Page images
PDF
EPUB

"In its capacity as a social stabilizer, unemployment insurance has several limitations. First of all, benefits are limited to those covered by unemployment insurance programs currently about 80 per cent of those in civilian wage and salary employment. Second, unemployment insurance is intended to provide only relatively short-term help the maximum duration of benefits is 26 weeks in most states. Also, in most states, the maximum benefit levels represent less than half of the earnings they are intended to replace, and, for many claimants, benefits are in practice often less than the maximum because these claimants cannot fulfill the requirements which state laws impose as to earnings and the length of time spent in covered employment."

The federal standards as proposed in S. 1991 would correct the limitations set forth in the article quoted. It is the feeling of Labor in Ohio that these changes are needed now. Passage of S. 1991 will mean equity for the unemployed workers of America, stronger state unemployment systems and greater economic stability for the country nationally.

Senator TALMADGE. Senator Javits has just arrived and I presume he desires to make a statement of some kind. Senators are extremely busy, and I would like to defer hearing from the next witness until we hear from Senator Javits, if you will.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACOBS JAVITS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator JAVITS. If Miss Tetrault will forgive me

Senator TALMADGE. We are delighted to have the distinguished senior Senator from New York.

Senator JAVITS. I express my gratitude to my friend, the occupant of the chair. I am here primarily to introduce Miss Tetrault and Mr. Golodner in their testimony and to make a short statement on their behalf.

Actors' Equity is proposing an amendment to cover the difficult. problem of multiple interstate claims for unemployment compensation. Under existing law, all but six States have entered into agreements covering these cases. Credits accumulated, and paid for, in one of the six States are wholly or partially lost when the employee moves to another State; the same thing is true when the employee moves to one of the six States. Even in the remaining States, which do have agreements, some claimants are ineligible for benefits anyway, or are eligible only for partial benefits, because there is no provision in the agreements, much less a uniform provision, for definition of the base period on which eligibility and benefits are computed. Actors' Equity proposes, and I will introduce as an amendment, a simple requirement that all States participate in arrangements with other States including one uniform and quite reasonable principle, that is, that the base period shall be determined under the law of the State which pays the benefits. In that way, employees who meet the requirements of the paying State will receive the full amount of benefits, regardless of the base period requirements of the State or States in which they previously worked.

This is clearly a needed and desirable amendment to the law. Our Nation is facing manpower demands which make it absolutely indispensable that there be true labor mobility throughout the Nation. The Congress has recognized this fact in a number of ways, including tax relief for moving expenses of employees and labor mobility assistance under the Manpower Development and Training Act. It should also avoid penalizing employees for interstate movement under the Unemployment Compensation Act.

Finally, we are very proud of the fact that Actors' Equity is located in New York. It is one of our smaller, but to us, very precious unions, and it has greatly improved the position of actors in the United States. We only hope that present activities, including the Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, the New York State Council on the Arts, and those in other States, may enormously enlarge the opportunities for actors. We are very proud of the American stage. I think that goes for everyone in our Nation, and we want to do everything we can in New York, and I believe the Congress feels the same way, to make the practice of this art, with all of its difficulties, a bit more economically viable.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you, Senator Javits.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much.

Senator TALMADGE. You may proceed, Miss Tetrault.
This is Miss Helene Tetrault, Actors' Equity Association.

STATEMENT OF HELENE TETRAULT, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, ACTORS' EQUITY ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JACK GOLODNER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE Miss TETRAULT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the Actors' Equity Association I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and to ask your consideration of what we believe is an inadvertent but extremely unjust shortcoming in our present unemployment compensation system. Its effect is to deprive many Americans of insurance benefits merely because they pursue work in many States and for many employers.

Perhaps the actor is in the vanguard of these multistate workers. The very nature of his profession requires that he be highly mobile. His work for one employer is often of a short duration, and he must be prepared to move about this country wherever there are employers and communities seeking his art. But the actor is not the only one who finds our present unemployment insurance program discriminatory against interstate workers. Other workers-construction people, resort employees-also feel the inequities of a system that penalizes and frustrates worker mobility.

I am speaking now of people who are engaged in "covered" employment. Their employers are paying contributions on their services. Yet, because of the miltistate nature of their employment, they are often unable to collect benefits in time of need even though their work and wage history is more than ample.

For many years the association I represent and other organizations and individuals have condemned this wholly unfair, unjust, and economically unwise condition. Time and again, we have questioned why our system should be permitted to make it possible for two covered workers with similar work experience to be treated differently and be offered different protection solely because one is employed in many States by many employers and the other-less mobile-is not. Thus far, we have received no valid answer. But we have seen no action to correct the situation either.

I prefer to think the discriminatory system now working to the detriment of the multistate workers is not intended. I prefer to believe that the status of second-class citizen which our unemployment insur

65-992-66-15

ance system imposes upon the more mobile worker in our country exists because it is generally unknown and men who can do something about it-such as yourselves-have been led to believe that all workers who are engaged in "covered" employment and boast a proper work and wage history are protected. Congress may have intended that such workers be protected, but in fact, gentlemen, many of them are not. The basic reason lies in the fact that the career of the multistate worker recognizes no State boundaries and yet unemployment insurance benefits, if he is to enjoy any, must derive from individual State laws fashioned with the immobile intrastate worker in mind. So different are these laws that any claim filed by the multistate worker is like some crazy jigsaw puzzle composed of pieces from as many as 50 different boxes. Sometimes it can be put together and make sense. Often, it cannot.

In order to file a valid combined claim-that is, a claim against several States in which the applicant was employed-a worker must first satisfy the basic requirements of the State in which he files. Accordingly, if a claimant files in New York, where eligibility is based on workweeks, he must have the requisite number of weeks; if in California, where eligibility is based on earnings, the requisite amount of earnings. These weeks or earnings, in order to be considered in a claim must have been gained during a 1-year "base period" established by State law. The multistate worker, therefore, must demonstrate not only that he has been engaged in sufficient covered employment as required by the State in which he files but that the employment he cites also fell within the base period year defined by that State, as well as the base periods established by the State or States in which he was employed. The more States in which a claimant is employed, the more difficult it becomes for him ever to satisfy these varied requirements.

As will be seen from the charts attached to my testimony the differences in the State base period are staggering. The root of the problem lies in this matching of base periods, the fact that all of the employment must fit within the base period of a State where the claimant files and the base period of the State where the employment was worked and covered.

The difference in base periods is so great that this is almost completely impossible in many cases.

For example, in the State of New York, the base period is the 52-week period ending with the Sunday preceding the filing of the claim. In California it is the four quarters ending 4 to 7 months prior to the filing of the claim. In North Carolina, it is the four quarters ending 6 to 9 months prior to the filing of the claim, and in States such as Maine or Washington where a fixed calendar-year base period is utilized, the base period may end 15 or 18 months prior to the filing of the claim. This means that a worker must wait as long as 18 months before he can cite his "covered" employment in these States to substantiate a claim.

These differences may not be of much consequence to the average intrastate worker who remains for extended periods of time in one State and thus has only one "base period" to worry about. But, to the multistate worker who works for short periods in many States and who is forced to qualify under several State-defined base periods, the prob lem is overwhelming.

I will try to make this situation clear by referring to a hypothetical case. One, incidentally, which is typical of the many that come across my desk.

Joe Actor, currently residing in New York, is unemployed and while making "the rounds" seeking work he files for unemployment insurance on January 3, 1966. Since the base period in New York is defined as the 52 weeks ending with the Sunday preceding the filing of the claim, Joe's New York "base period" runs from January 1, 1965, through January 2, 1966. To qualify for benefits in New York a claimant must have had covered employment at wages of $15 or more in each of 20 weeks in the base period.

During the period January 1, 1965, to January 2, 1966, Joe performed for 10 weeks in a Broadway show in the first quarter of the year; 6 weeks with the Seattle Repertory Co. in Washington in the second quarter; 2 weeks in Alaska, also in the second quarter; 9 weeks in a summer theater in Michigan in the third quarter; and 10 weeks with a theater in Florida in the fourth quarter. Joe has 37 weeks of covered employment during the year preceding his period of unemployment. Each of his employers paid his insurance. Furthermore his earnings in every instance exceeded those required to qualify him for maximum benefits in New York. Joe is confident that he is eligible for unemployment insurance. He has much to learn.

He learns first that he does not have a valid claim under New York's system because he does not have 20 weeks of covered employment in New York. He only has 10 weeks in the first quarter of his base period year. And so, he is sent to New York's interstate office. Here he learns that he does not have a valid claim against any of the States in which he worked because he didn't work long enough in any one. is then referred to the New York Combined Claims Section where they will help him put his 37 weeks of work together in a combined claim against New York, Washington, Alaska, Michigan, and Florida.

He

Unfortunately, Alaska is one of two States in our Union that refuses to participate in combined claims so Joe has lost 2 weeks of employment credit, and the money paid for Joe's insurance by his Alaskan employer will never benefit Joe.

But the other States do participate in combined claims, and if they will agree to participate with New York by sharing the cost of Joe's benefits, Joe will be in good shape.

Unfortunately, each State, though willing to participate, insists that Joe meet its own base period requirements.

The State of Washington has a base period of a calendar year and any employment occurring in that year cannot be cited in a claim until after July 1 of the succeeding calendar year. For the purposes of his claim, Joe cannot cite his 6 weeks work in Washington until July 1966.

Florida's base period is defined as the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters. This means that Joe's employment in the fourth quarter of 1965 in Florida cannot be used for a claim until after April 1, 1966. For this reason, another 10 weeks of covered employment is useless to Joe in substantiating his claim.

Of all of Joe's workweeks, only his employment in Michigan and New York can be used to validate his combined claim. But this gives him only 19 weeks-1 week shy of New York's 20-week requirement.

And so, gentlemen, Joe Actor, with 37 weeks of covered employment taking place in the base period time defined by New York is turned away from the New York office and received no unemployment benefits because he cannot possibly meet the very diverse requirements of five different States in which he was employed.

What if Joes is still unemployed on April 1? Knowing that Florida law will now allow him to claim those 10 weeks of Florida work he hurries back to the New York unemployment office. And, true enough, he can now cite his work in Florida in presenting his claim. but according to New York law, his New York base period has changed and is now the period of March 26, 1965, to March 27, 1966; it is no longer January 1, 1965, through January 2, 1966. Now Joe cannot claim his 10 weeks' work in New York in the first quarter of 1965; it is outside of his new base period. Thus, while gaining the 10 weeks from Florida, he loses 10 weeks from New York employment for pur poses of his claim. He still has only 19 weeks of employment that he can cite, and he is again denied unemployment insurance.

H.R. 15119, which is before you, establishes a Federal-State extended unemployment compensation program to assist long-term unemployed workers who have exhausted the benefits of their State program. What about the American who works in many States and like Joe Actor is unfairly denied qualification in any State for even the basic benefit program? Is he to be denied coverage under this new Federal program as well? Why? Why should he be penalized? Because he is willing to move about looking for work and because the nature of his work requires that he accept short-term employment in many States?

I respectfully suggest that this inequitable situation can be corrected by this Congress through the legislation being considered by you. I submit that this can be done without altering the fundamental base period-benefit year structure of our State systems and without requiring any additional financing. This can be done by inserting the following into the legislation you recommend:

1. A requirement that all States participate in "combined claims,” the procedure whereby wage credits earned in one or more States are combined for the purpose of establishing a valid claim in the State where the claim is filed. All but two States have voluntarily entered into agreements to participate in combined claims. The overwhelming majority of States have experimented and have found such procedures practical and workable. It remains for Congress to learn from the experiences of the States and to make the practice uniform.

2. A requirement that all States participate in arrangements whereby not only an individual's eligibility but the amount and duration of his benefits can be determined on the basis of his employment outside of the State in which he filed his claim. At present, only six States have not gone along with the majority on this matter.

« PreviousContinue »