Mentor

It appears a lot of people think unemployment benefits are ineligible to those who quit even for good cause. Labor law as it applies to unemployment is very specific. One can quit when moving more than 75 miles away to follow a spouse's new employment. Another reason can be when an employee has documented harassment or abusive working conditions (witnesses, police report). Also another can be if there's hazardous working conditions that are documented. I have seen many of these questions asked in this forum and so many answer they are ineligible automatically when someone quits. Why do you who feel this way, feel that quitting with good cause is not valid?

Why should a person's livelihood be penalized for being harassed or abused? That doesn't sound very factual or have any beneficial meaning or substance. Quitting for good cause, of no fault of their own should be entitled to benefits for the same reasons as being laid off. Why should there be a logical difference in the results to receive benefits? There is no difference between being laid off and quitting with good cause in its effects, according to the reasons for quitting in this question, as they both separate one from employment through no fault of their own. If you understand it this way, then it will have deeper meaning that quitting and receiving unemployment can make sense.

It appears a lot of people think unemployment benefits are ineligible to those who quit even for good cause. Labor law as it applies to unemployment is very specific. One can quit when moving more than 75 miles away to follow a spouse's new employment. Another reason can be when an employee has documented harassment or abusive working conditions (witnesses, police report). Also another can be if there's hazardous working conditions that are documented. I have seen many of these questions asked in this forum and so many answer they are ineligible automatically when someone quits. Why do you who feel this way, feel that quitting with good cause is not valid?