I was greatly surprised when I got to the Kansas campaign and found out these school bus workers are not allowed to receive unemployment benefits, per the state of Kansas, because they work for a company(First Student)who is sub-contracted by a school district. This is the first time I have ever heard this and I was shocked and saddened by this. How in the world does the state expect these workers to survive two and a half months during the summer with no money coming in? AND who is going to hire a worker knowing they will only be there two and a half months?

This is something that needs some attention quickly by the Federal Govt! This is nothing short of inhuman treatment of workers!

If there are other states like this, please, I'd like to know which ones they. Something definitely needs to be done to addressed this cruel and unusual punishment!

I guess the question is: Are the drivers employees of the school district or a transportation company? I just went to the Kansas unemployment website. One of the reasons to be denied is because they could be an employee of a school district that has time off between school years.

To answer your question about how do they expect them to survive, I'm sure the state would say get another job. But then who would come back at the beginning of the school year to transport the children? I guess that's why they have such a turnover of drivers everywhere.

At this facility in Kansas, First Student has the contract with the school district. The workers are therefore employed by a private contractor and not the school district.

I have been to many locations organizing workers since Sept of 2006 and this is a first for me. I'd hope it to be the last but only time will tell.

If they are employed by First they should be able to collect. The company should have work for them in the summer doing camp routes etc. If this is so then they should be able to appeal the decision by the state. We did in New Hampshire and won!

Most of my people here couldn't be bothered. I guess they were afraid to question the system. There was only two of us that went all the way. It may take a few times appealing. They work for First and the company should have extra work for summer school, camps, special needs and other trips during the summer months.

Hi everyone,

We have to also look at the rules a reg.'s of the state and how it is worded. In Illinois as long as you are available for work and the employer doesn't fight it, you can collect.

John Bosanac

I see no reason for drivers being paid by a private company, no matter who the company has a contract with, to not be able to get benefits. This smells a little fishy to me. Could there be something that the company is doing to prevent the drivers from collecting? I would just go and apply to the state unemployment office and if it is rejected put in an appeal. I worked as a sub for a school district in NJ and was eligible for benefits because even though the school paid me, I did not have a contract. So they could not prevent the subs from collecting. Don't take no for an answer!

I totally agree that workers should appeal if they are turned down. I know in IL those of us who were school bus workers had always been receiving our unemployment at Christmas and summers. Suddenly one Christmas all of us in down state IL were turned down for collecting our 2 wks of unemployment. Shocked we fought and even collected over 500 signatures and handed them over to a state senator. We were told excuses after excuses.

Things went on like that for about 4 or 5 yrs. What scared us too was how quickly they yanked the unemployment from us without notice. We were afraid they would be able to do that to us during the summer also.

Just as quickly as it was taken away, it was brought back! Laidlaw, of course, claimed they were in favor of us receiving it all along. What was really odd was in the central region of IL we learned of several small Laidlaw locations who were receiving their unemployment! Now that really didn't make good sense.

But the point is, workers need to fight this ruling. I agree something is fishy! When you are employed by a private company there should be NO reason to be rejected when you put in a claim for unemployment benefits. It makes NO sense for the state of KS to turn workers down who would then be eligible for a food stamp line.

I know as a former bus driver, there is no way my family budget would have been able to handle being off 2 and a half months without some sort of pay. And there was no way raising a family I could have saved enough money to live off of for that time frame.

When you vote Teamsters you become one big voice. This could be the same voice that helps encourage change in the loss of your unemployment benefits!

Don't say you work for the school district! You don't, you work for First Student. The reason you are claiming benefits is, Lack of work.