• Report: #757310
Complaint Review:

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment

  • Submitted: Wed, July 27, 2011
  • Updated: Mon, August 29, 2011

  • Reported By: Concerned_citizen — Colorado Springs Colorado U.S.A.
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
251 E. 12th Ave. Denver, Colorado United States of America

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Colorado Unemployment Benefits They're not there to help us Denver, Colorado

*Consumer Comment: That's what they want you to think.

*Author of original report: They Should Just Privatize Unemployment Insurance

*Consumer Comment: Here's another point of view..

REBUTTAL BOX™ | Respond to this Report! | Consumer Comment

What's this?
Corporate Advocacy Program

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight:
Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Suppose that somebody hasn't been able to get a better job than working in retail, and finally gets the opportunity to work in a better industry, like Engineering, IT, or Computer Science.  Now suppose that this somebody quits the retail job and takes the new job, (with the more prestigious industry, with better pay). Unfortunately, because of "at will" employment, (which is in and of itself grossly unfair to the employee, but that will have to be a separate discussion), this new job decides to terminate this person, through no fault of his or her own, within just a few weeks after starting.  This person would be worse off than before, now being unemployed, and unfortunately, not being able to get any help from so-called "Unemployment Benefits."  This is because the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment has unfair criteria for how they determine what benefits the unemployed person qualifies for. 

For example, they don't have any set amount of money that they give people who need these benefits, and they certainly don't look at your monthly budget, or rent/mortgage amount, to see how much you actually need.  What they actually do is to consider how much money you made during each quarter, going back about a year and three months from the time you file for Unemployment, but they don't count the most recent quarter.  For example, if you file for Unemployment at the end of June of 2011, then they count the wages you made from April 2010 through March of 2011.  If it was after March 2011 that you got that "better job" that terminated you in June, that's just too bad!  

You would have had to have been at that "better job" at least three months before Unemployment would be willing to acknowledge any of the money you made there, even if they agree that it wasn't your fault that they terminated you.  You would have had to have been there at least six months before they would give you credit for being there for a whole quarter (that they are willing to count), so as to be eligible for the full amount of benefits you ought to be.  (Of all the quarters that they consider, when you made money, and left that particular job that you had then, for reasons they accept, they take the one with the greatest average amount earned, and give you about 60% of what you made then, in bi-weekly payments).

As I briefly explained above, they look at each individual job that you had, during each quarter that they are willing to look at, and they have to accept the reason why you left each individual one, before they would count any of the money you made, toward a potential benefit.  This may be fair for people who have no sense of commitment, and would just quit a job at the drop of a hat, but this is not true of everybody.  What if somebody had been working for a steady retail job for over three years, and then finally finishes a college degree in a good field, and gets an offer for a way better job?  That new job had better work out, because if this person quits the retail job to take the "better" one, but gets terminated within just a few weeks, then THIS PERSON WOULD BE S.O.L.  Unemployment doesn't think that quitting one job to take another one (even if it pays way better)  is a "good enough" reason, so they won't count anything you made at that old job. 

Another thing to consider is that this system penalizes people for being with their most recent employer only a short amount of time. This would be fair only if all terminations were for just cause.  However, this State pretty much lets employers terminate their employees at the drop of a hat, with little or no recourse.  It is interesting to note that during the 2006 Colorado midterm election, there was going to be a proposed ballot initiative to allow terminations only for just cause.  However, it, along with a couple others, mysteriously disappeared from the ballot, just before Election Day that year.  This proves that the Government, and its "services" are not really here to help us, or help the little guy.  You can only count on them to take taxes from your hard-earned money, and give you nothing in return, but inefficiency, bureaucracy, and bailouts for Special Interests. 

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/27/2011 06:30 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/colorado-department-of-labor-and-employment/denver-colorado-80203/colorado-department-of-labor-and-employment-colorado-unemployment-benefits-theyre-not-the-757310. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Colorado Department of Labor and Employment

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
1Author 2Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

That's what they want you to think.

AUTHOR: mr rik - (USA)

The best scenario would be to layoff all the benefits workers for a few months,(from the bottom to the top) and hire the unemployed to replace them.  Now they get to deal with their own mess trying to get benefits.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

They Should Just Privatize Unemployment Insurance

AUTHOR: Concerned_citizen - (U.S.A.)

I think that the way Unemployment Benefits work now is so messed up, both from the unemployed person's, and from a business' point of view, that the current system in place should just be gradually phased out. (I would still support letting people who are currently receiving Unemployment money keep it for now, so they wouldn't get completely screwed).  

In place of this system, I think that Unemployment Insurance should be privatized, and that the premiums should become the responsibility of the employee, not of the businesses they work for.  I will explain:  

The private insurance industry is doing relatively well these days, and has a healthy amount of competition, especially for car insurance and renter's insurance companies. It is usually possible, these days, to shop around and find a much better rate for a good amount of coverage.  I think that these same sorts of companies should offer varying levels of coverage, to the employees, against losing their jobs (through no fault of their own).  The nicest thing about doing it this way would be that it would allow each individual employee to choose an appropriate amount of coverage for his or her own needs, based on how much of a premium he or she could easily afford.  For example, I would like to be able to choose between having the insurance company pay my rent for me for a few months, or give me a certain lump sum payment, or a certain percentage of my most recent salary, if I were to become unemployed, not by my own fault, during the coverage period.  There are already many insurance companies offering coverages like these, but nearly all in other countries, mostly in Europe.  There are hardly any companies in the USA offering coverage like this, but I wish that there were many more.  Maybe if people realized how unhelpful the Government "Unemployment Insurance" program really is, then this would be remedied.  Personally, it would be worth at least $30 to $50 per month to me, to buy coverage like this for myself, and possibly more if I were to get a higher-paying job.  Private insurance companies could easily offer coverage like I was describing above for premiums in this range.

Now it is true that employers could still pay the premiums, or offer Unemployment coverage as a benefit, even if Unemployment Insurance were to be privatized, but I don't favor doing it this way, because it would take control away from the employee, who needs this coverage most.  It would also run the risk that eligibility for coverage would still not be in the employee's best interests.  For example, companies would still probably want to keep a certain waiting period after hire, in order to minimize cost to them.  However,  if the coverage and premiums were the employee's responsibility, then the employee could just sign up for the insurance, and be covered, as soon as possible after they start the new job.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

Here's another point of view..


Why should you get benefits tied to the higher paying job which you only held for "a few weeks?"

The benefits would appear to be based on what was contributed to unemployment by your employer(s).

Businesses also have so many government rules that it would be unwise to force them to prove they only let an employee go for cause. I already wonder why anyone would want to own/run a business.  It's a no with trying to follow all the existing rules.

The method they use to determine benefits allows for the employer's payments to be reasonable and not deplete the funds.

It's irrelevant how much money you "need" to pay your rent, utilities, car payment, groceries, child care, taxes, alimony, or whatever "NEEDS" you have .  If this were the case, I'd just buy all I could and then apply for unemployment commensurate with MY needs.   You can believe others would also do the same.

Your idea of fair is unworkable.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?