Editor’s note: This commentary is by Felicity Haselton, of Andover, a former Reach Up case manager.
On the 18th of July, my position as Reach Up case manager at the Springfield Area Parent-Child Center ended as per Gov. Phil Scott’s breaking the contract. I and 17 other parent-child-center-specific Reach Up case managers were laid off.
It’s a marvel to me that the state does not collectively believe that the first-time and younger parents who are in receipt of TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) benefits do not need additional wrap-around supports, beyond what the already overtaxed current Reach Up teams are able to provide.
However, arguing for my job, I felt, was both demeaning and above my pay grade.
I cannot attest to what the other 17 Reach Up case managers experienced or thought, or how their clients felt as they were being, once again, let down by a system that is, by design, dehumanizing.
I am currently collecting unemployment benefits.
Briefly, I am educated, a homeowner, a parent, married, and I’ve had many jobs throughout my life. I’ve got all the boxes checked. I began working at 15, I’m 51 now. For much of my life, I worked two jobs. I also have a multitude of mental health diagnoses — which I manage, for the most part.
I was surprised to receive a letter in the mail requiring me to attend a meeting at the Department of Labor. I also received a voicemail that sounded threatening: YOU MUST ATTEND THIS MEETING. Being a good soldier, not wanting to jeopardize receiving the small maximum unemployment insurance benefit, I attended the meeting. And therein it became clear to me that EVERYONE WHO IS IN RECEIPT OF UI, MUST ATTEND A MEETING. Not only ONE meeting but regular subsequent meetings, with a staff member who, for some of us, is unable to offer any kind of meaningful help.
I am aware of what resources exist to help me in my job search. I have every expectation of securing appropriate employment within the six months allotted to me.
I was unaware that collecting unemployment benefits also required explaining the rest of my life and being assigned little research tasks. Interestingly, when I mentioned barriers with transportation, the RESEA (Re-Employment Services Eligibility Assessment Team) staff replied, “Then you lied on your weekly claim about being available to work.” And then she changed my answer. She did not offer any resources.
I understand that some people have trouble finding jobs, or need help doing so successfully.
So, perhaps a bit of discernment? Why not begin requiring meetings after someone has already been receiving benefits for, say, eight weeks or some other arbitrary time?
Clearly, a non-rational response has been triggered, as I find myself furious beyond reason. I’m offering this in the name of transparency. I ask you to set aside my indignity.
But answer me this:
What is the current and accurate financial information regarding how much, exactly, employers in the state of Vermont are paying in to unemployment insurance, and same info for what is being withdrawn for claimants?
Is it justifiable or fiscally responsible to pay salaries to people who are performing an unnecessary service? If one wants to believe the current statistics, the unemployment rate in Vermont is about 2%. So clearly, the position of Re-Employment Services and Eligibility Assessment is even less significant than PCC Reach Up case manager.
