Ethics Question: Unemployment

[DSchrute]

My father was planning on retiring at 66, but lost his job when he was 65, and now receives unemployment compensation. He is eligible to receive several more months of unemployment benefits, but plans to stop when he turns 66 next month, since he was planning on retiring then anyway. My mom thinks he should keep taking the benefit, since he's eligible for it.
Thoughts?

[ginyah]

IMO either decision is ethical. He should know that for every month he delays taking his social security his payout will be more if that is important to him. It really is more about what he feels is the 'right' thing to do.

[sscritic]

In my state, there is a requirement to be looking and available for work. So here's his next ethical question: will he accept a job if offered?

[gkaplan]

What are the chances of someone sixty-five being offered a job?

[G-Money]

Most states have legal requirements governing eligibility for unemployment benefits. If your father meets those requirements, he is eligible. Now, I suppose if he was looking for work with absolutely no intention to accept an offer, it might be unethical for him to accept the benefits. But, for example, if your father was offered $1 million for a 6 month job doing the same work he was doing before, he'd take it, right?

The fact that your father planned to retire at 66 is irrelevant. Plans can change.

If I were your father, I would take those benefits without any hesitation or remorse.

[hicabob]

keep taking it - the company that laid him off pays the unemployment insurance - they laid him off just before he was going to retire so let them pay higher unemployment insurance.

[momar]

Yeah, but if he keeps taking unemployment benefits he has to delay wearing a sweet t-shirt like this for a few months:

[Peter Foley]

In some state SS retirement benefits are deductible, in others they are not. In all states you must be able, available and actively seeking work each week to be eligible to receive benefits for that week. It is not ethical to request and receive unemployment benefits for a week where you did not meet those requirement. Unemployment claims are also randomly audited through a Benefits Accuracy Measurement process. If the claim in question were audited, the claimant would be held overpaid and might receive a fraud penalty for those weeks where he lied to receive benefits.


Only the first 26 weeks of benefits are paid for by employer taxes. The current extensions in place are paid 100% by Federal tax dollars.

[BHCadet]

If his retirement savings is negatively affected by the laid-off, he should continue with the unemployment benefits.
But, if the laid-off doesn't affect his retirement savings, then...

[mickeyd]

He is eligible to receive several more months of unemployment benefits, but plans to stop when he turns 66 next month,

As I understand unemployement comp (UC) in Texas, as long as you meet the minimal requirrements i.e. make 5 contacts per week and do not turn down any job offers or job interviews during the week etc., you are qualified to get payed. If he no longer meets these conditions, he gets no UC.

[btenny]

I live in a ski town part time. Around here there are lots of people who take Ski jobs for the winter and then collect unemployment every summer. There are no ski jobs available without snow. So these guys go to Hawaii or Puerto Rico and so forth. They have no intention of getting a job until it snow next winter. Plus since many of then had good jobs in industry before they came here so they collect much higher unemployment benefits than just the low wage ski job amount based on previous higher paying jobs. It is all legal.

So I say your Dad should collect as long as he is elgible. Remember those bankers and insurance guys did not turn down the government handouts nor should your dad. He paid his taxes so he should collect. Plus after say 12 months or so he may find he really does want to go back to work. Who knows???

Bill

[TheEternalVortex]

I think he should keep taking it. That's what I would do. (Assuming he meets the requirements).

However, it does suggest that the way our unemployment laws work is not great.

[Peter Foley]

btenny
Unemployment benefits are paid based on earnings during the claimant's base period: for most states, the base period is either the first 4 of the last 5 completed quarters or the last 4 completed quarters. If these laid off ski resort workers have not worked at a high paying job recently, they will receive very modest benefits based on their ski resort wages and perhaps are eligible only for a few weeks.
Also, when you leave your labor market (Colorado to Hawaii for example) your state can increase the requirement that you provide evidence of looking for work to be eligible for benefits. Lacking such evidence you can be denied benefits.

You would be surprised at how many claimants are reported (by friends, neighbors, and family) to state unemployment agencies as being on vacation. We have used posted Facebook pictures as evidence to determine ineligiblity and to assess fraud. State unemployment agencies have a lot of tools to detect fraud and are quite successful and aggressive in doing so. I'm not saying some people don't skate under the radar, but the percentage caught is quite high.

[Atilla]

Only the first 26 weeks of benefits are paid for by employer taxes. The current extensions in place are paid 100% by Federal tax dollars.

Actually, after 26 weeks it's paid for by today's taxpayers, their minor children and unborn generations after them since it's all part of the 15 trillion pile of debt we're adding to every day.

[rob]

Only the first 26 weeks of benefits are paid for by employer taxes. The current extensions in place are paid 100% by Federal tax dollars.

Actually, after 26 weeks it's paid for by today's taxpayers, their minor children and unborn generations after them since it's all part of the 15 trillion pile of debt we're adding to every day.

And SS is paid by?? Same same to me.

[Don Christy]

'm not saying some people don't skate under the radar, but the percentage caught is quite high.

Are you saying a high percentage of claimants are caught committing fraud, or that a high percentage of those that claim fraudulently are caught?

I would doubt the former and the latter can't be more than speculation, as you don't know how many skate under the radar? Can you clarify and/or provide a citation?

[nisiprius]

The requirements for collecting unemployment probably require that you be looking for work. (Peter Foley says so, above). In my state you were supposed to keep a job search log and record a certain number job-search-related "contacts" per week. And you had to check in every week, either by automated phone call or on the web, and assert that you were still looking. And if you'd earned any money that week, you needed to indicate how much you'd earned. What constituted a job-search-related contact was listed. It was defined quite broadly--mailing in a resume counted, so did attending a session of a state-provided jobseeking seminar, so did going to the library to consult employee directories and read the trade journals for your job area; but you had to be doing something.

There was no way to ethically collect benefits without even trying to look for a job. You'd be fibbing once a week when you logged in and checked the checkbox, and you'd have to keep a fictitious log.

I voted "no" because it did not sound to me as if DSchrute's father intended to make a good-faith effort to look for a job. On the other hand, if he's willing to put out whatever's the minimum effort that constitutes a good-faith job search, can comply with his state's requirements without telling any falsehoods, then, certainly, it would be ethical to take them. To my way of thinking, unemployment insurance is just like other employer-provided insurance--it's part of your compensation, and should be taken if you're entitled to it.

[Jeanz]

It's his decision, and even a wife shouldn't ask him to do something he thinks unethical. For what it's worth I think he's right not to continue to take the unemployment insurance payments, but even if I didn't I would respect him for acting on his own principles.

[milestogo]

If he is willing to look enought to follow the rules and would take the "right" job if it were offered, I see no problem with taking the benefits. It is not as if he is peddling sub prime loans or packinging cdos for a big bank!

[Taylor Larimore]

He is eligible to receive several more months of unemployment benefits, but plans to stop when he turns 66 next month, since he was planning on retiring then anyway.

DSchrute:

I think you are very fortunate to have a dad who wants to do the right thing.

Best wishes
Taylor

[dm200]

Only the first 26 weeks of benefits are paid for by employer taxes. The current extensions in place are paid 100% by Federal tax dollars.

Actually, after 26 weeks it's paid for by today's taxpayers, their minor children and unborn generations after them since it's all part of the 15 trillion pile of debt we're adding to every day.

And SS is paid by?? Same same to me.

Slight difference. Social Security benefits are, generally speaking, paid by those who are/will be eligible for benefits - not general taxpayers. So, for example, someone whose invome is in the millions from investments does not pay into social security. Neither do many employees of certain educational systems, not some grandfathered federal employees from before 1984.

[Peter Foley]

In response to some questions:
The first 26 weeks (24 or 25 in some states) are paid by employer taxes which are deposited in the UI Trust fund. Currently 22 states are not solvent and the rest are. Those states which are not solvent have an automatic tax increase. If you want to see who is solvent and who is not do a search on the IRS form 940 Schedule A. States that have a credit reduction listed are not solvent. The credit reduction increases each year until a state becomes solvent. After 26 weeks, the benefits are paid by taxpayer present and future.

UI Program statistics are available on the DOL ETA website. Look under UI Program, UI Performance management. There are a lot of reports. Overpayment detection is one of them. A high percentage of those who commit "fraud" are caught.
The most common fraud is claimants who work and collect benefits at the same time. These are easily detected by cross matching wages earned by SSN (reported to the UI program by all covered employers) against UI benefits by SSN. A high percentage of these individuals are caught.
There are many individuals who do not look for work and "skate under the radar". When caught they are generally denied benefits for the time period in question but not charged with "fraud". The use of fraud and accompanying criminal prosecution is at each state's discretion.

[DSchrute]

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful replies. I'll pass them along to my parents. When I had talked to my dad earlier, he sounded like he wasn't open to discussion about this. I have to agree with many of the posts here: if he's not willing to take a job, he can't, in good faith, collect unemployment insurance.
Also, I should have made clear in my original post, not matter what happens, he does not want to collect Social Security until he's 70.

[archbish99]

Don't confuse unemployment and severance. Unemployment insurance is to compensate those looking for work who are unable to find it. If your father is continuing to look for a job and plans to make up his lost year of income to supplement their savings, he should continue collecting unemployment until he successfully finds a job or gives up looking.

If he has decided that, being 66, he is no longer interested in working, he should stop.

If he decided when he was laid off that he was just going to retire then and not look for another job, he should never have collected unemployment in the first place, and has committed fraud, though it may never be prosecuted. (I'm assuming this isn't the case.)

[MathWizard]

If he decided when he was laid off that he was just going to retire then and not look for another job, he should never have collected unemployment in the first place, and has committed fraud, though it may never be prosecuted. (I'm assuming this isn't the case.)

This was an ethics question, not a question of legality. If the OP's
father has followed the letter of the law, then there can be no fraud.
Fraud is a quite serious offense, and not one to be asserted lightly.

Since insufficient information exists to make a legal determination,
I think it best not to even suggest such an implication.

[Bongleur]

Take it. He has already paid for it because his former employer took the cost of this insurance out of his wages.

[PreserveCapital]

My father was planning on retiring at 66, but lost his job when he was 65, and now receives unemployment compensation. He is eligible to receive several more months of unemployment benefits, but plans to stop when he turns 66 next month, since he was planning on retiring then anyway. My mom thinks he should keep taking the benefit, since he's eligible for it.
Thoughts?

I think if your parents are in that much need of money that this dispute is a source of conflict for them, you should offer to help them out.

[ann_l]

If he decided when he was laid off that he was just going to retire then and not look for another job, he should never have collected unemployment in the first place, and has committed fraud, though it may never be prosecuted. (I'm assuming this isn't the case.)

This was an ethics question, not a question of legality. If the OP's
father has followed the letter of the law, then there can be no fraud.
Fraud is a quite serious offense, and not one to be asserted lightly.

Since insufficient information exists to make a legal determination,
I think it best not to even suggest such an implication.

But the law depends on intent. Unemployment is for those who are actively looking for employment. IIRC, you have to certify as such. And if you substantively lie or deceive to get a benefit that you are not entitled to, that is fraud. I don't know why calling a spade a spade makes you so uncomfortable.

This is a (relatively) anonymous forum, and the OP stated this in hypotheticals..."*if* he decided..." and "I'm assuming that's not the case"
That was not an accusation. This was not slander. Anyway, I doubt the relative prosecutors are monitoring this forum.

[jazzykat]

I think it is ethical to collect unemployment as long as he looks for work and will accept a job. Now, he obviously doesn't have to kill himself looking. I think he should look for a job he actually wants to do and if he gets offered the job then he should accept. When the system finally works in the favor of someone who has been doing the right thing all their life they deserve to make appropriate use of it.

[aja8888]

What are the chances of someone sixty-five being offered a job?

Well, I am 68 and had a job offer in December from a client (I am a engineering consultant in our partnership). If you are good at what you do, have a good presence about yourself, and are willing to work, age is not that big a factor.

[cubby08]

In response to some questions:
The first 26 weeks (24 or 25 in some states) are paid by employer taxes which are deposited in the UI Trust fund. Currently 22 states are not solvent and the rest are. Those states which are not solvent have an automatic tax increase. If you want to see who is solvent and who is not do a search on the IRS form 940 Schedule A. States that have a credit reduction listed are not solvent. The credit reduction increases each year until a state becomes solvent. After 26 weeks, the benefits are paid by taxpayer present and future.

UI Program statistics are available on the DOL ETA website. Look under UI Program, UI Performance management. There are a lot of reports. Overpayment detection is one of them. A high percentage of those who commit "fraud" are caught.
The most common fraud is claimants who work and collect benefits at the same time. These are easily detected by cross matching wages earned by SSN (reported to the UI program by all covered employers) against UI benefits by SSN. A high percentage of these individuals are caught.
There are many individuals who do not look for work and "skate under the radar". When caught they are generally denied benefits for the time period in question but not charged with "fraud". The use of fraud and accompanying criminal prosecution is at each state's discretion.

Makes sense that someone working and collecting will be caught in the end.

But, not looking for work and collecting? I really doubt it. Sure, if you find out someone's taking a 3 week vacation in hawaii, you'll get them. But you have no idea the size of the denominator of the people who simply mindless send out resumes with zero intent of actually following up. I do know ppl who would do this for the first 2-3 months of unemployment and wake up once it was coming to an end. You can't read their minds, so you would never know. They were good about creating a "record" of job searches though.

[likegarden]

I worked on and off after 62 until I was 69 and then got laid off. When you are older, opinion when to fully retire changes often, sometimes every month. I received unemployment for 80 or so weeks until a job I did not like might have become available, and I stopped. I or my employers did pay unemployment insurance all those 45 years I worked, and therefore I had the right to receive unemployment pay. My employer under similar circumstances to receive a benefit would have acted the same way. I followed the rules of my state.

[dickenjb]

When my wife collected in PA she only had to answer two questions each week:

1) Were you AVAILABLE for work last week?

2) DID you work last week?

No requirement to LOOK for work.

[ann_l]

When my wife collected in PA she only had to answer two questions each week:

1) Were you AVAILABLE for work last week?

2) DID you work last week?

No requirement to LOOK for work.

From PA's website:

Requalifying for UC Benefits After Ineligibility
If you are ineligible for benefits because you quit your job without a compelling and necessitous reason, were discharged for misconduct, or are ineligible due to self-employment, you may still be able to qualify for benefits at a later date. To requalify, you must work and earn at least six times your weekly benefit rate. After you earned that amount, you may be qualified to receive benefits if you are totally or partially unemployed and meet all eligibility requirements. Earnings from self-employment cannot be used to requalify for benefits.

If you are ineligible for benefits because you failed, without good cause, either to apply for or to accept an offer of suitable work, you will remain ineligible for benefits until you obtain subsequent employment of a permanent nature. A disqualification because of a failure to apply for or to accept temporary or casual employment remains in effect only for the period of time that the offered work would have been available.
!!WARNING!!

Under the Pennsylvania UC Law, if you hide facts or do not tell the truth in order to obtain or increase benefit payments, you may be subject to:
REPAYMENT OF MONEY RECEIVED
LOSS OF FUTURE BENEFITS
FINE
IMPRISONMENT




People abusing unemployment and taking the benefits when they shouldn't leave less for the people who are ready willing and able to work, people who are praying for a job. Then the states give those people fewer weeks of getting benefits or less in benefits. I think that's wrong. I have a secure job and a decent-sized emergency fund, as well as parents who would and could help if worst came to worst, but I sympathize with those who have a hard time finding a job. Not everyone is as lucky as I am. (And I think all those on unemployment should be actively and sincerely looking for work-it's supposed to be hand-up, not a hand-out). It's a matter of whether you paid into it; it's a matter of where you need it. I pay for schools when I don't have any kids.

[dickenjb]

From PA's website:

Requalifying for UC Benefits After Ineligibility
If you are ineligible for benefits because you quit your job without a compelling and necessitous reason, were discharged for misconduct, or are ineligible due to self-employment, you may still be able to qualify for benefits at a later date. To requalify, you must work and earn at least six times your weekly benefit rate. After you earned that amount, you may be qualified to receive benefits if you are totally or partially unemployed and meet all eligibility requirements. Earnings from self-employment cannot be used to requalify for benefits.

If you are ineligible for benefits because you failed, without good cause, either to apply for or to accept an offer of suitable work, you will remain ineligible for benefits until you obtain subsequent employment of a permanent nature. A disqualification because of a failure to apply for or to accept temporary or casual employment remains in effect only for the period of time that the offered work would have been available.
!!WARNING!!

Under the Pennsylvania UC Law, if you hide facts or do not tell the truth in order to obtain or increase benefit payments, you may be subject to:
REPAYMENT OF MONEY RECEIVED
LOSS OF FUTURE BENEFITS
FINE
IMPRISONMENT




People abusing unemployment and taking the benefits when they shouldn't leave less for the people who are ready willing and able to work, people who are praying for a job. Then the states give those people fewer weeks of getting benefits or less in benefits. I think that's wrong. I have a secure job and a decent-sized emergency fund, as well as parents who would and could help if worst came to worst, but I sympathize with those who have a hard time finding a job. Not everyone is as lucky as I am. (And I think all those on unemployment should be actively and sincerely looking for work-it's supposed to be hand-up, not a hand-out). It's a matter of whether you paid into it; it's a matter of where you need it. I pay for schools when I don't have any kids.

With all due respect I believe you are quoting a completely irrelevant section that deals with re-establishing eligibility after having lost eligibility. Here is the relevant section:

Code: Select all

UC Eligibility
After filing an application for UC benefits, there are three basic steps to determining eligibility for unemployment compensation.

    Financial Eligibility The first step is determining whether you are eligible financially. In other words, did you earn sufficient wages from an employer covered by PA UC Law? Certain types of employment are exempt. Find more information on covered employment and exemptions here. After you file, you will receive a notice of financial determination indicating whether you are financially eligible.
     
    Benefit Eligibility If your wages make you financially eligible, the second step involves the nature of your job loss, or separation. In other words, are you out of work through no fault of your own? This decision is based on the information you supply when you file for benefits, and information collected from your former employer.
     
    Maintaining Eligibility and Requalifying for Benefits The third qualifier to receiving UC benefits involves meeting various tests on a week-to-week basis. For example, you must be able and available to accept suitable work, not refuse work when offered without good cause and participate in reemployment services if required. 

My wife was able and available to accept suitable work. She never had to refuse work when offered. None was offered. She was not required to participate in reemployment services. We followed the letter of the law.

[RenoJay]

I think it's unethical because all benefits paid come out of tax dollars and virtually every taxing authority from federal to state level needs to borrow to make ends meet. It's the youngest generation, the ones who are completely innocent in the current financial crisis and who are too young to vote in how government funds are allocated, who will be picking up the tab for all that borrowing.

[nisiprius]

I think it is ethical to collect unemployment as long as he looks for work and will accept a job. Now, he obviously doesn't have to kill himself looking. I think he should look for a job he actually wants to do and if he gets offered the job then he should accept. When the system finally works in the favor of someone who has been doing the right thing all their life they deserve to make appropriate use of it.

My thoughts exactly.

[ann_l]

My wife was able and available to accept suitable work. She never had to refuse work when offered. None was offered. She was not required to participate in reemployment services. We followed the letter of the law.

I did cite the wrong section. It does appear, though, that starting this year, PA is requiring an active search for work for initial benefits:

1. What are the Active Search for Work Requirements?
The Pennsylvania UC Law was recently changed to add additional eligibility requirements for UC benefits. If the effective date of your application for benefits (AB Date) is on or after January 1, 2012, you are required to do all of the following:
Register for employment search services with the Pennsylvania Careerlink® system within 30 days after you file your application for benefits. If you are not already registered, go to http://www.pacareerlink.state.pa.us; select "New User?"; and select "Individual Seeking Services." Create a Keystone ID and Password, using your complete Social Security number. Use your Keystone ID and Password to "Login." Continue to "My Home Page" and provide the information applicable to you under "Detailed Profile." If you previously created a Keystone ID and Password, login and update your information to include your complete Social Security number and all applicable information under "Detailed Profile."

Conduct an active search for work during each week that you seek UC benefits, except your waiting week, by doing one of the two options below.

Keep a record of your work search activities and provide the record to the department when requested to do so. (For more details, please see below.)
In order to meet your weekly work search requirement, you must satisfy one of the following two options during each week that you seek UC benefits.

[mickeyd]

He has already paid for it because his former employer took the cost of this insurance out of his wages.

It is my understanding that the full cost of UC is borne by the employer with no employee contribution. Of course, an employer will probably factor in the UC cost as an overall cost of each employee.

[Curlyq]

.....

[dickenjb]

I did cite the wrong section. It does appear, though, that starting this year, PA is requiring an active search for work for initial benefits:

1. What are the Active Search for Work Requirements?
The Pennsylvania UC Law was recently changed to add additional eligibility requirements for UC benefits. If the effective date of your application for benefits (AB Date) is on or after January 1, 2012, you are required to do all of the following:
Register for employment search services with the Pennsylvania Careerlink® system within 30 days after you file your application for benefits. If you are not already registered, go to http://www.pacareerlink.state.pa.us; select "New User?"; and select "Individual Seeking Services." Create a Keystone ID and Password, using your complete Social Security number. Use your Keystone ID and Password to "Login." Continue to "My Home Page" and provide the information applicable to you under "Detailed Profile." If you previously created a Keystone ID and Password, login and update your information to include your complete Social Security number and all applicable information under "Detailed Profile."

Conduct an active search for work during each week that you seek UC benefits, except your waiting week, by doing one of the two options below.

Keep a record of your work search activities and provide the record to the department when requested to do so. (For more details, please see below.)
In order to meet your weekly work search requirement, you must satisfy one of the following two options during each week that you seek UC benefits.

Good. I am glad they updated the rules. My wife followed the rules which applied when she lost her job back in 1997. Never made sense to me that the rules in effect then did not require her to look for a job, but those were the rules at that time.

[Bongleur]

He has already paid for it because his former employer took the cost of this insurance out of his wages.

It is my understanding that the full cost of UC is borne by the employer with no employee contribution. Of course, an employer will probably factor in the UC cost as an overall cost of each employee.

That's what I said. Your wages are lower by the costs the government forces the employer to bear.

[mickeyd]

He has already paid for it because his former employer took the cost of this insurance out of his wages.

It is my understanding that the full cost of UC is borne by the employer with no employee contribution. Of course, an employer will probably factor in the UC cost as an overall cost of each employee.

That's what I said. Your wages are lower by the costs the government forces the employer to bear.

Then we agree. By saying "took the cost of this insurance out of his wages" I took that as you saying that a deduction is made from his paycheck.

[Midpack]

I think it is ethical to collect unemployment as long as he looks for work and will accept a job. Now, he obviously doesn't have to kill himself looking. I think he should look for a job he actually wants to do and if he gets offered the job then he should accept. When the system finally works in the favor of someone who has been doing the right thing all their life they deserve to make appropriate use of it.

Like others, I voted "no" for this reason. You should admire your Dad for doing the right thing, he's going to receive a benefit either way so doing the "right thing" should be an easy decision here.

[staythecourse]

I can't believe this is a post that has lasted this long. Is it illegal: NO. Is it unethical: YES. Simple as that. The fact you father and mother are debating doing it or not is clear evidence it is unethical. Everything else is what is called rationalization in the world of psychology.

ANY grown, mature person knows the purpose of unemployment benefits is to aid those who are trying to get their professional life restarted. I don't know who out there thinks that is possible without LOOKING for a job.

No brainer.

Good luck.

[serbeer]

My father-in-law now does exactly the same. He is 67 and gets SS and unemployment which he will continue on until it runs out.
Nothing unethical about it IMO. This is benefit he earned and if he did not get laid off, he would still continue to work at the same factory where he worked for the past 16 years. He got laid off and cannot find another job at his age, why should he not get unemployment at least???

The only thing one may find unethical is the fact that one required to contantly "certify" that they continue to look for a job. So, if you pretty much gave up on it and not applying anymore, you would not be telling the truth. They may even audit your requiring to send in the list of jobs you applied for in the past N months. But as long as you apply to jobs (which you obviously not going to get at >66yo) every once in a while, you should be truthful and that's not an issue.

[Nowizard]

I believe there are two answers, one concrete and one abstract. From a business perspective, most would say keep taking unemployment. The ethical decision may be melded to the business one for some while others would have a strong ethical sense that suggested the unemployment check should be stopped. Money vs. ethics is a universal question, and this is a microcosm of that issue.

Tim

[Midpack]

My father-in-law now does exactly the same. He is 67 and gets SS and unemployment which he will continue on until it runs out.
Nothing unethical about it IMO. This is benefit he earned and if he did not get laid off, he would still continue to work at the same factory where he worked for the past 16 years. He got laid off and cannot find another job at his age, why should he not get unemployment at least???

The only thing one may find unethical is the fact that one required to contantly "certify" that they continue to look for a job. So, if you pretty much gave up on it and not applying anymore, you would not be telling the truth. They may even audit your requiring to send in the list of jobs you applied for in the past N months. But as long as you apply to jobs (which you obviously not going to get at >66yo) every once in a while, you should be truthful and that's not an issue.

It's completely unethical, and illegal in most if not all states. http://www.seniorcorps.org/social-secur ... e-reduced/

By your own admission he has to lie when he's asked if he's looking for work, he is taking money from current taxpayers. By your logic, I suppose someone who goes on unemployment and then finds a job, is entitled to continue to take unemployment pay for as long as they can even when they're getting income from a job.

At least the OP was considering one or the other, not both. Unbelievable.

[Bongleur]

He has already paid for it because his former employer took the cost of this insurance out of his wages.

It is my understanding that the full cost of UC is borne by the employer with no employee contribution. Of course, an employer will probably factor in the UC cost as an overall cost of each employee.

That's what I said. Your wages are lower by the costs the government forces the employer to bear.

Then we agree. By saying "took the cost of this insurance out of his wages" I took that as you saying that a deduction is made from his paycheck.

My subtle point is that even though it is taken out of his pay, he probably does not realize it, nor its value -- BECAUSE it does not appear on his paycheck.

[serbeer]

My father-in-law now does exactly the same. He is 67 and gets SS and unemployment which he will continue on until it runs out.
Nothing unethical about it IMO. This is benefit he earned and if he did not get laid off, he would still continue to work at the same factory where he worked for the past 16 years. He got laid off and cannot find another job at his age, why should he not get unemployment at least???

The only thing one may find unethical is the fact that one required to contantly "certify" that they continue to look for a job. So, if you pretty much gave up on it and not applying anymore, you would not be telling the truth. They may even audit your requiring to send in the list of jobs you applied for in the past N months. But as long as you apply to jobs (which you obviously not going to get at >66yo) every once in a while, you should be truthful and that's not an issue.

It's completely unethical, and illegal in most if not all states. http://www.seniorcorps.org/social-secur ... e-reduced/

By your own admission he has to lie when he's asked if he's looking for work, he is taking money from current taxpayers. By your logic, I suppose someone who goes on unemployment and then finds a job, is entitled to continue to take unemployment pay for as long as they can even when they're getting income from a job.

At least the OP was considering one or the other, not both. Unbelievable.

I am not sure if you read my post carefully. He was laid off while he wanted to continue to work. He is factory worker so he was not able to find another job so far being 67yo. Yes he realizes he is unlikely to find it but still continues to look, yes formally not super active--since it is hopeless of course. Active enough to satisfy audit requirements. So what? He is entitled to unemployment after layoff until he finds another job. He would take one if it was offered. And he is eligible for SS and he needed it to make ends meet so he took it. He did tell SS office that he is getting unemployment. The article you linked is wrong in saying you cannot get both. You can after FRA age just as you can continue to work while getting SS, at least in Wisconsin where he lives. SS is simply taxed if you are above certain non-SS income.
On the other hand, the hypothetical scenario you described would indeed be illegal since the person would have to lie about not working to continue to get unemployment paychecks. I don't think unless they are paid cash, they could even attempt that since payroll tax would immediately trigger unemployment benefits review.
Sorry but you comparison is apples to oranges