Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UC claims being witheld in PA

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The only reason the money you are paid in DC for the work you perform is because you must certify elgibility for UI on a weekly basis, including ANY money you earn. Where ever that money is earned.

    As to your UI for "self employed" individuals...
    (b) Unemployment compensation shall be paid to an officer of a corporation deemed to be a self-employed person, who is eligible under the provisions of this section, in the same manner and to the same extent as unemployment compensation paid to any other eligible claimant under the provisions of this act.

    (402.4 added July 21, 1983, P.L.68, No.30)

    I believe paragraph (b) pretty much says it all. Nothing else I have found in section IV changes the context of this graph.
    I don't believe you have read this statute correctly.
    Section 402.4. Eligibility of Officers of a Corporation Deemed to be Self-Employed Persons.
    Are you in fact an "officer of the corporation" ?
    If not... that nor any other section you may cut/paste or refer to is not relevant to your situation. So far, you haven't indicated you are an officer, or owner of any entity, but a paid employee.

    The fact your ER in DC is paying you by 1099 is in fact costing you money out of your pocket. When you file your W-2 tax forms, you are paying the employer share of your FICA taxes, which is about 6.5% of your gross income from "self employment". The employee pays 6.5% and the employer contribution is the match. Those are dollars you should not have to pay if your ER is playing fair and legally.
    Your DC ER is also committing fraud... by failure to include your wages in his Workers Compensation calculations...WC is based on a $100/payroll... so you see, you are contributing to that action/fraud by keeping quiet about these issues. You may feel you are not being affected, but you are participating in a 'scam' whether you know it or not.

    As the info trickles out here... it appears the org suggestion by Patty was valid after all...you may do well to consult that attorney. You may be an accomplice after the fact, intent to commit fraud. The DC employer's WC carrier may well come chasing after the parties involved for retro premiums due.
    It happened in Calif to the tune of $1.41M bucks. To one employer. It's not something to treat lightly or fool around with.
    Last edited by CAIW; 01-01-2011, 01:37 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Oh, I know all to well how much this is costing me, but I also work in this very small little world of people who all know each other no more than once or twice removed. In a culture like that there's no room to cheat, steal, or blow whistles, if you get what I mean...

      I'm just a grunt out doing trench work. It's lucrative ditch digging, but it's still just that. I don't think the local authorities would even care to bother with someone like me or the people that do my job. Seriously, to most people we are invisible until the minute they want something from us.

      But I do appreciate the heads up on it and I'm definitely going to look into it when I get back into town next spring. But I doubt anyone's going to do anything about it, and if someone decides to blow the whistle, well, it's just one less person the rest of us will have to compete with to make a living.

      As far as me being a corporate officer? No, of course I'm not. I'm not even in charge in my own house . That's my point. PA is insisting that I am self-employed and this is why they are holding out. I am not self-employed, but even if I was, I would qualify under that section of the law.

      And hey Ms./Mr. Moderator: I'm trying to be as honest and up front as possible here, while still maintaining my privacy, OK? Please stop trying to bait me. There's about $6K involved here, which isn't a whole hell of a lot, but it is about an off-season's worth of mortgages and bills for me, and like I said, times ain't what they used to be.

      I am not making demands on anyone, except the people a PA UC who are keeping me in the dark about my claim the last 8 weeks. This little adventure in dealing with a monolithic bureaucracy may not be complicated to you or other folks here, but it's been just the opposite for me.

      If you wish not to believe what I am trying to tell you, fine. If you think this is all a waste of the forum's time, that's fine too. Just say the word and I'm out of here. But otherwise I'm just trying to find out more about something I really don't know jack about, all right?

      Hell, if you want to get rid of me fast then all you have to do is give me the super-secret phone number and name of whoever is in charge of all this crap in PA. Or at least an Ombudsman type person or something. If I can find the person to help me get this whole thing moving in one direction or the other, I could be out of everyone's hair in a New York minute.

      I probably should have just barged in and asked for that in the first place. I could have been out of here three days ago.

      Man being unemployed is a PITA. Why in the hell would anyone want to do it?

      Comment


      • #18
        NO ONE is trying to bait you. NO ONE has said they do not believe you or that you are wasting anyone's time. No one has implied that. The only one who is making any such comments is you yourself.

        You appear to be a master at reading things that aren't there.
        The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

        Comment


        • #19
          As far as me being a corporate officer? No, of course I'm not. I'm not even in charge in my own house . That's my point. PA is insisting that I am self-employed and this is why they are holding out. I am not self-employed, but even if I was, I would qualify under that section of the law.
          Sorry...you are misreading that in its entireity...you are NOT eligible for UI under that section. Read it again, you must be a corporate member of the company to be eligible. That is very clear.
          Your ER in DC has paid you by 1099, claiming you are in fact "self employed" whether you agree, or like it. PA is accepting that declaration until DC clears it up. And your "self employment" earnings are affecting your eligibility for UI in PA. That is a fact.
          I'm just trying to find out more about something I really don't know jack about, all right?
          Here's a tip... when someone points out the error in your ways, "reading" of a statute, accept it.
          The best advice you have rec'd here yet is to contact an attorney. There is generally no fee for consultation, and a attorney would know the statute, rules etc, and how they may affect your claim for UI.
          People on this or any other message board do not provide legal advice, don't know anything about your claim, and can't provide the answers you are seeking.

          This last post is yet another full of rehortic that doesn't relate to your claim for UI in PA, DC or any other state.
          When you need help...try to just state the facts. Responses will be more relevant and helpful to you.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by glenntwo View Post
            As far as me being a corporate officer? No, of course I'm not. I'm not even in charge in my own house . That's my point. PA is insisting that I am self-employed and this is why they are holding out. I am not self-employed, but even if I was, I would qualify under that section of the law.
            The point you don't see is that when you receive a 1099, you are considered self-employed. When you are self employed you are not eligible for unemployment. That is what is holding up your claim.

            Comment

            Working...
            X