Catchy title, eh? Well, it's a boring topic.
Of course I think more highly of Satan than the unemployment insurance system (UES). Satan is too smart & crafty to design something so dysfunctional. Now....on to the post:
I'm an employer & former employee. I've seen how people abuse the system by treating it as a paid vacation, sometimes years long. Others work cash jobs or businesses, while collecting. But aren't they supposed to stop collecting if they give up looking for a job or become employed? Officially, yes. But in the real world, the state (MI) doesn't really care enuf to do anything about it. Why should they care.....the employer pays the entire cost of benefits paid out & the state's massive overhead. So abuse is rampant. By now, you're wondering what can be done about this abomination by now, eh? Well, as you suspected, I have a plan.
Instead of having the employer be the sole funder of the UES, it's a co-pay approach, ie, both the employer & employee pay UES taxes. Each would pay about half the cost, but one's share would increase or decrease depending upon their individual employment history. If an employer has a history of few lay-offs, his contribution would be low. If an employee has a history of not being laid off, then his contribution would be low. If either had the opposite record, then UES tax would be higher. Thus, both parties have the incentive to avoid lay-offs. Employers already experience this, but now the laid off employee would face the prospect of paying higher taxes upon becoming re-employed.
There's one final advantage to this system: It's educational. It makes the employee aware of the larger picture, ie, that benefits have costs, & actions have consequences.
Of course I think more highly of Satan than the unemployment insurance system (UES). Satan is too smart & crafty to design something so dysfunctional. Now....on to the post:
I'm an employer & former employee. I've seen how people abuse the system by treating it as a paid vacation, sometimes years long. Others work cash jobs or businesses, while collecting. But aren't they supposed to stop collecting if they give up looking for a job or become employed? Officially, yes. But in the real world, the state (MI) doesn't really care enuf to do anything about it. Why should they care.....the employer pays the entire cost of benefits paid out & the state's massive overhead. So abuse is rampant. By now, you're wondering what can be done about this abomination by now, eh? Well, as you suspected, I have a plan.
Instead of having the employer be the sole funder of the UES, it's a co-pay approach, ie, both the employer & employee pay UES taxes. Each would pay about half the cost, but one's share would increase or decrease depending upon their individual employment history. If an employer has a history of few lay-offs, his contribution would be low. If an employee has a history of not being laid off, then his contribution would be low. If either had the opposite record, then UES tax would be higher. Thus, both parties have the incentive to avoid lay-offs. Employers already experience this, but now the laid off employee would face the prospect of paying higher taxes upon becoming re-employed.
There's one final advantage to this system: It's educational. It makes the employee aware of the larger picture, ie, that benefits have costs, & actions have consequences.
Last edited:
