What Does it Mean to be Able and Available to Work

[jk]

eikichionizuka;479554]Obviously I'm not available for a 13 hour period during transit time

there you go, you are not available but not only during that transit time but the time you are overseas.

, but that doesn't necessarily equate to being "detached from the workforce" as you seem to be implying.

again, you seem to be thinking about reacting to a situation and that is not what the question is asking. If you are overseas, you cannot be available for work. It really is that simple regardless of how complex you want to try to make it.

. Nobody can be instantaneously available for work, even if they are outside the building of the company in question at the time of hire;

as I said, it's not a matter of instantaneously being ready for work. They are asking about the week(s) past. They consider being out of the area not available for work.

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

.they don't care about global mobility. All they care about is: could you have shown up for work on the days you are filing your UI claim for. If you are overseas, you obviously could not have.

If one wants to argue the definition of immediate availability it can become quite subjective

so quit arguing about it.

I'm sure that there are some employers that would like for a potential employee to be in to work within 30 minutes

and that has nothing to do with the situation. They aren't asking about how quickly you could respond if somebody called you today. They are asking about last week. Let me phrase it a bit differently; was there any reason you could not have been at work for the time you are claiming? If you are ill, out of the country, half way across the country, drunk, or unconscious, there is time you could not have reported to work. You cannot claim for that time.

Would a court determine that all those claimants not available for work within 30 minutes are ineligible for benefits?

no because that is not the criteria.

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

Well, I don't think they would. When asked, you be sure to tell them you could have hopped on an ICBM and had been back and able to be working in 30 minutes or less. I don't think they are going to accept you being oversees as being available.

[eikichionizuka]

I understand the points that you are making, however I'm interested in what the relevant administrative law allows for in the context of the Sanchez ruling. Like I said before, EDD could ask me if I enjoy eating mango ice cream wearing spandex shorts while riding a tricycle at midnight talking on an 80's cellphone on the handicapped little person's love hotline on Thursdays; fortunately, EDD is not the ultimate authority when there is a question of being Able and Available. My question still remains.

Also your first rebuttal is implicitly assuming that there is some hypothetical event that would have prevented me from returning back to CA, causing me to thereby be unavailable for the duration of my overseas stay; this reasoning is incorrect. In actuality, I am only unavailable for the transit time; you cannot apply hypothetical situations in the manner you have done so in this context as similar arguments could be made for someone that is physically present in CA such as a car breakdown, house implosion/explosion, etc...

[eerelations]

This is a really stupid argument. The responders here disagree with you and are going to continue to disagree with you no matter what you say. As you've already been told, take your case up with the EDD and stop wasting your time (and ours!) here.

[cbg]

Since it is clear that your only purpose in being here is to get someone to rubber stamp your theory, and since even in the unlikely event that you were able to convert every person here to your way of thinking it would not be binding on the state of California, I'm not going to waste any more time with you. Just one thing - when you're finished with the crystal ball you evidently believe you have, would you return it?

[jk]

In actuality, I am only unavailable for the transit time; you cannot apply hypothetical situations in the manner you have done so in this context as similar arguments could be made for someone that is physically present in CA such as a car breakdown, house implosion/explosion, etc...

well, we can do nothing but apply a hypothetical situation because you have not given any facts that would make us believe it is a real situation.

In actuality, you are not available anytime you are out of the area you would accept work regardless of whether it was travel time or vacation time. I have seen a person DQ'd for 2 days because they traveled to the opposite end of the state, for two days, because they were not available to work in the area they were willing to accept a job.


the car breakdown or house implosion/explosion does not in itself make the person unavailable to work.

I believe you will see that in Sanchez, not being within the area you have determined to be an acceptable area of work would be seen as not being attached to the labor market.