• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Disarm to collect state unemployment??

tjschul

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
53
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
imported post

My wife came home today and told me she had to disarm to collect unemployment
benefits. She sure know how to spin me up:cuss: .

Anyhow, in order to qualify for state unemployment benefits you have to attend a workshop with Work Source (a nationwide) company partnered with the State in the unemployment compensation arena. Their doors in Tacoma are posted "no weapons".
I can understand, and respect a private business's right to refuse you entry
with a weapon. But how about a business "partnered" with the state, that you are required by the state to visit, in order to collect your benefits? Doesn't seem right to me. I've asked for an explaination.

Anyone have insight on this?

OJ
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

There's more to this than you think.

Apparently I've gotten word that a few of the CSO's (Community Service Offices) for the DSHS are posting "No weapons, legal or not". Rainier CSO (on MLK street in Seattle) is one of them, and they have a Puget Sound Security private officer there who would have likely enforced it.

I'll be following up with DSHS on this soon.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Interesting. It may be the state has no idea this is going on. I don't think they can prohibit being armed in legal places if they are directly associated with it... I could be wrong though.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

Really easy solution: GET A JOB! :celebrate

Public assistance is socialism. Are you surprised they don't like guns?

Those on public assistance 'tend' to be the dregs (less than productive, welfare types). Are you surprised that the Admin doesn't want those types bringing firearms on their premises

*The first comment is just the absolute fact. The second is based on a stereotype. Stereotypes exists because they are 'usually' true, but can always have exceptions.

All it takes to get a job, at this point in history, is 2 feet and a heart beat.
 

ne1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
460
Location
, , USA
imported post

"All it takes to get a job, at this point in history, is 2 feet and a heart beat."

I find it interesting that you do not include "a spine" in your requirements.

I am retired with an easily proven track record. I recently inquired about part-time employment to supplement my income and offset the increasing costs of transportation and heating my home. For part-time temp work I am asked to complete a five page application, provide at least three professional references (preferably within the last three years although I have been retired longer than that and outlived many of those whom I have worked with), undergo a criminal history check, clear a child abuse database, pass a drug screening, have an acceptable credit rating, agree to the employer's ideas regarding appropriate attire, etc.while being sensitive to the needs of the company's diverse clientele.... I did not even ask about any policies regardingemployees' personal protection.... It is amazing to me that illegal aliens canreportedlyjust wade across the Rio Grande andbe hired on the spotupon reaching the shore.

I am reconsidering whether I should forsake my life of leisure and return to slavery.
 

tjschul

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
53
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
imported post

Hey Dave the dumbass:

I have a job and have been employed nonstop since I was 15...now 58.
If its any of your business, it was the wife's job that was eliminated, she 's 56
and has PAID INTO the insurance fund both as an employer and through taxes as an employee for the last 31 years. Now STFU, and address the issue of a state
partnered business bannig weapons...Is that (issue) O.K with you, or are firearms rights just for those you feel are in the correct social-economic status?

OJ
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

Whoa.....take a deep breath and chill....no need to fly off the handle, though I do think Dave_pro2awas a little rude with his comments. I've been on unemployment before, and it is a real scam, you pay into this and then you get screwed for most of "your" money that they decide whether you get it or not. But you take anything you can get when the bills are due and no money is in the bank. Don't judge others until you've walked a mile in their shoes, and all that. I've never been on it for long, just a month at most until I found another job, but it did keep us going for the time I was on it, if just barely.

If we are talking about a state funded agency, then they should not be able to disarm you anyhow. For the time being, I would recommend concealing and work to get this fixed through the right channels. I wouldn't go unarmed to these places with some of the people that I've seen there.
 

tjschul

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
53
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
imported post

Yeah you're right. Guys like dave who have never filed an insurance claim, or who would take any job that only required "2 feet and a heartbeat" might not understand why a person with an actual career, might want to file a claim, take some time, and secure quality employment in their field.

Anyway, these things (signs, not dave) tend to grate on me, because I have tremendous respect for the property rights of business owners, and will not carry past a sign declaring those wishes. I'll just take my business elsewhere, if that's at all possible.
However, when the State requires me to enter a business they are partnered with in a joint venture...thats a different colored cow.

What is the course of action any of you would recommend?
Besides just ignoring the sign...

OJ
 

Hillbillly

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14
Location
Sultan, Washington, USA
imported post

I Think if you look at the CCL rules you will see that even if you are CCW you can not enter a State Building armed...why should you be able to OCING
 

tjschul

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
53
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
imported post

1. It's not a state building. Its a private business at 1305 Tacoma Ave. Suite 201.
in Tacoma, to which the state requires you to go to.
2. RCW does not prohibit entry into "state buildings" generally.



OJ
 

norahc

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
83
Location
Washington, Washington, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
Interesting. It may be the state has no idea this is going on. I don't think they can prohibit being armed in legal places if they are directly associated with it... I could be wrong though.

Not likely...

I had to go to the DSHS office in Moses Lake a few years ago, and when I entered the building I happened to notice the gunbuster sign with a reference to the Brandishing Law.

I sent a letter to the AG's office and was basically blown off, so the state is aware and chooses to do nothing about it.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

tjschul wrote:
Guys like dave who have never filed an insurance claim, or who would take any job that only required "2 feet and a heartbeat" might not understand why a person with an actual career, might want to file a claim, take some time, and secure quality employment in their field.

Nope. I do NOT pay into unemployment insurance, so I can NOT recieve any benefits.

If i was hungry, or had to beg the state for money, you're damn straight I'd take any job that only required that the applicant can create fog on the mirror. I'd be the best damn burger flipper in the world, rather than beg for money or mooch off the system.

I abhore gun grabbers and socialists/communists equally.

Personally, I would consider a welfare and/or unemployment insurance recipient a defacto "employee of the state." You wife now has a job, paid for by the state... her job is to apply for other jobs while attending training sessions as needed and jumping through whatever other hoop is required (which should include such things as mandatory drug screening, cap on unnecessary/luxury expenditures with accompanying audits, etc).

Anyways, iirc there was some screwy exceptions to preemption for public/private partnerships in WA. Can't cite the case law, I just have a vauge memory of hearing something about some ruling a few years back. Might want to try a lexis search.

Hey man, I'm not busting your balls (or your wifes), I was only pointing out that the easiest way to not disarm when collecting unemployment insurance is to get a job. Getting 'approval' to carry would likely take longer than her benefits will last.

Option B would be: "concealed means concealed."
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

as a self-employed person is still required to pay taxes, social security, payroll tax, and unemployment insurance?
You're quite wrong about the latter: a self-employed person (whether a sole proprietor or a corp officer) in WA is generally considered exempt for purposes of Employment Security.
 

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Also, there is no requirement to attend any workshops at any office. To avoid going to the offices, you must make three employer contacts per week and document that. Your claim can be filed online. No need to actually enter an office or even talk to someone.

The below information comes directly from the states worksource website:



[line]


http://fortress.wa.gov/esd/portal/unemployment/benefits/webpbr.htm


To be eligible for unemployment benefits, you must be able to work, available for work, and actively seeking work each week that you file a weekly claim for benefits. The following requirements must be met each week you file a weekly claim or you may lose your benefits for the week:


  • You must make at least three employer contacts each week, OR
  • Participate in three approved in-person job search activities at your WorkSource Office or local employment center, OR
  • Have a combination of employer contacts and in-person activities for a total of three.

    Approved in-person job search activities at the WorkSource Office or local employment center include workshops on topics such as job finding tips, interviewing skills, or how to use the Internet to find a job. Other activities that qualify may be offered by your local office.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

My wife has gotten the same letter about Worksource before, where they tell her if she does not attend the workshops, she will not receive benefits. Basically, if they feel you've applied too often in the last X years for UI benefits, they force you to go through this workshop. That's my understanding at least.

A lot of things about unemployment and the whole social welfare system, especially in Washington, stinks; I try to avoid it whenever possible.
 
Top