Two-state unemployment benefit questions

[Chyvan]

You did nothing to refute what the op was told by the Texas employee regarding Texas unemployment.

I called TWC. I'm correct. The UI worker told me that so long as TX wages are not used in a combined-wage claim there is no 1 year wait to file in TX. There, right from the horse's mouth. The 1 year wait is only when TX wages are involved in the claim.

 

[justalayman]

I called TWC. I'm correct. The UI worker told me that so long as TX wages are not used in a combined-wage claim there is no 1 year wait to file in TX. There, right from the horse's mouth. The 1 year wait is only when TX wages are involved in the claim.

So we have competing statements of hearsay evidence.

I’m not saying your wrong chyvan. I’m saying I think the op deserves actual proof of your statement and hearsay evidence is not proof. You’re good at finding written law on the matter. Give the op what they deserve.

 

[cbg]

So...when the OP calls and gives a Texas UI worker the specifics of his situation, that Texas UI worker is "wrong" or "didn't have all the facts" but when Chyvan calls and give a Texas UI worker a hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with her, the Texas UI worker is unquestionably right? Amazing how that works.

(Oh look. I seem to be commenting after all.)

 

[Chyvan]

So we have competing statements of hearsay evidence.

I’m not saying your wrong chyvan. I’m saying I think the op deserves actual proof of your statement and hearsay evidence is not proof. You’re good at finding written law on the matter. Give the op what they deserve.

So...when the OP calls and gives a Texas UI worker the specifics of his situation, that Texas UI worker is "wrong" or "didn't have all the facts" but when Chyvan calls and give a Texas UI worker a hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with her, the Texas UI worker is unquestionably right? Amazing how that works.

(Oh look. I seem to be commenting after all.)

Oh, so when I call and carefully ask the question with all the correct circumstances, it's hearsay and unacceptable. But when the op asks the question in terms of a combined-wage claim and gets an answer concerning that aspect, then his answer applies to any UI claim filed in any state. You guys aren't doing the op any favors.

I already said I can't prove a negative. There is no law that says that if a claimant files a claim in another state that they have to wait until that claim expires. It only applies to be benefit credits being consumed. Which for most people is no more than 26 weeks.

 

[cbg]

Look, chyvan, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong either. But when two different UI officers in the state of Texas give different answers to the question, who's to say which one is wrong? You can't just assume that the one you talked to is right because you like the answer better. You're not doing the OP any favors either, when you tell him to disregard what he's been told BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY IN QUESTION.

You want to help the OP? Back up what you're saying with LAWS that are specific to the states in question.

 

[Chyvan]

Back up what you're saying with LAWS that are specific to the states in question.

You do the same thing. When there is NO law, then you can't prove one exists. So if you think there is one, go find it. I looked, and I found other stuff to suggest it's not possible, and I also called to get things fully clarified on the "TX 1-year dispute."

My position for the OP is he has choices, and needs to do what's best for him. You guys harping on the 1-year aspect does what? Make him think he has no choices?

 

[justalayman]

."

You guys harping on the 1-year aspect does what? ?

It is to make sure op doesn’t cut his throat by thinking he has more ui benefits than he really does and doesn’t act accordingly.

 

[cbg]

Here's the deal; If the OP acts on what he himself was told by the state, and he can back up who he talked to and when (of course, at this point he may need to go back and make a second call) and it turns out he's been given wrong information, he has at least a chance of prevailing in an appeal. Personal experience on this one, so don't come back and tell me it doesn't work that way.

If he acts on what "chyvan on the internet" says the state told her, and it's wrong, the OP is up the creek without a paddle.