Fri
Nov 4 2011
11:07 am
Ramsey: Unemployment is a "lifestyle"
By: R. Neal

That's what he told some businessmen. Yeah, they're all just a bunch of slackers.

Topics:
Russ's picture

Today's funny

Submitted by Russ on Fri, 2011/11/04 - 1:26pm.

Samantha Yeargin wins the Internet for today:

If only @RonRamsey knew someone talented, smart & hardworking who'd been out of work for a long time through no fault of his own ...

Heh.

GDrinnen2's picture

FWIW, I talked to a farmer

Submitted by GDrinnen2 on Fri, 2011/11/04 - 3:13pm.

FWIW, I talked to a farmer friend last week. He needs to hire a few hands, and has been interviewing.

One guy last week said "I'm ready to work. I'm on week 99".

Farmer says: "What's that mean?"

Interviewee: "My unemployment runs out next week"

Farmer says: "Oh, what have you been doing the past 99 weeks?"

Interviewee: "Well. . .nothing. I didn't need to. I just told you I was getting unemployment."

He's also had four interviewees ask if they could get paid under the table so they could keep getting unemployment.

I know a couple of people who have been on the receiving end of unemployment benefits, where it served its exact purpose. I just spoke to a distant family member, in fact, who is receiving benefits and applying for every job in sight.

My only point is that there is massive abuse, to go along with each of those folks who really need the benefits. It kills me that every conversation about unemployment benefits stoops to generalizations and polarization.

gonzone's picture

really?

Submitted by gonzone on Fri, 2011/11/04 - 3:20pm.

"My only point is that there is massive abuse"

Care to substantiate that claim with some hard numbers?

Anecdotes need not apply.

Is that you Ramsey?

adanovi's picture

Where are the professional career jobs?

Submitted by adanovi on Fri, 2011/11/04 - 3:41pm.

"As concentrated poverty spreads to new areas, including suburbs, the residents are now more likely to be white, native-born and high school or college graduates — not the conventional image of high-school dropouts or single mothers in inner-city ghettos."

Poorest Poor in US hits new record: 1 in 15 people

Mary the prez's picture

Several 'demographics not mentioned here include:

Submitted by Mary the prez on Sun, 2011/11/06 - 6:19pm.

thousands of BUSH war veterans and their families (veterans came home to NO jobs, and some even came home to NO home as their families were pushed into the streets by toxic mortgages.

Also, not counted are obviously the thousands of 'laid off' teachers, fire-fighters, police and government workers, cut by the GOP Congress to " pay down the debt".

The Brookings Institute is a GOP think tank, so one has to wonder what they were trying to prove with this study. Also, each individual State, especially those like Tennessee, run by a GOP Governor and Legislature, have laid off hundreds of workers to....whatever excuse they provide. Many of these jobs will not be there, so those are some of the 'professional career jobs' that will not be available in the future...like the 37 employees in the Department of Economic Development!

cafkia's picture

It is my understanding,

Submitted by cafkia on Fri, 2011/11/04 - 4:20pm.

It is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, that to get unemployment you have to have had a "qualifying" job that you lost through no fault of your own. If I am mostly correct, then the description "massive abuse" would also be correctly stated as "people trying to get all that they have worked for and are entitled to".

The abuse occurs when people like Ramsey spend so long on the public teat that they can no longer remember what having to actually work for a living feels like. They can no longer empathize with those who needs must entrust their financial lives to those whose primary concerns lie elsewhere. That sir, is abuse and indeed, the problem is massive in this land.

Rachel's picture

It is my understanding,

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2011/11/04 - 5:15pm.

It is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, that to get unemployment you have to have had a "qualifying" job that you lost through no fault of your own.

Well, no (and this has nothing to do with what Ramsey was talking about). What you describe is indeed how the system is supposed to work. It's not how it works in practice, in Tennessee anyway.

When I was working at TVA, I had to fire someone for cause (and if you have any idea how difficult it is to fire somebody at TVA, you will believe that it was very good cause). She applied for unemployment. When we went to the hearing, the TVA attorney told me that he expected her to win. I was stunned.

So we all went and testified. Then the judge said that yes, we had definitely fired her for cause, but that he was granting her unemployment anyway.

That's apparently common in these parts and it was quite a lesson for me.

Min's picture

That's because you were unaware of the statutory standard.

Submitted by Min on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 4:50pm.

A person may be fired for cause and still qualify for unemployment benefits. Only if the person is fired for actual misconduct connected with work will that person be denied unemployment benefits. The fact that an employer doesn't want someone as an employee any more and articulates a reason to justify separating that person from employment does not mean the person is guilty of misconduct under the statutory standard.

Also, in order to qualify for unemployment benefits in Tennessee, you must be available for work and looking for work.

Rachel's picture

This person was fired for

Submitted by Rachel on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 5:34pm.

This person was fired for insubordination (after months of progressive disciplinary action because of things done and/or said in the course of doing her job).

Does that qualify as "actual misconduct"?

This was not just somebody we "didn't want as an employee any more." This was someone who, because her actions were disrupting the rest of the work unit, alienating customers, etc., made it impossible for us to keep her as an employee any longer.

Believe me, if we hadn't had to fire her, we wouldn't have. It is almost impossible to fire anybody at TVA. The very fact that we did it, and made it stick, is evidence of how bad the situation was.

Stop reading if you don't want further details.

During the progressive disciplinary action, the person went to her union for help. They told her that she was in the wrong. Then she claimed that I had harrassed her at work until she became emotionally disabled, and filed an EEO complaint, saying I was discriminating against the handicapped. The TVA hearings officer threw it out. She appealed to Washington and they threw it out as well.

After she was fired, she filed a civil suit, which she dropped the day before it was to go to court, after making us suffer through depositions, etc.

The entire episode, from the beginning of disciplinary action to the day she dropped the civil suit, took 3 years.

No way I would have gone through all that if there was another way to handle the situation other than firing her.

Min's picture

I wasn't being pejorative.

Submitted by Min on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 6:00pm.

You didn't want her to be an employee anymore. The fact that you had good reason for wanting it doesn't make my statement inaccurate. In fact, it's generally accurate for most firing situations.

Sometime insubordination is considered misconduct, and sometimes it is not. It depends on the facts of the situation and whether the conduct rises to the level of conduct "evincing such wilful and wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard to standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or occurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design..."

It's a pretty high standard.

Rachel's picture

Well, the reason for the

Submitted by Rachel on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 7:29pm.

Well, the reason for the actual firing was this: since she claimed to be emotionally handicapped, and since we wanted to make reasonable accomodation to that handicap (this was before the EEO hearings), and what she wanted was leave without pay (after she used up all her sick leave), we let her have it. For months.

However, we weren't allowed to put her on LWOP status w/o her request (for very good reason - managers shouldn't have the power to do that w/o an employee request), so she periodically had to inform us that she wanted to stay on it.

The last time I contacted her to tell her we needed her to request more LWOP, she refused. I explained in a LOT of detail that I couldn't put her on LWOP status w/o her requesting it, and if she didn't request it, since she was out of annual and sick leave, she would be absent w/o leave. I explained to her that I would then be forced to take further action, which might include firing.

She still refused. So I fired her.

Her conduct seemed pretty wanton and wilful to me.

SnM's picture

"That's apparently common in these parts"

Submitted by SnM on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 5:57pm.

My anecdotal experience says that employers are able to have unemployment benefits denied for employees fired for less than misconduct, so I'm not sure how common "that" is in these parts.

Min's picture

Well...

Submitted by Min on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 6:06pm.

I've been representing employees for 24 years, and I've never had DOL deny benefits on the basis of conduct that was not considered misconduct connected to work.

There are two circumstances under Tennessee law which render an otherwise eligible applicant ineligible for unemployment benefits...voluntary quit and misconduct. The question asked by the agency is one of the following: Did the employee quit without good cause connected to work, or was the employee fired for misconduct connected with work? If the answer is yes to either question, the employee is deemed ineligible for unemployment benefits.

SnM's picture

He said/she said

Submitted by SnM on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 6:20pm.

I've known a couple of people over the years, including recently, fired "for cause" without cause - as far as I know. I only have the worker bee perspective, and I will admit, I don't know everything these folks did - I only know that they seemed like people of good character to me, and I knew enough of management to believe they weren't.

Came down to "They allege this, but I didn't do it," but benefits were denied on the basis of what the organization charged. That's as far as it went. If there is an appeals process or whatever, the folks I knew didn't go that route; they just wanted to put that behind them and find a new job.

Min's picture

They should have appealed.

Submitted by Min on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 7:13pm.

A false allegation by an employer wouldn't have been upheld in the evidentiary hearing before the Appeals Tribunal. Of course, if they had a high likelihood of finding another position quickly, it might not have been worth their time to go through the appeals process.

Rachel's picture

Came down to "They allege

Submitted by Rachel on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 7:20pm.

Came down to "They allege this, but I didn't do it," but benefits were denied on the basis of what the organization charged.

I had documentation. About three inches of it. And corroborating witnesses. Still didn't matter.

Don't know if it matters, but this whole thing was over 15 years ago.

And BTW, I'm not being unsympathetic to folks who should receive unemployment. I'm just saying that there are folks who get it who don't deserve it.

SnM's picture

the statement was "it's apparently common here"

Submitted by SnM on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 7:41pm.

I was offering an anecdotal counterpoint to that statement.

I think some folks who deserve unemployment benefits are reluctant to go through the appeals process. Can't believe employers would make up things and don't want to get into that kind of thing, don't want get into an involved process, aren't of a "litigious" nature, just don't think that they ought to have to fight for these benefits in the first place - a lot of different reasons. And I think many folks just want to get back to work not fight for scraps.

Of course, in this economy I'm sure there's a lot more fighting. But since I'm likely to face same soon, I should just drop the whole depressing subject.

bizgrrl's picture

Yeah, I can't imagine

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sun, 2011/11/06 - 5:39am.

Yeah, I can't imagine initiating an appeal to obtain denied unemployement compensation, especially as a young person. I suppose now that many 30+ year olds are getting fired/laid off there might be more people appealing denial of unemployment.

Depressing it would be to involuntarily not have a job.

tennesseevaluesauthority's picture

The canaries in my coal mines keep committing suicide...

Submitted by tennesseevalues... on Fri, 2011/11/04 - 4:32pm.

$285 a week isn't a "lifestyle."

I note that Ramsey's examples of unfilled jobs are also jobs that require special licensing and training. Fair bet he's also pushing for cuts in programs that allow people to go back to school to get said licensing and training.

Blaming the unemployed for unemployment is the only logical choice Ron "Boots" Ramsey and his ilk have when they continue to make the case that the only way to recruit businesses to Tennessee is to reduce corporate tax burdens, end regulations, keep out the unions, make sure businesses are allowed to legally discriminate against homosexuals and limit the liability an in-state manufacturer might face if their products actually harm their customers.

You know, make us "business friendly."

After having done all that, unemployment stubbornly refuses to go down. It couldn't be our stubborn refusal to invest in things that actually bring jobs to the state like an educated workforce and reliable infrastructure, while devoting our leadership's energy to whether or not gay fetuses have the right to take their guns to Applebee's without proper photo ID.

So, it must be the fault of the people without work, because there's no way their attempts to create a business environment more akin to the era of robber barons and the Gilded Age can fail. After all, it worked out so well for the work force the first time...

jbr's picture

Maybe as a show of support,

Submitted by jbr on Fri, 2011/11/04 - 6:08pm.

As a show of support, Ramsey could try truck driving, etc. for awhile. See how it works out.

Andy Axel's picture

I think he'd quickly discover

Submitted by Andy Axel on Fri, 2011/11/04 - 8:32pm.

I think he'd quickly discover how much of being Lt. Governor in this state is a lifestyle more than it is a job (which is what allowed Sen. Wilder to do it for so long).

Min's picture

Ron's an idiot or a liar.

Submitted by Min on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 4:54pm.

Could be both. Anyhoo, he was crowing just a few weeks ago about Tennessee being one of the most business friendly states in the nation. Of course, no one in the media bothered to ask him a follow-up quesstion about why our vaunted business-friendly status wasn't producing jobs for Tennesseans and why our unemployment rate is greater than the national average.

R. Neal's picture

Just to mix it up a little,

Submitted by R. Neal on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 6:26pm.

Just to mix it up a little, the TNGOP passed a law during the most recent General Assembly, if I'm not mistaken, that allows uncorroborated hearsay evidence from employers in unemployment appeal hearings. In other words, state law now allows employers to make shit up and say "because I said so."

(Not directed at Rachel. Been there. Some people just need firing.)

Min's picture

Yup.

Submitted by Min on Sat, 2011/11/05 - 7:25pm.

The law allows personnel records and other business records, which might otherwise be considered hearsay, to be entered as evidence of misconduct in an appeal hearing, if the custodian of the record submits an affidavit certifying that the documents are business records. The law doesn't appear to apply to hearsay testimony given at the hearing, just to employer records.

But that's bad enough.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives