—Theodor Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss)
The kind of nonsense IDES has been sending to me wakes up my brain cells, all right—the ones connected to anger. Let me explain.
Back in December, I received notice that my unemployment benefits would continue without any action on my part. And so they did. Until I made my claim for benefits covering the last week of January and the first week of February. In Illinois, the "Statement of Certification" IDES sends spells out exactly which weeks you're answering questions about. And when I called, I was told my benefits ended in January. I could call a particular number to find out more.
Of course I called the number. But there was no further information other than that I could leave a message and they'd get back to me.
The mailbox was full.
Then I received a new statement on February 11 saying that I was deemed ineligible because I didn't make enough money during My Year of Unenjoyment to qualify. Well, no sh_ _, Sherlock! as a college acquaintance of mine used to mutter. But I thought continued benefits were based on the same numbers used to determine my original benefit amount—that is, my earnings prior to being laid off.
I tried not to get too worked up over this confusion because on the top of the VERY SAME STATEMENT were instructions on calling in my next claim for benefits. Top or bottom? Which would you choose to believe?
I went for the top and, on my assigned day this past week, called in my claim. The Teleserve voice told me my claim was accepted.
Two days later I received a thick envelope from IDES containing three notices:
1. An explanation of my rights.
2. Another statement saying I'm ineligible; only this time, it refers me to the "adjudicator's determination," which was not enclosed. My "interview" (read: hearing) is scheduled for seven days from the date of the statement, which was forward-dated to the day it actually arrived in my mailbox (the other notes in the envelope had earlier dates, so that was nice of them, I guess).
3. The regular "Statement of Certification" telling me when to call Teleserve next (as if all's well).
I knew before Christmas that IDES was having trouble keeping up with the Federal extensions granted to the jobless. In fact, state employees were having to override the computerized system and enter information manually. A friend of mine was told this by an IDES staffer. But I assumed they'd be caught up by now. (Or maybe they ARE caught up and my ineligibility is a bigger problem than I thought.)
How much extra work do these communication snafus cause the IDES staffers? How many times a day do they have to explain what these notices mean to people like me? IDES staffers deserve to know who wrote this tangle of the English language—or better, who approved it—and then mete out some justice.
I wrote to IDES. Volunteered to look over their communications with the outside world and edit the content for easier comprehension. On the other hand, if IDES was trying to be trying—if this was a strategy to exasperate the jobless to the point that we'd give up making claims and the government would keep the money—then they're doing a fine job.
[Portrait of Anger by Patricia Lange.]
Back in December, I received notice that my unemployment benefits would continue without any action on my part. And so they did. Until I made my claim for benefits covering the last week of January and the first week of February. In Illinois, the "Statement of Certification" IDES sends spells out exactly which weeks you're answering questions about. And when I called, I was told my benefits ended in January. I could call a particular number to find out more.
Of course I called the number. But there was no further information other than that I could leave a message and they'd get back to me.
The mailbox was full.
Then I received a new statement on February 11 saying that I was deemed ineligible because I didn't make enough money during My Year of Unenjoyment to qualify. Well, no sh_ _, Sherlock! as a college acquaintance of mine used to mutter. But I thought continued benefits were based on the same numbers used to determine my original benefit amount—that is, my earnings prior to being laid off.
I tried not to get too worked up over this confusion because on the top of the VERY SAME STATEMENT were instructions on calling in my next claim for benefits. Top or bottom? Which would you choose to believe?
I went for the top and, on my assigned day this past week, called in my claim. The Teleserve voice told me my claim was accepted.
Two days later I received a thick envelope from IDES containing three notices:
1. An explanation of my rights.
2. Another statement saying I'm ineligible; only this time, it refers me to the "adjudicator's determination," which was not enclosed. My "interview" (read: hearing) is scheduled for seven days from the date of the statement, which was forward-dated to the day it actually arrived in my mailbox (the other notes in the envelope had earlier dates, so that was nice of them, I guess).
3. The regular "Statement of Certification" telling me when to call Teleserve next (as if all's well).
I knew before Christmas that IDES was having trouble keeping up with the Federal extensions granted to the jobless. In fact, state employees were having to override the computerized system and enter information manually. A friend of mine was told this by an IDES staffer. But I assumed they'd be caught up by now. (Or maybe they ARE caught up and my ineligibility is a bigger problem than I thought.)
How much extra work do these communication snafus cause the IDES staffers? How many times a day do they have to explain what these notices mean to people like me? IDES staffers deserve to know who wrote this tangle of the English language—or better, who approved it—and then mete out some justice.
I wrote to IDES. Volunteered to look over their communications with the outside world and edit the content for easier comprehension. On the other hand, if IDES was trying to be trying—if this was a strategy to exasperate the jobless to the point that we'd give up making claims and the government would keep the money—then they're doing a fine job.
[Portrait of Anger by Patricia Lange.]
No comments:
Post a Comment