What Does it Mean to be Able and Available to Work

[eikichionizuka]

I have read up more on the precedents regarding the ability,willingness,and readiness issue specifically with respect to the California Supreme Court's decision in Sanchez v. CUIAB, 1977. In this opinion it seems that the central issue is not whether a claimant is physically available to work at a particular moment in time, but is whether or not a claimant is effectively "attached to the work force".

What I would like to know is if, according to precedent, being unavailable for less than one day's travel time at any given moment, effectively renders someone as "detached from the work force". Obviously it makes someone unavailable for that particular day, but it doesn't remove someone from being an able and willing participant in the labor force any more than another claimant who is simply sick for a day. Taken in this context I don't believe that being overseas constitutes an unavailability for work in the context of the California Supreme Court precedent. I realize that the simpleton's answer might be, "If you are overseas, you are not available for work"; however, I believe the legal question is larger than that, and that it is centered around the idea of being "attached to the workforce". It seems to me that if a claimant is actively seeking work through online applications overseas, the fact that they would require a day's travel time to potentially start new employment or attend an interview would not effectively discourage a serious employer from considering them for employment; thus this condition of being overseas wouldn't materially affect a claimant's "attachment to the workforce". If someone with expertise in this matter would weigh in, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Mr. Knowitall]

This international travel directly relates to your job search? If you got a job offer that "starts tomorrow", how quickly would you be able to return home and start?

[eikichionizuka]

Receiving a job offer in my field without an interview would be highly improbable, but assuming that were to happen I could hypothetically be available to start the following afternoon; quicker if I were to hitch a ride on a chartered jet such as the Citation X. It seems that you are implying a less than 24 hour transit time would effectively "detach" a person from the workforce. In this modern day and age I don't think that the evidence supports that position. Can you provide arguments as to why you think a less than 24 hour transit time would effectively "detach" a claimant from the workforce? Do you feel that the majority of employers would be effectively discouraged from hiring someone due to a one-time 13 hour transit time? The definition of Able and Available is centered on willingness and availability. I don't think any reasonable court would rule that a less than 24 hour transit time effectively removes someone from being an active participant in the work force; especially so if the claimant was highly qualified and the employer was highly motivated to hire them. In fact it's hard to think of a situation in which an employer would refuse to hire an otherwise suitable candidate due to a temporary one-time unavailability of less than a day.

[cbg]

No, it isn't.

Right now there are far, far more qualified applicants than there are jobs available. The employer can pick and choose. I can easily imagine that if one person wasn't available immediately, when immediately was needed, the employer would have their choice of several other equally qualified candidates who would be.

But we're not the ones you have to convince. If you are called for a job and needed immediately, and you are not available immediately, it's the EDD you'll have to sell your argument to. Not us.

[eikichionizuka]

No, it isn't.

Right now there are far, far more qualified applicants than there are jobs available. The employer can pick and choose. I can easily imagine that if one person wasn't available immediately, when immediately was needed, the employer would have their choice of several other equally qualified candidates who would be.

But we're not the ones you have to convince. If you are called for a job and needed immediately, and you are not available immediately, it's the EDD you'll have to sell your argument to. Not us.

Well hypothetically speaking, I am not trying to sell any arguments to EDD, since it is well-known its largest motivation is to deny benefits whenever feasible; what I am more interested in is the merit of these arguments as viewed by the California appeals court system. Ultimately, if it becomes necessary, the courts will be making the decision on these arguments and not some hourly worker at EDD.

[aaron]

Most people on unemployment aren't in a position of being able to go for months without benefits while they exhaust their administrative remedies, and months more, perhaps with a significant outlay of lawyer fees, to fight their claim in a regular trial court and in possible subsequent appeals.

[jk]

You are making the mistake of thinking them asking about your availability with "how fast can you show up for work". That is not what was asked and that is not the basis of their determinations in the matter. The fact of the matter is, especially since this questioned is asked when you answer your questionnaire when applying for the weeks past, the question is quite simple: were you actually available to work on every day you are answering for? In your situation, that would appear to be no if you were overseas, at least, until you returned to the state.


You might want to review PB175 available here: http://www.cuiab.ca.gov/precedent_decisions_a-d.shtm I did not see that it had been modified or overturned by Sanchez v. CUIAB, 1977

[eikichionizuka]

I did review PB 175, but it doesn't precisely apply to my particular situation as I am not arguing that I am looking for work in an overseas market; however, that could be one possible legal argument, although I don't think that it is particularly compelling in my case.
The legal question centers around what the California Supreme Court would rule in terms of being Able and Available. Per the administrative statute and the Sanchez ruling on it, I seem to think that the central question is the question of "attachment to the work force". I'm not even a lawyer and this seems pretty obvious to me.

EDD, for all I care, could ask if I like wearing pink tutus on Wednesdays; however, that has no bearing on how the California Supreme Court would interpret the question of being Able and Available. Sure, I could be mistaken on interpreting the Sanchez ruling or missing some other critical argument, but I think that as far as I can tell, the validity of my question remains.

[cbg]

Well then, you go right ahead and argue it. Be sure to let us know how it comes out when you tell them that even though you're several thousand miles away, you're still available for work.

[eikichionizuka]

Obviously I'm not available for a 13 hour period during transit time, but that doesn't necessarily equate to being "detached from the workforce" as you seem to be implying. It seems pretty clear in the Sanchez ruling that the court was focused on the idea of being effectively "attached" to the workforce. Nobody can be instantaneously available for work, even if they are outside the building of the company in question at the time of hire; they would still have to walk into the building. Thus the idea of immediate availability becomes a matter of degree and if a one time unavailability of 13 hours constitutes an effective "detachment" from the workforce; I don't think that it does given the global mobility of today's workforce.

If one wants to argue the definition of immediate availability it can become quite subjective. I'm sure that there are some employers that would like for a potential employee to be in to work within 30 minutes. Would a court determine that all those claimants not available for work within 30 minutes are ineligible for benefits? The line that defines "immediate availability" is subjective and in a globally mobile workforce I think that The Court would likely rule a one-time transit time for an otherwise eligible claimant would not categorically exclude them from satisfying the availability requirement.