Unemployment question

[tbb113]

This is a long shot...but maybe somebody knows the answer.

1) I live in CA
2) I am currently on unemployment

If I take a contract position (1099 type)...am I still eligible for unemployment when the contract ends or have I effectively declared myself 'self-employed' and therefore no longer eligible for unemployment?

If I take a 1099 position and DON'T report it to unemployment (illegal and unethical), will they be able to figure out that I'm getting paid prior to me filing my 2006 tax return? In other words, when do 1099's go to the state (quarterly or yearly)?

The first question is really the more pressing one since I am in computers and there are many contract positions floating around.

[Aubergine]

in the past, 1099's were yearly, like W-2s. now, in the age of computers, i wouldn't hazard a guess, nor risk it.

why not pull up the CA unemployment site and read what it says? i had to check out another matter on the CA state website several months ago for my son, and it was easily located and very user-friendly. google "state of California" and the site will guide you to info.

i've also done this with NJ and, if you really need to know something, all of the state stautes and agency rules and regulations are available and not hard to locate. you might have to wade through a 20-pg PDF file in a window, but it's all there for the public to read.

[mundy]

1099 are still are filed once a year at the end of the year unless your job ends earlier and you won't be re-hired. In that case the employer may (at his discretion) file your 1099 at that time.

Most states allow self-employed people to file for unemployment providing they have also been employed by a company that paid unemployment tax on their behalf within the time frame (usually the last 5 quarters). I'm self employed for part of each year and employed in a seasonal job by another company part of the year. I am able to collect unemployment for the time between the two jobs. You'll need to check with Calif. as Aubergine suggested to know for sure.

[blazedog]

You can be an independent contractor and then collect unemployment as long as your claim still is current -- i.e. go on and off.

The best way to handle it is to just not fill in the claim form and then reopen your claim when you are ready to collect again. Technically there are many reasons why you wouldn't fill out the claim form -- you have to be looking for work and ready to work for example.

What you shouldn't do is collect while working because that's fraud. If you make less than the claim amount (hard to do in California :D) you can file for the difference that claim period.

[tbb113]

You can be an independent contractor and then collect unemployment as long as your claim still is current -- i.e. go on and off.

The best way to handle it is to just not fill in the claim form and then reopen your claim when you are ready to collect again. Technically there are many reasons why you wouldn't fill out the claim form -- you have to be looking for work and ready to work for example.

What you shouldn't do is collect while working because that's fraud. If you make less than the claim amount (hard to do in California :D) you can file for the difference that claim period.

Thanks ... I wasn't sure about the independent contractor part and I'll see if I can verify it when I go to Unemployment for my mandatory 'job search' meeting on 8/1.

I know I shouldn't collect while working .... I was just wondering if I would get caught. I'm making the maximum, a whopping $450/week which just about covers my rent :eek: :rolleyes: So far it is all theoritical anyways

[BakerJane]

Unemployment regulations vary by state. In Illinois you must be employed for 4 weeks before your unemployment benefits end.

CA should have a state website with all the necessary information.

[Canice]

I'm making the maximum, a whopping $450/week which just about covers my rent :eek: :rolleyes: So far it is all theoritical anyways

Looks like you have the info you need, Tyra, as far as the "whopping $450/week" well, I was on unemployment in 2002 (like about half the people I knew) and the max was a whopping $220/week - nope not enough to cover rent much less, say, utilities or a loaf of bread. Unemployment benefits were revised dramatically that year.

As you know, I've done TONS of freelance/"contract" work and almost no employer will give me a 1099 because the law is very, very clear on what constitutes a contractor. If you're sitting in their desk, in their office, using their computer and pens, you probably don't qualify as a contractor. (Not to say that some employers don't mind breaking the law when it's convenient.)

[blazedog]

.

As you know, I've done TONS of freelance/"contract" work and almost no employer will give me a 1099 because the law is very, very clear on what constitutes a contractor. If you're sitting in their desk, in their office, using their computer and pens, you probably don't qualify as a contractor. (Not to say that some employers don't mind breaking the law when it's convenient.)

This is such a matter of disgust for me because employers do it to exploit workers since they don't have to pay any benefits for a long term independent contractor.

There was a case filed by the microserfs who toiled at Microsoft for literally decades as independent contractors. It was decided for them.

However, as Canice pointed out, it's difficult for an individual to make a stand when they need the work because the employer (oops technically not :D ) will just engage the services of another more exploitable individual.

With the increase in medical costs, I have seen the rise of what are literally two classes of workers in a corporation -- employees and those hired as independent contractors.

[Canice]

I would guess that 2% of the companies I've worked for did the 1099 thing and they were small operations. Big agencies all knew what happened at Microsoft and it's just not worth it to them. Can you believe I took a temporary job as a receptionist (could you get any less "independent contractor" than that?) and they paid me, yep, on a 1099. The company was owned by a huge multi-national and I couldn't believe it was worth the risk to them. Plus, the already lowly wage I was making was of course subject to all those self-employment taxes. And they were otherwise such a cool company to work for. :(

[blazedog]

I would guess that 2% of the companies I've worked for did the 1099 thing and they were small operations. Big agencies all knew what happened at Microsoft and it's just not worth it to them. Can you believe I took a temporary job as a receptionist (could you get any less "independent contractor" than that?) and they paid me, yep, on a 1099. The company was owned by a huge multi-national and I couldn't believe it was worth the risk to them. Plus, the already lowly wage I was making was of course subject to all those self-employment taxes. And they were otherwise such a cool company to work for. :(

I am never surprised by the stupidity of corporations unless management is really on top of things. Most non HR people (and even lawyers who don't practice employment law or have a good grasp of general corporate stuff) think that merely calling someone an independent contractor makes them so -- super tax avoidance and they can blow their whole pension structure as well.

[tbb113]

Most of the jobs I've been seeing are for W2-contract in IS. I do have a friend that has her own IS consultanting company and has offered to put me on her payroll if someone won't take an independant contractor working on their own. During the mid-1980's I did 1099 contracting but that was before IRS regulations changed

My real question comes from the potential job change...completely different industry, its a good friend that would be doing this for me and I think she can either put me on her payroll or treat me as a 1099 independent contractor (I would be doing case management for geriatric/elder abuse cases). She is a court appointed financial conservator.