Does the State of California side with companies against the unemployed? The ugly truth

As the recession leaves more and more people in California unemployed, Occupy activists may benefit from learning a few, not-very-widely-publicized truths about the California State Department and the way they approve elegibility for unemployment benefits.

If after reading this article, you find yourself in a similar position, please let me know about it.  I just barely learned these facts today, so I’m very interested in finding out if other people have had similar experiences to mine.

The issue of unemployment is a huge concern for the Occupy Movement especially when it relates to the way our government handles the employee termination practices of companies and corporations.  Are companies allowed to arbitrarily terminate employees without cause or explanation?  You betcha.

I found this the hard way when I consulted a labor law attorney to find out if I had a case for wrongful termination.  Not only did he not take my case, but he also told me that, in the State of California, companies have all the power when it comes to determining if a former employee is eligible for unemployment benefits.

The way this law affects workers is that a company or corporation can not only terminate you for whatever reason and without even giving you the benefit to defend yourself.  They can also make sure you don’t qualify for unemployment benefits after being terminated!

I had always assumed that my right to collect unemployment benefits after losing a job was a given.  Another naive assumption I’d made was that the State of California was there to look out for me and to defend me against the employer.

Boy was I wrong!

The State of California, as it now makes perfect sense to me, sides with the former employer against the unemployed.  So much so that the phone interview to determine your elegibility is more of an attempt to find you guilty for having been terminated instead of a way to insure that the company doesn’t just throw you out in the street without paying you a penny.

Granted, this is one of those legal technicalities that the laborer only winds up finding out about AFTER:

1. They’ve been terminated without reason or explanation.

2. Are unable to get a new job because of the outrageously high unemployment rates, and

3. Have no other option than to apply for unemployment.

No wonder so many homes are being foreclosed!

At this point, any hard working American would expect for the state to provide them with some kind of safety net to recover from such a crisis, especially during a time when so many people are losing their jobs, and the unemployment rates are reaching epidemic highs.

Now I’m finding out that, all my life, I have given the State of California way too much credit, and I had to find out the truth about the harsh reality during my unemployment elegibility interview.

First off, the lady comes at me like I’m literally a criminal defending myself in court.  I am not exaggerating.  This woman was at my throat, refusing to let me talk, cross examining the hell out me, throwing jabs at me to make me get defensive, accusing me of not stating the facts correctly, and the list goes on and on.

I was truly flabbergasted.  This is the State of California we’re talking about here.  Our fricking local government, for gracious sakes.  Instead of trying to find out how to help me, this woman was literally building a case against me so that later she could go to my employer and make it easy for them to deny my case.

After going through this experience, I was left wondering about our state’s true motives in doing this.  How does the State of California benefit from siding with the companies against the unemployed?  Do they get a kickback or something or what?

Seriously, please, if you’re reading this and believe this is an isolated incident, let me know where I’ve gone wrong, because I’m just struck dumb right now.

If this is what is happening to other unemployed laborers, it is an alarming situation that needs to be addressed and that warrants further investigation.