This blog post is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • Rebelyell55 Jun 9, 2014

    I reallly don't understand the changes. When I was laid off, I had to show proof job search, and they were way more than required since I was looking every day. I also had to show my ID when I first when up there back in 2008 to apply. While I far exceeded the number of job search required, the funny part was many were Web site searches, because a lot of company requested you apply on line. The lady at the agency asked me did I have permission to do this? I looked at her and told her lady , most of these places require you to apply on line. You kidding me right? She didn't have a clue. No wonder so many get very little help from them.

  • goldenosprey Jun 9, 2014

    "There's a difference between being "fortunate" and "saving money for a rainy day". 50S child

    You were fortunate if you were not living hand-to-mouth like many wage earners, and could actually save money after paying the rent, buying the food, buying the clothes, and if you're really flashy, seeing a doctor. If you make under $30K a year that's almost impossible.

  • icdumbpeople Jun 9, 2014

    You have to show a photo id? What?

  • NYtoNC81 Jun 9, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Absolutely correct. If you settle for a job you are overqualified for it not only hurts you, but hurts the little man who is trying to hack out a living the best he can for his family by taking a job he would actually be qualified for.

  • goldenosprey Jun 9, 2014

    View quoted thread

    If that is the case, they lose eligibility for benefits. Turning down "suitable work" is an automatic DQ. And "suitable work" has been redefined as anything paying close to your UI check after ten weeks even if you are an accountant. If you can flip burgers for $8 an hour and burden our EBT and medicaid system, start flipping, So spare us the dead-beat hate.

  • Alan Baker Jun 9, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Look up "straw man argument" and then come back. You should be commended for planning and it's nice that everything worked out such that that planning made it possible for you to get by. However, there are many many reasons why someone might have problems living without income for nine months or more besides the dog whistles you list. ("oh, those poor people wtih their cell phones and sneakers! If only they were smart and only invested in America and Norman Rockwell commemorative plates like you and me!")

    You *were lucky*; you're only dumb if you fail to recognize just how lucky you were.

  • 50s Child Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    There's a difference between being "fortunate" and "saving money for a rainy day". I was laid off, never did find work though I wanted it badly, and now I'm retired anyway. How "fortunate" I was to have thought ahead and planned all those years, right? I sure was lucky not to have bought a new car every three years, new cell phone every six months, closet full of clothes and shoes, 3 or 4 kids with no husband. Yep, that's me, just dumb and lucky.

  • Alan Baker Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    I'm not sure I understand your point. In all your cases you'd have been without income for literally months, regardless of how hard you were looking. Yes, you found a job and it's lovely you had the savings to live completely without income for almost 9 months. Others may not be so fortunate, even if they're looking every bit as hard as you did.

  • lasm Jun 6, 2014

    I lost a job of 10 years during the "decline". I applied for 425 jobs in 13 months-an average of over 1 job per day-counting weekends. The jobs are listed on more than one website. But, you have to put in the time; and when you aren't working-and NEED to work-what else should you be doing than LOOKING & APPLYING. The computer age makes it a lot easier & a lot cheaper to apply. And don't say that everyone does not have a computer-use of computers at the library is free. After 15 months, that job ended. After 8 months of searching, I found another job. This time, during those 8 months, I applied for over 225 jobs-average of 1 per day, counting weekends. Both of these jobs were steps DOWN. It you need to work, if you want to work, you CAN find work. You may have to work your way back up-that's called "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. By the way, the 2nd time I was on unemployment it was for less wks by 1/2; AND the amount was 1/2. Stop whining-get to work applying.

  • tgiv Jun 6, 2014

    I don't have a problem requiring people to prove they are actively looking. The idea that unemployment before was cushy is laughable. What we have now is nothing more than a roadmap to welfare and foodstamps for people who aren't blessed with finding work quickly.

  • for the people Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    your examples paints those in that condition as victims and supposes that if the great federal government steps in and raises minumum wages and taxes then all will be solved. by doing so, you remove the impetus to work hard and make good decisions. those working at walmart have opportunity to improve their personal condition. work hard, get promoted, make more money. if you don't like that, start your own business. millions of folks do. i find it interesting that those that are liberal and 'progressive' either don't know or care that most blue leaning states have greater income inequality than those red states that have more freedom to create opportunity, lower taxes and growth policies.

    what would you do if the walmart s of the world decided to close? i suspect you would be more appreciative of what they offer than you are now.

  • Alan Baker Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    And I'm sure your unnamed source posted anonymously is probably true, for some vague value of the term. Unemployment shouldn't be a way of life, but neither is it particularly comfortable (particularly not in NC where the GA has gone out of their way to make certain the money isn't even liveable, much less lavish) Again however, neither is unemployment supposed to be so sparse you're forced into minimum wage labor because jobs with your skillset aren't hiring within an ever shrinking window. Try having "a way of life" on unemployment in NC. Go ahead. The idea that anyone is living high off the public hog on unemployment is just another regressive dog whistle and isn't worth treating seriously.

  • Scott Mace Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Apparently whatever that person does only takes 14 weeks to master :)

  • annie4 Jun 6, 2014

    According to my source, who works in the system, many people are given job opportunities during their time on unemployment. If they're making livable money on unemployment, they say no to the job. It shouldn't be comfortable on unemployment- it's a safety-net. It's never meant to be a way of life.

  • Forthe Newssite Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Well now lets see, I have TWO college degrees and when I was unemployed due to a layoff it took me SIX MONTHS to find a job and I was looking and applying daily M-F for that entire 6 months..

    you obviously do not know what you're talking about!

    As to 5 jobs a week, I don't think that's too much. Decades ago you had to show PROOF you had applied to jobs now you just have to SAY you did. I don't have a problem making people prove it to get their benefits.

  • Alan Baker Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    I'm sure you did. For a year or two. Anyone can, as long as they already have the things they need, a support network like parents or savings, and health insurance. However, try surviving when the car needs an extra $1000 in repairs this month. Or you need to go to the dentist. Or during a winter where your cheap rent apartment (the only kind you can afford on a Walmart salary) is so cold you have no choice but to turn on the heat.

    Of course Walmart isn't the ultimate evil. They're a pretty typical moder corporation that privileges profit over everything including the well-being of their employees and the communities in which they're located. It's not a solution to the problems of unemployment and poverty however. Anyone who pretends it is is either ignorant or knows the truth and simply doesn't care.

  • miseem Jun 6, 2014

    Howard spoke against the change, saying it would delay by a year the payoff of state employers' $2.7 billion debt to the federal government for jobless benefits during the recent recession.
    So let's pay this debt off on the backs of the workers when it was business that benefited from the low unemployment insurance rates that caused a lot of the debt. That's really putting the responsibility where it belongs, right? Of course, like with Duke Energy, responsibility for your messes does not always land on the entity responsible. It hits the worker with no job or the rate payer. Especially if the responsible entity is a business.

  • for the people Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    oh the greedy walmart theme. how terrible for them to employ thousands and thousands of people and promote them as well. the GREED!!!

    really. that is not the problem. the problem are those that settle for minimum wage, have children they can't afford, spend money they don't have on things they don't need and blame someone else for their plight. i could live on the walmart like wage if i made good decisions. i've done it.

  • Confucius say Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    That would be a great start to the goal of taking care of ones self. Having a job and still collecting welfare is better than sitting at home collecting welfare. At leaset with a job there is opportunity to work hard and get ahead. While sitting at home there is none.

  • Mon Account Jun 6, 2014

    I guess one could always get a job at walmart and go on welfare.

  • Alan Baker Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Tillis is running for office so he's going to hide from the GA as much as possible; all of these votes are seriously damaging to a candidate who isn't safely ensconced in a gerrymandered district and Tillis now needs to face the state as a whole. It's a cowardly move but it's not particularly suprising.

  • jet Jun 6, 2014

    Legislation like this will just increase the suicide rate and shootings. Stomping on people who are down and out is not winning.

  • lopo Jun 6, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Kind of like the change you voted for. At least the GOP is trying to make people find work where the dems want people to find EBT cards.

  • lem07 Jun 6, 2014

    look at the votes. How many times is Tillis going to abstain from voting? and why is he abstaining?

  • Confucius say Jun 6, 2014

    "As WRAL has reported in the last 2 years unemployment numbers have dropped BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE STOPPED BEING PART OF THE UI SYSTEM!" - TELEMAN60

    That's the same thing that the Federal Gov't does when calclulating federal unemployment numbers. But you have no problem with that since it comes from the liberals, right? When the NC House uses the same method it's a conspiracy, right?

  • teleman60 Jun 6, 2014

    I'm curious? Where and who created these "THOUSANDS OF JOBS??" I think republicans have been smoking Oregon Green too much.

    As WRAL has reported in the last 2 years unemployment numbers have dropped BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE STOPPED BEING PART OF THE UI SYSTEM!

    Just because they kicked people off UI doesn't mean they have a jobs!


    - How about the 600 jobs lost in Ashboro at medical device Co last week? How about layoffs at Cisco, Merck, Perdue Pharma,
    - chicken plants being shutdown? -

    - Smithfield Foods was sold to China and the firings are to begin!

    Where are the thousands of jobs Blust is talking about? In his dreams, that's where all gop accomplishments live.

  • MarkNC Jun 5, 2014

    If you make a mistake with UI benefits you can be accused of fraud. You have already received the benefits when your UI weekly forms are reviewed. With a 5 jobs per week rule, the number of fraud cases will increase due to technical mistakes.

  • sanford1259 Jun 5, 2014

    I hope all the unemployed and underemployed citizens of NC remember who our legislature was really working for over the past two years. Apparently to our legislature, you only matter if you are wealthy or you are a corporation.

  • Alan Baker Jun 5, 2014

    View quoted thread

    You might. Of course that low-paying job with zero advancement and long hours may well mean you'll never find your way back to doing the job you're trained and qualified for. Yes, the world will always need ditches dug but forcing someone into that position (particularly when their previous job was supposed to be paying unemployment insurance against just this eventuality) is incredibly short-sighted. It allows the small and mean-spirited to feel momentarily good about sticking it to those deadbeats they keep hearing about, but that's about it.

  • Kenny Dunn Jun 5, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Perhaps you will find yourself unemployed at some point. It might affect your perspective. I was, but due to good fortune and friends did not need government assistance. Many are not so fortunate.

  • JustAName Jun 5, 2014

    5 jobs per week? Not in this economy, no matter the field.

  • Derek Fisher Jun 5, 2014

    Goes to show if you don't pay people to sit at home they will find a job. It might not be job you want but you will find a job.

  • European American Jun 5, 2014

    View quoted thread

    And how long do you think it takes to acquire a new skill set?

  • randall0123a Jun 5, 2014

    Perfect. If you can't find a job after 14 weeks then either you are not trying or you need a new skill set.

Oldest First