You know, I just thought of a couple of brilliant strategies for working the unemployment game, none of which seem particularly unethical.
First, it is perfectly ok to quit a high paying job to accept a seasonal (if low-paying) one. This sets you up to get laid off due to reduction of force. So, let's say you wanna go work at a ski resort as a patroller or even just a lowly lift operator -- you then have an employment agreement to work till mid- to late April, and are guaranteed to be jobless thereafter.
From there, you file unemployment perfectly legally. Now, in states that require you keep a written record of your applications for appropriate work -- you would need to create some future plan that might make you a bad hire. So when called in for a phone interview (for a professional position such as the one you left voluntarily to accept the dummy seasonal job, because you *are* supposed to apply to jobs in your field of expertise) you can tell them "I'm actually planning on going out of the country for the winter, so I'm applying for jobs on the off chance that you would be willing to hire someone who would be absent during your busiest time of the year."
Another situation: I'll actually be retiring in eight months, so my hope is to find an employer that is looking for fairly short-term help.
I can think of other stories of an upcoming plan to leave the work force that would make one a really bad hire, such as having plans to leave the workforce at some specific future date to spend time being a caretaker for children, grandchildren or an elderly parent.
Any plan to voluntarily leave the workforce that could be disclosed regrettably would do the trick. Gotta make it true though, or else it's fraud in my book.
I haven't read my state's statute on unemployment lately, but I think you have to be "seeking work in a manner that a diligent job seeker would seek work". And you have to be available to work. I think telling employers that you plan on quitting shortly after a hire might mean you aren't "available to work". The reality is that "the government" doesn't check for actual compliance with the job search and availability for work requirements (generally speaking).
Correct, but the employer can protest it and then you have to do a hearing and then they would consider it.
That's what happened to me. I worked at a big law firm, was let go with a number of other folks in the third such wave (officially, however, it was not a layoff...). I collected unemployment. I applied to a LOT of jobs and went on a lot of interviews (always #2 pick though). I finally applied to an adjunct position, teaching outside my field in my second degree, and got it. Note that I didn't need to apply to it because it was outside my field, but once I did...it almost screwed me over as the story continues. Taught three terms on a part-time poorly paid basis. This pay substantially reduced my unemployment (but because the pay was so bad and I had max unemployment benefits, I still got some unemployment). Now the sucky part - because I was working at a low paid job, it actually reduced my benefits the second year on unemployment.... Yes, by doing everything I could to get reemployed, by working I lost money to which I'd otherwise I have been entitled to. Now, I got a job offer just before the 4th term would start, pending the background check and accepted it, but it ended up taking two months for it to all clear. I told my employer I had the offer and was willing to teach until it started. They declined to have me do it, and brought in someone else, and then protested my unemployment for those two months. See, once I started working for the college, THEY were the ones paying my unemployment, not the big law firm (who could have cared less, it was peanuts to us and they told us we could file). Even though the law firm was what made the unemployment happen in the first place place and why my unemployment was max. Now, protesting the unemployment is awesome because 1) I could have not applied outside my field and worked this "awesome" job in the first place, never had this problem, had a lot more free time and cost the taxpayer more, and 2) I tried to do the "right thing" by giving them heads up notice so they could find someone to cover (whether at the beginning or partway through).
I'm not a litigator, but I represented myself at the hearing. They dragged in someone who was on vacation to testify for the phone hearing (I should have insisted on an in-person hearing and they wouldn't have been able to do it). I won, fortunately, even though I feel the hearing officer choose a weaker argument of the 3 I put forth.
Only consolation was that it may have helped me get a side gig the following year teaching an online class for $5K, and helped fill in my resume.
Oh final ironies? Over a year later the US govt sent me a letter demanding I repay a week of my pay. (Not sure why, but possibly because I had a vacation during part of the time, which is allowed depending on where you go and if you are still looking for work during this time.) I just paid it rather than fight again. A few weeks later, the US govt sent me a notice of overpayment, and paid me back that same money.
This a long saga.
TL;DR: Follow the rules, but no need to be the good guy because you can get screwed. Going on unemployment to retire (and not look for work) is not following the rules.
