Fast forward to COVID when we were requested to close for a few months and unemployment benefits were supposedly extended to freelancers, I filed for that time we were closed and it was stuck in pending status since April 2020.
I am of the opinion that unemployment insurance as it is in my state is an outright scam and should be abolished (and replaced if need be). New York and Pennsylvania had some delays, but nothing like the shit NJ has been.
I also requested that he co-sponsor one of the bills that greatly increases penalties for defrauding the system (it's currently pretty much a slap on the wrist).
The vast majority of Americans are entirely unaware that most of the day-to-day laws and systems are implemented at state level (aside from griping about governor's office executive orders). There's one news network that reports on our state's government affairs and hardly anyone watches it. But everyone knows the second a federal politician does something.
The staff was caught on video using the cards to buy goods.
If there is a state with a more dysfunctional Unemployment benefits office, I'd like to hear stories
That way you get a response (thank you for completing the form) and then zero way to track the communication. In my case, I have never received anything after that from any of my representatives.
You can't call to check on it, because, again, they're no longer taking phone calls. And even if they did, you have no reference number.
They took advantage of the pandemic to just completely cut ties with their constituents outside of THEIR approved avenues.
Super cool. Very representative.
Right?
If you otherwise like your current reps, I'm sorry.
That is far sufficient time to get a response, even if they were initially overwhelmed.
Families and businesses get overwhelmed too, but they are expected to file NJ tax returns on time. Try not responding to NJ for 14 months after NJ is owed money and see what happens. Rules for thee but not for me is the motto of many governments.
I've found luck in starting with emailing the office of my lowest (closest) representative at the smallest unit of government, telling them my problem, and asking them who I can talk to about it. "Who's responsible for pothole repairs on (street that might be state or county controlled instead of the city)?" This puts the ambitions of the office to work. Oftentimes they will rather get credit for solving your problem and do work for you than just give you a phone number or email address, and in the event of a roadblock you can go back to them for more help. "Hey, I tried X but Y happened, got any other ideas?" Your state rep's communications intern doesn't just sit back alphabetizing checks from Walmart executives and police unions.
Not all congresscritters will have the same effectiveness, but that is the first place to start if the trail to getting results turns to a dead-end.
You can follow up with injunction from court to order them to cease whatever it is. Then contempt of court if they violate injunction.
I submitted the information to the DOJ, who are supposed to sue if there's a pattern, policy, or practice that violates one's rights. Frankly, I don't think they'll do anything. Same as the other things I've done - contacting reps (ignored me), filing IAD complaints ("counseled" the trooper but nothing more), filing a bar complaint against the prosecutor (the bar says they won't even investigate prosecutors unless a court declares misconduct and of course that costs money to sue), and a judicial complaint against a magistrate (apparently a recording of the trial does not present sufficient evidence of misconduct even though there was clear bias, he's a retired police chief, refused to even hear a defense motion which is a 4th amendment violation, and yelled at the defense which is an example of misconduct that given when filing out complaint form).
Nobody in the system wants to hold others in the system accountable. The system itself is more important than any individual's rights - that's the justification they give for keeping judicial conduct records secret, even if they contain exculpatory evidence.
The attorney's bar club just protects the club members. But malpractice insurance companies know the game and rate the policies based on number of complaints against each attorney. Several complaints significantly increases malpractice insurance cost.
I might look into it, but I highly doubt anything will happen.
I don't think the complaints matter unless they are pursued. In this case the bar says they won't even investigate it without a court finding misconduct occurred (at that point is there even any investigation needed? Wtf does the bar complaint actually investigate?).
He wasn't very helpful, but he at least responded... And not in a canned letter.
In every place I've lived, elected officials are good at constituent services, and that's how they get re-elected. I'm surprised to hear of elected reps just ignoring constituent services requests.
I also sometimes contact my reps with lobbying/policy stuff -- what is your position on X? I urge you to vote No on Bill Whatever and would like to know if you will. Can you commit to supporting legislation to reform Y? Etc. And it can indeed often take months to get a form letter response that may not really respond to my query at all, or not get a response at all. It's true.
If you want to go on to say that they shouldn't be different, or that the policy issues really do effect you personally so should be considered or treated the same... that's fine, you may be right, but it's not how the offices of elected officials usually operate.
Also, while I'm surprised to hear of reps totally ignoring constituent services requests with no response... if your constituent services request was about police misconduct, and they aren't known as a far-left politician, I'm less surprised, because that's such a hot button "political" issue. (I'm not saying it's "ok" or I like it, just based on my understanding of how politicians operate i'm less surprised).
It's not on their website?
For example, magistrates are not required to be lawyers nor pass the bar. I had a magistrate think that I was calling him prejudice when asking to dismiss with prejudice. What a mess. How can they be allowed to be this incompetent? They should need to demonstrate basic legal knowledge and pass the bar. They have a lot of power with very little oversight and training. Nobody is addressing this.
No, it's the equivalent of escalating it to a member of the Board of Directors.
Well, maybe. Legislators are really variable on constitutent service, but many will (or rather, will allow their office staff to; direct, even by something going out under their name rather than a staff contact, is less common) at least gently probe on behalf of constituents on state service issues, and if a high enough volume is involved are more likely to get personally involved.
But any response that does happen is likely to involve butt covering and blame redirection from virtually every step of the management chain, just like when an issue hits the news media, so on issues where you haven't exhausted other avenues short of lawsuits, it's probably not the step to reach for the way escalating to a manager would be. I’ve definitely been involved in issues where premature escalation to a legislator delayed and/or made the resolution less favorable than it probably otherwise would have been because of the degree of attention from management, legal, public and legislative affairs, etc., that the escalation triggered.
It makes sense in the particular circumstances described, though, it's just the analogy that was flawed in a way which might be misleading as to how that generalizes to other situations.
... that we collectively refuse to pay enough taxes to staff government agencies at sufficient levels to allow them to provide the service we believe we deserve.
But if the NJ government’s budget does not allow them to respond to a single email after multiple months, that is a sign of intentional negligence, or a failed state.
Again, I am giving quite a bit of leeway. At 14 months with no response, that is not understaffing. That is deliberate sabotage by leaders to prevent people from getting benefits.
Still, I'm inclined to agree with you that some of what you describe in your 2nd para is likely happening too.
That seems to contradict your assertion that the government would have given him better service had more taxes been directed at them.
Having worked in this space my cynical observation is that you don't get the budget to run a big appeals process and a quality watchdog team, etc, etc, if you don't suck bad enough to need those things in the first place.
All the leaders know what is happening. It has been in the news many times.
The problem is that systems are deliberately designed to be difficult to navigate in order to discourage use.
It isn't money. It is a belief that recipients are not deserving, and so should be made to "pay" for it or denied altogether.
I worked for a state agency that make workforce services software for several states. Not unemployment, but the other programs to help people find jobs and/or get retrained.
The management overwhelmingly wanted to find ways to help people and spend the money (that's how they get bigger grants, after all, by spending all of the last one and "coming up short"). The majority of the staff wanted to help people and spend the state's money as well.
But the rules are arcane and the agencies are perpetually understaffed and the software systems are terrible (federal programs often allow too small of a fraction of the allocated money to be spent on administration). So it's still a hell of a thing to get the money spent helping people, even if everybody's heart is in the right place.
The problems are myriad, but I'd say the biggest issue is state legislators that are unwilling to invest in modernization in "good times" when the benefits programs aren't over-taxed, and then wonder why the systems (both technical and people) can't scale when society needs the help.
Exactly, and this is by design. Here is how it was designed to not work in Florida:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/florida-unemployment...
But the general outline is the same most everywhere.
> management overwhelmingly wanted to find ways to help
They don't matter, they don't set the rules or the budget.
This is not accidental.
Our government already runs at a tremendous deficit. They can keep borrowing longer than we can remain on the run from the law.
Edit: I had actually completely misread the GP's comment. I had somehow thought they meant that we should do a tax-strike in order to force the government to reform. My cynical counterargument was that they would just borrow to make up for the missed revenue until the protestors gave-in or were arrested.
Because we pay less in taxes than we (as the people who elect our governments) choose to spend. Sure, we could spend less, but we could also tax more (a LOT more), and have done so in the past.
It reached it's lowest since 1965, 22.9%, in 2009. Highest recently was 2017 (27%), and in 2000 it reached 28.3%
The Clinton years were probably what you're looking for, where tax revenues increased linearly from 25.6% to 28.3%, but through the 70s and 80s it varied from 24 to 26%, same as now.
Not sure if an extra 1% of GDP would fall in your "LOT more" category, but it seems far less than normal countries raise.
Definitely. I know someone in NJ who has not received unemployed benefits for 14 months. They call every month, and are told to keep waiting. No one returns their calls, snail mail, or emails.
There is zero justification the government cannot respond via email, or give you a call back, other than they would like you to waste so much of your time and effort on hold that you give up.