* This seems like a pretty good walk-back…
State Sen. Bill Brady, a Republican candidate for governor, said Wednesday his comments about some people not wanting to return to manufacturing jobs because they were enjoying their unemployment insurance were insensitive.
“I think it was insensitive that I didn’t take into consideration there are a number of people out there looking for jobs who don’t want to be on unemployment,” Brady, of Bloomington, told the editorial board of The State Journal-Register. […]
At a forum Tuesday in Naperville, Brady said that the “No. 1 issue I run into when I travel around to manufacturing plants particularly” is that employers say, “‘I can’t hire my people back.’ They say, ‘They’re enjoying … their unemployment insurance,’” Chicago-based public radio station WBEZ-FM reported. “So we’ve got to motivate people to get back into the workforce.” […]
Brady said Wednesday that he was “talking to a group of manufacturers, some of which in the group had said this to me along different travels in the state.”
“We need to take care of people who are dealing with the difficulty of job displacement and help them get onto a path, but we have to make sure they continue to be motivated to find gainful employment,” he said.
The average unemployment benefit is $300 a week.
*** UPDATE *** Eric Zorn asked Illinois Manufacturer’s Association COO Mark Denzler about this…
Senator Brady was correct that the Illinois’ Average Weekly Wage is 9th highest in the nation. According to the US Department of Labor (first quarter, 2012), Illinois’ AWW was $322.44. In comparison, other states are Wisconsin at $277.80 (31st), Missouri at $239.21 (43rd), and Indiana at $302.60 (21st). Hawaii is the top at $424.61.
Additionally, he was correct in noting that Illinois’ duration of benefits at 18.8 weeks is the 9th highest in the country. Other states are Indiana at 14.4 weeks (44th), Wisconsin at 16 weeks (27th), and Missouri at 16.5 weeks (24th). Delaware is the top at 21.7 weeks.
We do hear from manufacturers that they have a hard time finding employees and some have noted problems with UI. With extended UI benefits, some workers choose to delay the start of a job search which limits the pool of applicants. For example, if a worker is eligible for 26 weeks of unemployment, they may wait until week 16 or 18 to begin a job search rather than looking immediately.
I personally know of an individual (acquaintance) in Decatur who has turned down three separate manufacturing jobs in the last three months. He lost his job and has been called for manufacturing jobs that pay $13-15 per hour. I was with him on one occasion when he got the call from the temp agency. He indicated that after taxes, paying the cost of fuel (job was 20 miles away), and working the 2nd shift, he would rather stay on unemployment because it was essentially a wash.
- MrJM - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:17 pm:
Sounds like he’d be a fantastic governor.
– MrJM
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:19 pm:
===”…there are a number of people out there looking for jobs who don’t want to be on unemployment,” ===
Meh.
“…there are a majority of people out there looking for jobs who don’t want to be on unemployment,”
Better.
“a number”, really? C’mon, “a number” is the best you can think about? You don’t think 50% plus 1 “don’t want to be unemployed”?
I am not parsing, it speaks to the walkback that “a number” is quite lazy to the fact that a majority of people would love to be back at work.
Do better, Brady Crew. Passig grade on the walk back, but not by much.
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:21 pm:
“A rich person told me a person on unemployment is gaming the system. Until I find that person on unemployment gaming the system, I’m not going to do a thing for people on unemployment.”
But seriously, I do want to commend Sen. Brady for admitting a mistake, kind of.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:24 pm:
–“No. 1 issue I run into when I travel around to manufacturing plants particularly” is that employers say, “‘I can’t hire my people back.’–
I simply don’t believe that. Why he said it, I don’t know.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:27 pm:
===”some of which in the group had said this to me along different travels in the state.”
Name one. Give us one example of a single business owner who believes it’s better to be on unemployment than on an actual payroll.
He can’t name anyone because no one ever said this to him. He said something dumb and very Romneylike, but he shouldn’t try to weasel out of it by saying, “well that’s what I heard,” like a 8th grader caught telling a whopper. Own it and then apologize for making up something stupid and outrageous.
Saying this is a pretty good walk-back is generous of you Rich. He’s basically saying it’s true some would rather be on the dole than working, but not everyone on the dole is in that camp. That’s not walking it back very much, is it?
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:28 pm:
“‘I can’t hire my people back.’
Well, if a manufacturer out can’t hire his people back because they are on unemployment, perhaps this manufacturer would identify itself via an Employees Wanted ad in a major newspaper or an internet jobs board.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:29 pm:
A lot of people here prefer their governor to be just a big fat wallet full of other people’s money to give to anyone wanting money.
A lot of people here are so in tune to the correct political angle on every issue, they chafe at Mr. Brady’s political deafness.
A lot of people here are so worried that Mr. Brady could be re-nominated, they will attack an old bumper sticker they found with his name on it, let alone whatever he says - correct or not.
The fact is that not everyone collecting unemployment does not want to return to work - but there are also many collecting unemployment who see it as an extended vacation. I know of several that see it this way.
What Mr. Brady should have done is what every other politician does regarding this issue - pretend that everyone is honest, even when they are not.
Just like the voters pretend that the folks they elect are honest, even when they are not.
Now, I don’t know too many who would be offended to hear that there are so many politicians that there are some needs for reform. On the other hand, Mr. Brady is discovering that there are many who are offended to hear that the programs their neighbors are using need to be reformed.
I would just rather hear Mr. Brady say he will not run for governor again, and leave it at that.
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:30 pm:
47th Ward has a point.
Brady should either be required to produce an employer to say this or be branded a liar.
If it’s the #1 problem there should be lots of examples.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:31 pm:
When Eric Zorn asked Brady for names of the business owners making claims about the unemployed, Brady demurred citing they gave him this information “in confidence”. So, Eric contacted and received a reply from Illinois Manufacturer’s Association:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2014/02/brady-unemployment-insurance-is-so-luxe-that-people-arent-taking-jobs.html#more
- Served - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:33 pm:
I guess the theory behind this is that Unemployment benefits are too generous if people are making more money than whatever wage the employer is offering.
I hardly find that plausible, but maybe the manufacturers should think about paying their workers more, if this is the case.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:34 pm:
Maybe Zorn should call VanillaMan, who knows several who think unemployment is a nice extended holiday.
Moron.
- Served - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:34 pm:
In other words, isn’t the extreme version of this philosophy to starve people until they’re willing to work for peanuts? Is that really where we’re at in America and Illinois now?
- CYR - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:35 pm:
Wow, Zorn actually did some investigative reporting without forcing his opinion on the issue. It is kinda funny that this gets no traction in comparison to Bradys comment.
- Just Observing - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:35 pm:
=== I guess the theory behind this is that Unemployment benefits are too generous if people are making more money than whatever wage the employer is offering. I hardly find that plausible, but maybe the manufacturers should think about paying their workers more, if this is the case.”
Unemployment checks are a percentage of one’s salary — it is always less than what one makes working full time.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:36 pm:
I’m a bit tired of misreading what Mr. Brady’s quoted businessman means. Employers would much rather re-hire their laid off employees than start from scratch hiring new people. The fact that their laid off employees don’t want to return to work is a problem for the businessmen. The fact that they are discovering that current social benefits to those they laid off are making those they laid off comfortable enough not to return, hurting their plans to rehire - should be considered a factor when laying off employees.
Please stop pretending that this is not a factor and just hiring off the street would solve the problem. That is misreading or misunderstanding the issue.
- Daryl - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:36 pm:
WBGZ’s version of this story actually pumps out some numbers comparing the wages of someone on umemployment vs a typical manufacturing job. Look at that and try to tell me someone is somehow living comfortably on those checks. http://altondailynews.com/news/details.cfm?clientid=17&id=112487#.UvPVtWJdX3E
- Served - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:37 pm:
== Unemployment checks are a percentage of one’s salary — it is always less than what one makes working full time. ==
Right, which is what makes Brady’s claim so baffling. Unless employers are slashing wages/salaries drastically, and a person’s work is now worth a fraction of what it used to be, there’s no way what he says is true.
- David P. Graf - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:38 pm:
If you are receiving unemployment benefits, why wouldn’t you hold out to get a job that pays you more than them? After all, things are tight already when you are getting UI (since it’s always less than what you were making when you had a job). Why would you want to put yourself behind the financial eight-ball?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:39 pm:
===The fact that their laid off employees don’t want to return to work is a problem for the businessmen.===
This is not a “fact.” That’s the problem. It’s an assertion. Try to understand the difference.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:42 pm:
Since this topic is so politically poisonous to discuss, how do you believe we can address it? I just don’t believe covering our eyes and ears while shouting at Mr. Brady or anyone else who mentions this will fix it.
We’ve been pretending it doesn’t exist for a long time or just feeling sorry for those needing our social programs, hoping this will all go away. That hasn’t worked and the situation is worsening.
So how do you people so offended by this topic propose we discuss it? Other than pretending it doesn’t exist or demanding names of those whispering it out of fear of being ostracized by you as being callous or heatless?
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:44 pm:
Try to understand…
Right. I’m not really hearing what I’m being told by the very people feeling comfortable with their unemployed situations. Oh, and I’m stupid too.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:45 pm:
Keep in mind, when a manufacturer lays off a worker, they are on the hook for a portion of the unemployment benefit.
If a former employee told a former employer “no thanks, I don’t want my job back, I like unemployment,” the employer would be crazy not to report that former employee to IDES. That’s money out of the employer’s pocket.
I simply don’t believe anyone ever said that to Brady, much less it’s “the No. 1 issue” among manufacturer’s. That makes no sense.
- Joan P. - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:48 pm:
If you are on UI because you’ve been laid off, and you are offered your old job back and don’t take it (assuming no major changes in salary/qualifications), you are disqualified from further UI.
If what these manufacturers are saying is true, then they should be reporting their former employees to IDES. Particularly since part of the UI payment is coming out of their own pockets.
- ThinkTangerine - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:49 pm:
A couple of things.
First, UI is a percentage of your former salary up to a certain point, the maximum weekly benefit amount. Once you’ve reached that threshold, it doesn’t matter how much more money you make per year at your old job, it won’t increase your weekly benefit amount.
Second, if an employer calls up a laid off employee that they’re paying a claim on*, offers them their old job back, and that employee refuses a reasonable offer of work, that employee is potentially no longer eligible because they refused an offer of work. Usually, the employer will then call IDES and report this so they no longer have to pay the claim. Presumably, Bill Brady as a business owner who pays UI taxes knows or should know this. If the old employer gets wind of the employee getting a reasonable offer of work from another employer that the employee refused, the old employer can do the same thing. What constitutes a reasonable offer of work depends on a lot of factors, including pay scale compared to the old job, pay scale compared to the UI benefit, distance traveled, how long the person has been out of work, etc.
*If the employer is considered the chargeable last employer, that employer pays the former employee’s benefits on a quarterly basis to IDES. It’s not a tax on employees and no UI money comes directly out of an employee’s check which is a very very common misconception. No regular employee “pays in ” to the UI pool.
So, Brady’s statement is very disingenuous if he knows anything about how UI benefits work. Most employers who have a former employee refusing to come back to work are going to call IDES and report them right quick because it stops them from having to pay out that amount to IDES on a quarterly basis.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:49 pm:
What he’s really saying: I really believe everything I said Tuesday, but I just found out if I say what I really mean I might lose votes.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:52 pm:
VM, the topic is Bill Brady walking back a dumb remark he made.
If you want the topic to be how we address the so-called problem of unemployment benefits that are so generous they bankrupt our government while robbing employers of potential employees, make your case that this is a real problem.
Just use some facts please. Don’t simply make an assertion and hold it up as self-evident becuase you believe it to be true. And remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.
- Mokenavince - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 12:56 pm:
It may be that he only visit’s people who pay $8.25 per hour = $330.00 per week. He might be
right they would just soon stay on comp.
In all honesty Brady tried a run for Gov.
and lost to, at the time a very weak Governor.
Quinn is going to be much tougher this time.
He’d lose again.
- Just Observing - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:01 pm:
== == Unemployment checks are a percentage of one’s salary — it is always less than what one makes working full time. == ==
== Right, which is what makes Brady’s claim so baffling. Unless employers are slashing wages/salaries drastically, and a person’s work is now worth a fraction of what it used to be, there’s no way what he says is true. ==
Agreed.
- Just Observing - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:05 pm:
The points raised above about people becoming ineligible for unemployment benefits if they refuse their old job back are excellent points.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:14 pm:
Just use some facts please.
I know it must be hard for you to accept something you don’t want to hear without it being presented by a factual source you consider legit.
So I mark you down as a “don’t want to discuss it”.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:21 pm:
VM, let me type slower for you:
I don’t accept your premise that this ia a problem for employers or for the taxpayers. You are arguing facts that aren’t in evidence.
You and Bill Brady say overly generous unemployment benefits are a problem for Illinois businesses because recipients are refusing to look for work. I’m calling BS on that.
- MrJM - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:27 pm:
The employers in question want to be able to hire workers the moment it is in the employers’ financial interest in the same way that they can fire workers the moment that is in the employers’ financial interest.
In their ideal situation, unemployed workers would be kept in a desperate state ready to scurry back to work the moment the boss snaps his fingers.
– MrJM
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:35 pm:
To accept Brady’s original comment at face value, you have to believe two very irrational things are happening:
–Employers are trying to hire back their laid-off workers, but they refuse to come back to work. The employers, however, do not report those workers to IDES, even though they are being charged for the unemployment benefits.
–The workers are too stupid and lazy to go back to work for much more money. They are then incredibly stupid enough to tell their former employers they want go back to work, even though that can terminate their unemployment benefits.
It doesn’t make sense. And the idea this thing that isn’t happening is the “No. 1″ issue for Illinois manufacturers is just weird.
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:37 pm:
Every human being, or at least nearly every human being, wants to work and feel they are contributing something to society
I am also very surprised to learn there are some facts backing up what I previously dismissed as empty rhetoric.
=== The average unemployment benefit is $300 a week. ===
=== Illinois’ AWW was $322.44 ===
Not sure how or what I feel about this yet. I just know it is surprising to learn that average unemployment benefits nearly match average weekly paychecks.
- sal-says - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:38 pm:
Nice spin by Illinois Manufacturer’s Association COO Mark Denzler.
===We do hear from manufacturers that they have a hard time finding employees and SOME…===
Let’s generalize from there.
Would mfgrs still have a problem is they were willing to PAY employees more?
===…SOME workers choose to delay…===
===…they MAY wait until week 16 or 18===
How many? What percentages?
===I personally know of AN individual…”===
Let’s generalize from that.
===…the call from the TEMP agency.===
So, the job wasn’t an offer for a permanent job?
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:47 pm:
VM, let me type slower for you:
Thanks, but I already got you marked down as “disinterested and irritated by the topic”.
Thanks for playing, but we already got your point of view covered.
Thanks again.
- Ahoy! - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:47 pm:
The problem is not just in manufacturing, it’s in other employment sectors as well. I didn’t think Brady’s comments were insensitive as much as they were poorly communicated. There people who would rather be on unemployment than working, the reasons vary and most of the time it’s because it can make more economic sense to be on unemployment for them.
There are also people out there who can not find jobs that well. Both of these statements are facts, let’s talk and debate about how to fix this instead of complaining about a poorly worded true statement being insensitive.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:48 pm:
FKA, it’s a little more complicated than that. Your unemployment benefit is derived from your pay from the job you just lost, or the average of your last several jobs, up to a maximum of something like $383 per week. So say you were making $100,000 per year and got laid off, your weekly benefit would be $383. Heck, if you were making $50,000 per year and got laid off, your weekly benefit would probably be $383 too (I can’t recall the exact figures, but IDES can sure verify this).
If you were making $8.25 an hour, working full-time, and got laid off, your weekly unemployment benefit would almost certainly be less than $300 per week, most likely significantly less.
So because the average weekly wage is $322.44, that means the majority of those collecting UI made more than that while employed. Does that make sense? Almost every single person collecting UI made more while working than collecting UI. That’s why Brady’s claim is so obviously false.
Are there those who think collecting UI is better than working? Sure. My guess is they don’t have kids or pay rent. I’d argue they are the exception and not the rule.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:49 pm:
AWW doesn’t translate directly into average wage. 322.44 a week translates into $16,765 a year and $8.06 an hour assuming a 40 hour work week. And the minimum wage is $8.25…
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:53 pm:
Excellent summary of the key points from wordslinger.
It makes me wonder why they weren’t included in a carefully researched news article. Zorn allows Denzler from the IMA to make a similar assertion.
At the end of the article, Zorn writes: “I’m admittedly unclear on exactly how unemployment insurance works, but I was under the impression that you had to be actively engaged in the search for a new job and that you have to document these efforts. If you get offered your old job back, say, under what conditions do you not have to accept that job and still continue receiving unemployment insurance?”
Why didn’t he call the IDES office and find out?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:54 pm:
I was wrong about the maximum award, but right about the fact that IDES would have the best info.
http://www.ides.illinois.gov/page.aspx?item=1344
The max award is $562/week if you have dependent children. The minimum award is $51 per week.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:55 pm:
VM:
I don’t have a problem talking about the subject. But I do have a problem with the way Brady presented it. To flippantly suggest that people want to stay on UI is absurd. Are there some that scam the system? I’m sure. But Brady was painting with a pretty broad brush. I’m really annoyed by all of these anecdotes from people about a “friend” they have who is happy continuing on UI rather than have a job. I don’t know anybody who has been on unemployment who thought it was a great thing and they preferred UI rather than a job. Want to talk about the UI system? Fine. But don’t do it in accusatory tones that pretend that everybody is happy to be on UI rather than work. That is just B.S.
- Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:57 pm:
===“No. 1 issue I run into when I travel around to manufacturing plants particularly” is that employers say, “‘I can’t hire my people back.’ ===
When did work comp lose it’s place as the #1 issue for IL manufacturing? (snark)
- PoolGuy - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 1:59 pm:
when I was laid off over 10 years ago my salary was $4000 a month or $1000 a week. when I started collecting UI i was getting $250 a week. or $1000 a month.
I did not enjoy that one bit and I did not view it as an “extended vacation” as I have seen 1 or 2 people remark yesterday and today.
- Jorge - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 2:15 pm:
I think this situation perfectly illustrates the war on entitlement spending at all levels of government.
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:08 pm:
@47th Ward & @PoolGuy - thanks for commenting. That helps clarify things.
I plan to explore more about how the Department of Labor calculates AWW as well. Seeing those two numbers next to each other in the story makes them really stand out and makes me wonder all sorts of things.
Like I said, I need to learn more about this before figuring out what to think. It just seems odd to think that any individual would “enjoy” their time on unemployment.
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:17 pm:
I should also add:
The federal minimum wage is $7.25. 40 hours a week = $290 before taxes and any other deductions.
The fact that Illinois’ average unemployment benefit is more than the federal minimum wage is also surprising to me.
I’m not saying we need to cut benefits or raise the minimum wage or any other talking points. Even $10 or $12 an hour isn’t enough to start saving for retirement, live in comfort or support a family.
I’m just saying that this is really surprising and makes me wonder about what we are doing well and poorly as a state, for both our employed workers and our unemployed workers.
- CapnCrunch - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:28 pm:
This is the not the first time the senator has stuffed his foot in his mouth. I think the last time around it was something to do with gassing puppies. But he has inadvertently bumped up against a much larger issue which FKA raised in his post at 1:37.
“Every human being, or at least nearly every human being, wants to work and feel they are contributing something to society”
That used to be the case in this country but the culture may be changing.
The Labor Department reported that last December more than one in six American men ages 25 to 54 were without jobs but more than two thirds of them said they weren’t looking for a job. It is this latter statistic that we should be worried about.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:29 pm:
The vacation is over for 1.7 million Americans. It was sweet while it lasted! All those Ramen noodles and generic peanut butter, mmmmm.
Too bad 55 votes isn’t enough to pass anything in the Senate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/us/politics/senate-fails-to-advance-unemployment-extension.html?_r=0
- Reality Check - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:56 pm:
Here’s an idea for Mark Denzler and his manufacturers — maybe you’d attract more and better workers if you RAISE WAGES?
Sheesh. Pathetic.
- walker - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 3:57 pm:
I believe that Brady heard this.
I personally hear people say it occasionally. It’s a common ideological theme among right wing talk radio, and among the political culture of small and medium business owners. Many of them do participate in a shared political mindset, that sometimes transcends facts. Just like many of us.
The problem is that the cited individuals are actually very hard to find, and it usually resolves down to “a friend who told a friend that they heard that…” kind of thing.
Are there cases? Yes.
But for Brady to buy into this patter, as a significant factor in holding manufacturing employment down, is uninformed at best.
- Country Boy - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:21 pm:
Almost 30 years ago I was laid off with 3 kids none of which were old enough to be in school. I did not refuse work from my former employer but did turn down a job offer. I was better off to collect unemployment and watch my kids rather than work and pay for child care. Plus I did not have to commute which saved me some money there also. So there are people who do take advantage of the system. I admit to doing it myself, not because I was lazy but because it provided more short term.
- Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:22 pm:
Well, now, that’s better, Bill. Much better. You made a mistake, manned-up and acknowledged it. Speaks VOLumes more for you than for certain of your GOP Opponents (e.g. some who’d maybe try to plsy pretend like they can somehow cause Illinois Earthquakes in Springfield with a hammer…you catch my drift).
- Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:23 pm:
That was meant to read above, “…play pretend….”
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 4:26 pm:
Maybe what they said was they can’t hire their people back for half of what they were paying them before they laid them off.
- downstate commissioner - Thursday, Feb 6, 14 @ 10:16 pm:
Isn’t Brady involved in the construction business? It is very common for construction workers NOT to want to go back to work, especially for just a few days, during the winter months. Layoffs (and unemployment insurance) are an expected annual occurrence; they work long hours and put money back during the summer.
These guys will ask me if we are hiring, knowing that I are not, and that we would not be paying enough, anyway.
Dept. of Labor requires that they ask, they do, and everybody is happy… If an employee does go back to work, then is laid off again, the whole process of signing up and waiting two weeks again starts all over.
Brady knows this, it is probably a common complaint from contractors…