respect from the people who earn more. Sad fact, but it's true. Frankly, if I'm going to have to continue to live on considerably less than half of my previous income, the prospect of working 40 hours a week and to still have to use borrowed money to pay the mortgage and buy food and to have to really agonize over whether to buy a new pair of jeans (much less fix the leak in my roof or the leak under the sink or replace the TV that quit working) isn't very appealing. But, the gummit wants me to believe that they're being oh-so-compassionate about the plight of the unemployed. I'd like to see whoever made up these new rules work for $11.25 an hour and see how compassionate that feels.

I NEED TO FIND SOME NEW MORONS

The former best contributors to my English mangling posts seem to have disappeared. The two worst offenders at Channel 10 are gone. The on-line paper has a new system for comments that requires at least half a brain to sign up for, so the comments haven't provided much material. I do have a few gems saved up though:

These are all from reporters and anchors at Channel 10:

"...was the destination of a helicopter crash.”

“...he was home at work.” Okey dokey.

“...the driver refused to pull over for speeding.” This would only make sense if the CHP officer was named Speeding.

“...the driver of a hit and run crash.” Is that an American made vehicle?

“What they saw when the wind started to burn.” Wow. Wind can catch fire?


No comments: