Airlines and Unemployment Insurance
09-10-2012, 05:36 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 1,982
Airlines and Unemployment Insurance
I put this in the Majors section because so many people have been through this in the past...
I worked for a 121 Company who is Headquartered in Florida. They have crew bases in Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana. The company recently laid off a large number of crew members. Those of us that were based in New Jersey have had problems filing for unemployment. The state of New Jersey does not show any of our income earned in the state. They say the computer records indicate all the income was earned in the state of Florida.
I've been through this ordeal a few times in the past concerning collecting unemployment. In the previous cases, I always was paid unemployment in the state where I was domiciled. The company that let us go is claiming they are a Florida based company and since we got our "daily directions and orders" from Florida that they were not required to pay the NJ unemployment taxes. I've spoke with an IRS agent and I'm waiting for a call back from the State of NJ unemployment office.
Does anyone have any experience in this area? The max weekly benefit in Florida is $275 while it is $600 in New Jersey. There are about 30 of us from this domicile that are affected by this and I'd like to collect some info to help things along.
Thank you for any input.
I worked for a 121 Company who is Headquartered in Florida. They have crew bases in Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana. The company recently laid off a large number of crew members. Those of us that were based in New Jersey have had problems filing for unemployment. The state of New Jersey does not show any of our income earned in the state. They say the computer records indicate all the income was earned in the state of Florida.
I've been through this ordeal a few times in the past concerning collecting unemployment. In the previous cases, I always was paid unemployment in the state where I was domiciled. The company that let us go is claiming they are a Florida based company and since we got our "daily directions and orders" from Florida that they were not required to pay the NJ unemployment taxes. I've spoke with an IRS agent and I'm waiting for a call back from the State of NJ unemployment office.
Does anyone have any experience in this area? The max weekly benefit in Florida is $275 while it is $600 in New Jersey. There are about 30 of us from this domicile that are affected by this and I'd like to collect some info to help things along.
Thank you for any input.
09-10-2012, 06:07 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD80 Captain
Posts: 165
I think you're out of luck. You'll have to file in FL.
Within the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, it states that if a company has services located in many states but has a base of operations in one state, the company shall pay all SUI (state unemployment tax) to that state.
An airlines base of operations is where it's HQ is.
Google the FUTA. You'll find a lot of examples.
Good luck
Within the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, it states that if a company has services located in many states but has a base of operations in one state, the company shall pay all SUI (state unemployment tax) to that state.
An airlines base of operations is where it's HQ is.
Google the FUTA. You'll find a lot of examples.
Good luck
09-10-2012, 06:58 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Chperplt
I think you're out of luck. You'll have to file in FL.
Within the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, it states that if a company has services located in many states but has a base of operations in one state, the company shall pay all SUI (state unemployment tax) to that state.
An airlines base of operations is where it's HQ is.
Google the FUTA. You'll find a lot of examples.
Good luck
Within the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, it states that if a company has services located in many states but has a base of operations in one state, the company shall pay all SUI (state unemployment tax) to that state.
An airlines base of operations is where it's HQ is.
Google the FUTA. You'll find a lot of examples.
Good luck
09-10-2012, 11:45 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
yep....you will most likly have to file in the state the company is Hq'd......also as a twist ...for short term employees... in most situations you must file in the state where you had your best 2 or 3 quarters of earnings in the past 18 months. IN 2009 i was laid off from a 135 carrier in a southern state.... I ended up drawing unemployment from Indiana...based on my earnings from a 121 carrier in that state.....go figure.
09-10-2012, 12:22 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
yep....you will most likly have to file in the state the company is Hq'd......also as a twist ...for short term employees... in most situations you must file in the state where you had your best 2 or 3 quarters of earnings in the past 18 months. IN 2009 i was laid off from a 135 carrier in a southern state.... I ended up drawing unemployment from Indiana...based on my earnings from a 121 carrier in that state.....go figure.
I went ahead and filed in Florida. It will probably get kicked back to me because I had already opened a claim in NJ. Sat on hold for an hour trying to cancel the claim so the computer wouldn't throw up any red flags. We'll see what happens.
What I find ironic is this: The company claiming its based in Florida for purposes of the unemployment insurance. The paychecks all come from a California office. Our FSDO and POI are out of Sacramento. When we screamed bloody murder about how expensive our health care premiums were...the company claimed there was nothing they could do about it since the company was in California so thats what our rates were based on. And now I get a letter in the mail from The US Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of California saying that I am an unsecured creditor to the Bankruptcy of these fargin cork soakers. They owe me $5000 and I have a snowball chance in heck of seeing a dime of it.
I'm disgusted...absolutely disgusted.
09-10-2012, 01:49 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Fifth floor, window
Posts: 290
I was based and lived (paid state taxes, had residence) in another state from company HQ. When furloughed I filed unemployment in my state, and received their (my) benefits, which were about 50% more than the companies state rate. I think it matters where your legal residence is.
09-10-2012, 01:54 PM
#7
Junior Senior
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Whiskey Papa
Posts: 2,850
Originally Posted by pilotgolfer
I went ahead and filed in Florida. It will probably get kicked back to me because I had already opened a claim in NJ. Sat on hold for an hour trying to cancel the claim so the computer wouldn't throw up any red flags. We'll see what happens.
What I find ironic is this: The company claiming its based in Florida for purposes of the unemployment insurance. The paychecks all come from a California office. Our FSDO and POI are out of Sacramento. When we screamed bloody murder about how expensive our health care premiums were...the company claimed there was nothing they could do about it since the company was in California so thats what our rates were based on. And now I get a letter in the mail from The US Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of California saying that I am an unsecured creditor to the Bankruptcy of these fargin cork soakers. They owe me $5000 and I have a snowball chance in heck of seeing a dime of it.
I'm disgusted...absolutely disgusted.
What I find ironic is this: The company claiming its based in Florida for purposes of the unemployment insurance. The paychecks all come from a California office. Our FSDO and POI are out of Sacramento. When we screamed bloody murder about how expensive our health care premiums were...the company claimed there was nothing they could do about it since the company was in California so thats what our rates were based on. And now I get a letter in the mail from The US Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of California saying that I am an unsecured creditor to the Bankruptcy of these fargin cork soakers. They owe me $5000 and I have a snowball chance in heck of seeing a dime of it.
I'm disgusted...absolutely disgusted.
09-10-2012, 02:48 PM
#8
Administrator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
Caveat: I only know Washington law, not the unemployment laws in any other State.
General Advice: Apply for unemployment in the State in which you reside, and particularly if your resident state pays more that another state. The worst thing they can tell you is that you need to apply elsewhere.
http://nj.gov/labor/uimod/pdfs/UI.pdf
The link above is the NJ unemployment laws. Of course, I didn't read the whole darn thing in great detail, but I focused in on page 91 and then 101.
As I have always said on the forums, I could (could) be persuaded to represent you at an unemployment hearing if it comes to that.
Forgot to include this link where we had a similar discussion back in 2008.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/av...ent-101-a.html
General Advice: Apply for unemployment in the State in which you reside, and particularly if your resident state pays more that another state. The worst thing they can tell you is that you need to apply elsewhere.
http://nj.gov/labor/uimod/pdfs/UI.pdf
The link above is the NJ unemployment laws. Of course, I didn't read the whole darn thing in great detail, but I focused in on page 91 and then 101.
From Page 91:
(2) The term "employment" shall include an individual's entire service performed within
or both within and without this State if:
(A) The service is localized in this State; or
(B) The service is not localized in any state but some of the service is performed in this
State, and (i) the base of operations, or, if there is no base of operations, then the place from
which such service is directed or controlled, is in this State; or (ii) the base of operations or place
from which such service is directed or controlled is not in any state in which some part of the
service is performed, but the individual's residence is in this State.
(3) Services performed within this State but not covered under paragraph (2) of this
subsection shall be deemed to be employment subject to this chapter (R.S.43:21-1 et seq.) if
contributions are not required and paid with respect to such services under an unemployment
compensation law of any other state or of the federal government.
(4) Services not covered under paragraph (2) of this subsection and performed entirely
without this State, with respect to no part of which contributions are required and paid under an
unemployment compensation law of any other state or of the federal government, shall be
deemed to be employment subject to this chapter (R.S.43:21-1 et seq.) if the individual
performing such services is a resident of this State and the employing unit for whom such
services are performed files with the division an election that the entire service of such individual
shall be deemed to be employment subject to this chapter (R.S.43:21-1 et seq.).
(2) The term "employment" shall include an individual's entire service performed within
or both within and without this State if:
(A) The service is localized in this State; or
(B) The service is not localized in any state but some of the service is performed in this
State, and (i) the base of operations, or, if there is no base of operations, then the place from
which such service is directed or controlled, is in this State; or (ii) the base of operations or place
from which such service is directed or controlled is not in any state in which some part of the
service is performed, but the individual's residence is in this State.
(3) Services performed within this State but not covered under paragraph (2) of this
subsection shall be deemed to be employment subject to this chapter (R.S.43:21-1 et seq.) if
contributions are not required and paid with respect to such services under an unemployment
compensation law of any other state or of the federal government.
(4) Services not covered under paragraph (2) of this subsection and performed entirely
without this State, with respect to no part of which contributions are required and paid under an
unemployment compensation law of any other state or of the federal government, shall be
deemed to be employment subject to this chapter (R.S.43:21-1 et seq.) if the individual
performing such services is a resident of this State and the employing unit for whom such
services are performed files with the division an election that the entire service of such individual
shall be deemed to be employment subject to this chapter (R.S.43:21-1 et seq.).
From page 101
43:21-21. Reciprocal benefit arrangements
(a) The commissioner is hereby authorized to enter into arrangements with the
appropriate agencies of other states or the Federal Government whereby potential rights to
benefits accumulated under the unemployment compensation laws of several states or under such
a law of the Federal Government, or both, may constitute the basis for the payment of benefits
through a single appropriate agency under terms which the commissioner finds will be fair and
reasonable as to all affected interests and will not result in any loss to the fund.
(b) The commissioner is authorized to enter into arrangements with the appropriate
agencies of other states or of the Federal Government, or both, (1) whereby remuneration, upon
the basis of which an individual may become entitled to benefits under the Unemployment
Compensation Law of another state or of the Federal Government, shall be deemed to be wages
for the purposes of this chapter (R.S. 43:21-1 et seq.), and (2) whereby wages, on the basis of
which an individual may become entitled to benefits under this chapter (R.S. 43:21-1 et seq.)
102
shall be deemed to be remuneration on the basis of which benefits are payable under the
Unemployment Compensation Law of another state or of the Federal Government. No such
arrangement shall be entered into unless it contains provision for reimbursement to the fund for
such portion of benefits paid under this chapter (R.S. 43:21-1 et seq.) on the basis of
such remuneration, and provision for reimbursement from the fund for that portion of benefits
paid under such other law on the basis of such wages, as the commissioner finds will be fair and
reasonable as to all affected interests. Subsection (f) of 43:21-5 of this chapter (R.S. 43:21-1 et
seq.) sha ll be inapplicable to an individual who files a claim for benefits under any
such arrangement. The commissioner shall participate in any arrangements for the payment of
benefits on the basis of combining an individual's wages and employment covered under the
Unemployment Compensation Law of New Jersey with his wages in employment covered under
the Unemployment Compensation Laws of other states which are approved by the United States
Secretary of Labor in consultation with the State unemployment compensation agencies as
reasonably calculated to assure the prompt and full payment of benefits in such situations and
which include provisions for (1) applying the base period of a single State law to a claim
involving the combining of an individual's wages and employment covered under two or more
State Unemployment Compensation Laws, and (2) avoiding the duplicate use of wages and
employment by reason of such combining. Reimbursements paid from the fund pursuant to such
arrangements shall be deemed to be benefits for the purposes of this chapter (R.S. 43:21-1 et
seq.). The commissioner is hereby authorized to make to other state or Federal agencies, and to
receive from such other state or Federal agencies, reimbursements from or to the fund in
accordance with arrangements pursuant to this section.
43:21-21. Reciprocal benefit arrangements
(a) The commissioner is hereby authorized to enter into arrangements with the
appropriate agencies of other states or the Federal Government whereby potential rights to
benefits accumulated under the unemployment compensation laws of several states or under such
a law of the Federal Government, or both, may constitute the basis for the payment of benefits
through a single appropriate agency under terms which the commissioner finds will be fair and
reasonable as to all affected interests and will not result in any loss to the fund.
(b) The commissioner is authorized to enter into arrangements with the appropriate
agencies of other states or of the Federal Government, or both, (1) whereby remuneration, upon
the basis of which an individual may become entitled to benefits under the Unemployment
Compensation Law of another state or of the Federal Government, shall be deemed to be wages
for the purposes of this chapter (R.S. 43:21-1 et seq.), and (2) whereby wages, on the basis of
which an individual may become entitled to benefits under this chapter (R.S. 43:21-1 et seq.)
102
shall be deemed to be remuneration on the basis of which benefits are payable under the
Unemployment Compensation Law of another state or of the Federal Government. No such
arrangement shall be entered into unless it contains provision for reimbursement to the fund for
such portion of benefits paid under this chapter (R.S. 43:21-1 et seq.) on the basis of
such remuneration, and provision for reimbursement from the fund for that portion of benefits
paid under such other law on the basis of such wages, as the commissioner finds will be fair and
reasonable as to all affected interests. Subsection (f) of 43:21-5 of this chapter (R.S. 43:21-1 et
seq.) sha ll be inapplicable to an individual who files a claim for benefits under any
such arrangement. The commissioner shall participate in any arrangements for the payment of
benefits on the basis of combining an individual's wages and employment covered under the
Unemployment Compensation Law of New Jersey with his wages in employment covered under
the Unemployment Compensation Laws of other states which are approved by the United States
Secretary of Labor in consultation with the State unemployment compensation agencies as
reasonably calculated to assure the prompt and full payment of benefits in such situations and
which include provisions for (1) applying the base period of a single State law to a claim
involving the combining of an individual's wages and employment covered under two or more
State Unemployment Compensation Laws, and (2) avoiding the duplicate use of wages and
employment by reason of such combining. Reimbursements paid from the fund pursuant to such
arrangements shall be deemed to be benefits for the purposes of this chapter (R.S. 43:21-1 et
seq.). The commissioner is hereby authorized to make to other state or Federal agencies, and to
receive from such other state or Federal agencies, reimbursements from or to the fund in
accordance with arrangements pursuant to this section.
Forgot to include this link where we had a similar discussion back in 2008.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/av...ent-101-a.html
09-10-2012, 03:25 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 1,982
Vagabond,
The payroll lady at the company used some very specific wording on why they considered the NJ based crews employed in the state of Florida. She quoted chapter and verse something identical to this:
Use Florida's method for determine where to pay SUTA. it'll make it a lot simpler than trying to break it across the different states and credit one state toward another, but only if that state allows it, and so on.
https://taxlaw.state.fl.us/ut/eh/sect2.pdf
Tax & Wage Reporting, page 11 (PDF page 3). There is a 4 point test to determine where to report the employees wages.
1) Localization of services (if employee works more than 50% in Florida, you report to Florida)
2) Base of Operations (Main office where employee works)
3) Place of Direction or Control (Main office where employee receives instructions)
4) Place of Residence.
The only time you'd need to change which state you are paying SUTA to is if the employee transfers to a new office (see page 14). Then you worry about applying SUTA wages paid in one state against another.
She was real persistent in repeating item #3 several times. I came to the conclusion that I wasted enough mental energy on this...I can't say that I agree with it but I really can't afford to continue pushing on a rope.
Now here is a completely different issue. WARN notice. Who wants to chime in on when a company needs to provide advanced notice of mass layoffs? Because these fine upstanding individuals pulled the plug on us on the 31st and said you're done. All the previous places where I've been layed off have been obligated to give advanced warning of cuts. What makes this place different?
The payroll lady at the company used some very specific wording on why they considered the NJ based crews employed in the state of Florida. She quoted chapter and verse something identical to this:
Use Florida's method for determine where to pay SUTA. it'll make it a lot simpler than trying to break it across the different states and credit one state toward another, but only if that state allows it, and so on.
https://taxlaw.state.fl.us/ut/eh/sect2.pdf
Tax & Wage Reporting, page 11 (PDF page 3). There is a 4 point test to determine where to report the employees wages.
1) Localization of services (if employee works more than 50% in Florida, you report to Florida)
2) Base of Operations (Main office where employee works)
3) Place of Direction or Control (Main office where employee receives instructions)
4) Place of Residence.
The only time you'd need to change which state you are paying SUTA to is if the employee transfers to a new office (see page 14). Then you worry about applying SUTA wages paid in one state against another.
She was real persistent in repeating item #3 several times. I came to the conclusion that I wasted enough mental energy on this...I can't say that I agree with it but I really can't afford to continue pushing on a rope.
Now here is a completely different issue. WARN notice. Who wants to chime in on when a company needs to provide advanced notice of mass layoffs? Because these fine upstanding individuals pulled the plug on us on the 31st and said you're done. All the previous places where I've been layed off have been obligated to give advanced warning of cuts. What makes this place different?
09-10-2012, 05:17 PM
#10
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 99
Regarding the WARN notice... I worked for another 121 supplemental that shut the doors after 6 weeks of not making payroll. We never got notice about impending furloughs, although the writing was on the wall. One of the employees got a law firm to sue for the WARN act. It's been accepted by the bankruptcy court, and each one of us was owed about 10K plus our 6 weeks of pay and unpaid vacation. However, we'll be lucky to see 2-3K from all the monies that have been collected. You might be in luck, since they are still in operation.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
