Thanks Travis. Yes, I have been told directly by Ajudication Managers at DWS that being contributory/reimburseable employees is a tradeoff. We pay less over all because we are not paying on every employee, but when we do have to pay, it is sticker shock on higher claims. We could switch to the way all the private sector pays, but it would higher cost overall for most of us.
Let me be clear, I'm all for principles of the program of providing benefits to employees who lost their job at no fault of their own and providing temporary economic assistance. I see the benefits to the individuals and economy as a whole.
However, I have questions on specific cases that make no sense to me. Here are a few:
- In 2024, we had a Parks Worker voluntarily transfer to Building Inspections because he believed that was a better career path. He has had some training and during interviews, he indicated he had skills and appitudes to succeed. Well, he didn't pass the cert exams despite numerous tries and mentoring. We let him go because he couldn't maintain a certification and Parks jobs were already filled. DWS ruled that it was out of his control. We appealed and lost. We paid over $1300 last year.
-I just got word that this same individual recently filed another claim because he got laid off again. As a base period employer, we are included in the cost estimation and since we lost of our appeal before, DWS already determined we will be held responsible. No chance of appeal. Potential additional costs: $6600. actual costs will be calculated in next few months.
- A Water System operator voluntarily left the City to pursue selling insurance. Left on good terms. 12 months later, we get notice of a claim for benefits. As a base period employer, we were charged and billed for $5900.
- A Streets maintenance worker was struggling to pass his CDL. We worked with him on training and practice. He ultimately quit and said it wasn't working out. DWS determined he was eligible because our streets job wasn't a fair replacement to his military ordinance job (from multiple years ago) that paid him a higher wage. He intially found a different job quickly so we avoided immediate costs, but 1 year later, he refiled a claim. Because we lost our appeal a year earlier, we were responsible this time: Costs: $1760 to date, with potentially another $800 next month.
- A Firefighter voluntarily left in Aug 2024 on good terms. We get notice over a year later in Nov 2025 that he filed a claim and listed the City as a base period employer. He is fould eligible because of his most recent separation (I don't know the details.). Current costs to city to date: $2100, with potentially ann addition $2000.
What I see is DWS is managing each case as best they can under the rules they have been given under state and federal statutes. Their job is to administer the benefits to benefit the individuals who are affected by loss of full-time employment. Their focus is largely on the recipient of the benefits.
I am not against decreasing the amount of the benefits, and I acknowledge someone has to pay for those costs. Is it better for all to pay some (private sector) or some to pay more (reimbursable)? I don't know.
From the perspective of the employers, I think it could be better. A few of my intial questions:
- Are incentives properly aligned so if companies are laying off employees, they are paying their share of the costs? When costs are assigned to base period employers, is it a subsidizing effect and removing the "pain" and true costs of those decisions?
- Are base period employers charged too much following voluntary resignations. The idea is "we treated the employees right, why we do pay for costs?" Equity.
- Is the base period too long? It could as much as 5 quarters (see firefighter example above) prior to when an employee left a job. Is that spreading the costs too far?
- Are there any exemptions allowed for reimburseable employers who did everything correctly and employees still resigned and get charged as base employers? Equity.
Much of this is complicated because there are state and federal laws and rules that govern unemployment benefits. State administrator say the understand by their hands are tied.
My hope is that we can gather our stories to increase mutual understanding, all while maintaining compassion for those affected.
We also discussed this during our PSHRA Utah Board meeting and several Board members expressed interest in continuing the conversation. I'll likely set up a meeting first with DWS and invite this group to attend. Based on how that meeting goes, we may decide to approach legislators.
If you have read this far, thanks for listening to my monologue.
