PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
2
options
 
Thursday, April 23, 2009

Part of the debate on whether Pennsylvania should accept $270 million in federal stimulus money to beef up the state fund that pays unemployment benefits has to do with the existing condition of the fund. In a word -- it's not good. Like other state funds, Pennsylvania's fund is now borrowing money from the federal government to make the payments and there's a current discussion in government, business and labor circles about how the fund should be replenished from state businesses and employees.

Here's one idea being promoted by Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industries.  People who get severances wouldn't be allowed to tap into unemployment benefits until their severance weeks run out. The thought is that with luck and determination that person would get a job quickly and not need to tap into the fund. Meanwhile, why should the taxpayers and businesses pay, especially in the case of an executive-level "golden parachute?"

I can tell you someone who would not agree with that idea -- even though I haven't asked him the specific question. A college graduate, Keith is a laid-off insurance manager who lives in Cheltenham Township. Until January, he worked at Prudential Insurance in Horsham. Two days after he was laid off, he and his wife enrolled in a project management certification course at  Penn State Abington and he paid their tuition with his severance. They think  project management is a skill that will keep them in the middle class. Her thought is that she wants two of them to be qualified. (She's been a stay-at-home mom.)

When I last talked to them, they were just finishing up their semester and struggling to make mortgage payments. They have two school-aged daughters and he was getting as many hours at Sam's Club as he could without affecting his unemployment comp. To them, the time of unemployment, while disheartening, also provided a chance for investment in themselves, just as President Obama suggested. So here's the public policy question: Is paying them $2,000 a month while they go to school a good use of taxpayer money?

Posted by Jane Von Bergen @ 10:52 AM  Permalink | 2 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:13 AM, 04/23/2009
    "Is paying them $2,000 a month while they go to school a good use of taxpayer money?" Yes, as long as they show the proof that they are attending school, i.e. paid tuition bill, documentation from the school. If they were in the federal TAA program for retraining of those permanently laid off from their jobs, there is a form that the schools complete to verify that the student is currently attending classes. Also, this family is attempting to better themselves and become employed gainfully, even the wife who was a stay at home mom. They did not take the severance money and blow it on a trip, or other luxuries that they should not have. I never understood why the PA UC law allowed someone who received a large lump sum severance to also collect full UC benefits when someone who is on Worker Compensation cannot. After 9/11 it seemed Pres Bush jumped the gun when he kicked in extended UC benefits before the outcome of the effect on jobs/economy was known. At least using federal money at this time in our devastated economy, the need is known.
    Toot44
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:33 AM, 04/28/2009
    I have to check in on them and see how they are doing. Then I'll update. Thanks for commenting, Toot!
    Jane Von Bergen


2 comments
About Jane M. Von Bergen
Jane M. Von Bergen covers workplace issues, health insurance and organized labor for the Philadelphia Inquirer. A veteran business writer, she is now covering her second recession. She can be reached at jvonbergen@phillynews.com.

Every day for 60 days, Inquirer staff writer Jane M. Von Bergen profiled someone from the ranks of the region’s unemployed.

Looking for Work: An Inquirer Series
Jobs At a Loss: An Inquirer Series