JR_VAN wrote:That is a much better social program than Canadian EI. One would never have a valid claim in Canada while putting in so little time, or such low earnings, at work. In Canada one has to put in a whole 6 months of labour regardless of how much money one made, to be eligible at all.
Yes but in Canada one would then qualify for full benefits immediately after being laid off. In California and most US states if one were laid off after six months, depending upon one's earnings level and the timing in the quarter, one might not qualify for full benefits. For example if someone were laid off on May 15, 2009 after six months of employment in California, and filed a claim immediately, their claim would be based only on their earnings from Nov 15, 2008 to Dec 31, 2008. Unless they earned at least $11675 during that period--many people claiming unemployment wouldn't earn anything close to that amount over a six week period--their benefit would be for less than the maximum.
Such a person might seriously consider waiting until July 1 when the new quarter begins to file a claim and get a larger benefit. Also some US states do require at least some earnings in more than one quarter. The US system seems to be designed to encourage short-term and/or lower earning employees to wait to file unemployment in a lot of cases--presumably in the hope that a lot of people will find new work before they file a claim and never end up filing.



Privacy Policy