Page images
PDF
EPUB

The men and women our union represents, as well as a couple of million more who have no one to plead their cause, may for these reasons be seen to be among the innocent victims of the present law's serious inadequacies.

Our people are victimized in these ways:

Since unemployment compensation is based on the worker's weekly wage, it's perfectly clear that a person who gets very low wages draws very low benefits indeed. Average wages in eating and drinking places are now about $1.35 an hour, in hotels and motels $1.40-and those are average, mind you. Wages of a dollar or less are commonplace in an industry which demands of many that they subsist on gratuities.

But there are also many working in the industry who get no tips whose wages are well below even today's $1.25 minimum.

S. 1991 would set a federal standard of unemployment compensation gradually rising to a maximum of two-thirds of the state's average weekly wage, with a minimum of one-half the worker's own weekly wage. The need for this federal standard is clear when you consider the crazy-quilt pattern of present standards. Most workers, if they are covered at all now qualify for less than half of their lost wages when out of work through no fault of their own, and in some states they qualify for as little as 20 or 25 percent. Even under the more generous proposal in S. 1991, it doesn't take much imagination to understand that half of a lost weekly wage of $40 or $50 is mighty thin "cushion" to soften the shock of being out of work. It's tough on the jobless family, and is bound to be tough on the corner grocer if very many families in the neighborhood are ill-protected.

SO

Another way our people are victimized is that many thousands aren't covered at all. I speak of two groups in particular: those working in the small establishments, which far outnumber the large ones, and are characteristic of the industry particularly in the small towns which dot the states you represent; and those working in non-profit institutions. The present personnel crisis in the nation's health services are brought on not alone by the horse-and-buggy pay scales available to those who serve it. The fact that so many are on the outside looking in when it comes to such federal protections as unemployment compensation and minimum wage benefits is definitely a part of this gloomy picture.

It is grim, unpleasant truth that these people who are most in need of the beneficial effects intended by those who framed both the Unemployment Compensation Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act have in fact been exempted from both. It is encouraging to know that the Senate will presently attempt to eliminate the second of these discriminations with pending amendments to the wagehour law now being considered by the Senate Labor Committee. I hope this committee will take the steps needed to wipe away the first by broadening coverage of our unemployment compensation system to the 5 million workers contemplated in S. 1991.

Our people are further victimized by the inadequacies of the present statute because so many of them find themselves in need, even of the pittance now provided low-wage earners in most states, because of the vulnerability of the places where they work to the processes of economic change. Scan any big city newspaper's classified columns under the heading of "Business Opportunities" and you will find almost any day dozens of bars and restaurants offered for sale. Study the bankruptcy notices and you'll find others on the rocks. The mortality of such small enterprises is notorious, and of course when those places die, jobs die with them.

The same unhappy results follow with increasing prevalence as real estate operators in urban centers buy once-proud hotels-like the Astor and the Plaza in New York-now demolished to make way for office buildings. Or when, in keeping with our headlong efforts to cope with urban blight and clotted traffic arteries, we send urban renewal's headache balls crashing into structures in core areas, destroying restaurant jobs along with the buildings.

In one block of my home town of Cincinnati in recent months seven restaurants have been swept away. Some have relocated, some have simply expired, with a net loss of not fewer than 50 jobs. And this is only a start.

Several more blocks in the area are slated for destruction, at no one knows what net cost in steady employment.

I have no figures on the cost in lost jobs growing out of the competition between the states for payrolls of industrial plants, but the pressures are mounting and the plants are on the move. Cincinnati has lost a minimum of 2.000 jobs in the last three or four years due to the movement of such firms as Adler Socks and

Baldwin Piano to other places. Closing those operations not only meant unemployment for those directly concerned, but for the small businesses in their neighborhoods dependent on those workers as customers.

Clearly, it is the intent of unemployment insurance to take up the slack temporarily in order to tide over not only the families concerned, but the communities as well. If the law isn't changed now to provide meaningful protection, the Congress will only compound the problem.

The desperate current needs is adjustment in schedules to assist the long-term unemployed those who remain out of work after present benefits have expired under various state systems. Those particularly affected are people put on the street through closings and automation and plant transfers-not to mention any community hit by such sharp economic changes as brought about by the closing down of a factory in a one-industry town, or any large area suffering the consequences of regional recession.

In many respects the jobless pay system was a better program in the 1930's. when it began, than it is now. Today, in every state, the maximum weekly benefit is smaller, relative to wages, than it was in 1939. Only Hawaii has reached the benefit level long recommended to the states by Republican and Democratic administrations alike. In some states restrictions on qualifying for benefits have been so severely tightened that they continue indefinitely regardless of the worker's readiness to work or his search for a job. Clearly, gentlemen. the hour is at hand for fixing the reasonable federal standards S. 1991 would establish.

As a result of the serious shortcomings of the present statute, and of the shameful variations from state to state in coverage, benefits and eligibility, the figures show that only one of every two jobless persons receives any benefits at all and that only one out of every five dollars of wages lost through unemploy ment is replaced in the family budgets of this nation.

That means our celebrated "economic cushion" only goes, today, 20 percent of the way toward keeping our interdependent economy the affluent society we like to think it to be. Basic reform is long overdue if jobless benefits are to be restored to the place they should occupy as this country's firstline of defense against both current unemployment and recession. We're now in the 66th month of an altogether unprecedented economic boom. Here and there a few clouds are appearing on the horizon, some no bigger than a man's hand. It seems to me that prudence requires that those reforms be enacted now-the time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining.

Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,

Chairman, Committee on Finance,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

LOUISVILLE, KY., July 22, 1966.

DEAR SENATOR LONG: I am writing you on behalf of the Louisville Central Labor Council, Louisville, Kentucky and on behalf of the many wage earners in our community who are affected by legislation pending before your Committee with reference to reforms in the unemployment compensation law.

I request that this letter be printed in the record of Committee hearings. The problems confronting many people in the salaried labor field when they face the misfortune of unemployment are manifold in our area, which I suspect is fairly typical of most areas in this country. We have been particularly concerned with the following problems:

(1) The length of time for which benefits are paid to an unemployed person in many situations has proved to be much too short. This area, on occasions, has been designated as a depressed area and many hard working, conscientious people who have become unemployed through no fault of their own have not been able to find new employment within the time for which unemployment benefits are allowed. It is our understanding that a very slight increase in the tax affecting unemployment benefits would allow a substantially longer benefit period and this certainly should be done.

(2) We have constantly faced the problem of deserving wage earners who have become unemployed and have discovered that they are not eligible for unemployment benefits, farm laborers, agricultural processing workers and certain employees of non-profit organizations and employees of small establishments with fewer than four employees. To the unemployed person, these distinctions as to the nature of his employment or the category of his employer make very little rhyme or reason when he finds that he is not eligible for unemploy

ment benefits until he can find new employment. If at one time there was a valid reason for distinguishing certain types of employment, it is our experience that the reasons no longer exist. Certainly the burden of the very modest tax for a small employer must be equated with the benefit to the employee of that small employer who finds himself without work but with all of the financial responsibilities of maintaining himself and his family. The amount of benefits paid to an unemployed person obviously is not sufficient to meet even bare existence needs. We are aware that these benefits have increased throughout the years, but unfortunately the increase in benefits has lagged far behind the increase of the costs of basic necessities of life, food, clothing and shelter, and provisions should be made to bring the benefits more realistically in line with actual costs. (3) We have had a continual problem, which we feel results from a basic defect in legislation of interpretation and application of eligibility rules. Wefeel that the time has arrived when the eligibility and disqualification rules should be re-examined and re-defined. Particularly, we are concerned with the "availability requirement rule". It is our experience that the application of present rules lacks uniformity and results in many discriminatory holdings. Registration and availability for suitable work should be the standard for eligibility and the rules concerning availability should be clearly defined by the Legislature.

Thank you for the consideration of our opinions and recommendations and we feel confident that the concerted effort of the Senate Committee and the Senate and House will result in legislation which will be more beneficial and meaningful. to the working man.

Very truly yours,

HERBERT L. SEGAL, Attorney for Greater Louisville Central Labor Council.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FEDERATION OF LABOR, AFL-CIO,

Los Angeles, Calif., July 22, 1966.

Hon. RUSSELL L. LONG,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. LONG: The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, in behalf of the 500,000 members of its affiliated local unions, urge the Senate Finance Committee to give complete support to Senate Bill 1991 as it is presently constituted, without amendment.

It is very necessary that minimal Federal standards be established in the field of unemployment compensation for the following reasons:

COVERAGE

The System is frequently criticized because of its failure to protect those who earn the least, who are the most vulnerable to unemployment and hence most quickly thrown into poverty if they lose their jobs. This is not an attribute of the System itself but of our failure to move it out of the selective coverage with which it began its existence, into one of more universal coverage.

Only when all workers mentioned in the bill are covered will the preventive wall against poverty due to temporary joblessness be complete.

BENEFIT LEVELS

Our economy is based on the workers' willingness to make long term expenditure commitments in terms of such essentials as the mortgage on his house or rental levels established by lease, his time payments on an automobile and all other investments of modern living, his health and other insurance payments, his educational obligations to his children, and his taxes.

When he loses his job, not only his personal economy but his role in the national economy is thrown out of kilter unless his replacement income bears a reasonable relationship to his earnings.

It is not unjust or unreasonable that legislation be enacted requiring 50 percent of the individual's weekly wage, thus rectifying the situation to that extent. This is a long overdue step in the right direction.

DURATION OF BENEFITS

Perhaps the most significant fact to note in this area is the changing character of unemployment, itself. When the Act was framed in 1934 it was assumed that most unemployment would result from seasonal factors in production or temporary dislocations in the market. The role of the worker in this picture was assumed to be relatively static. After the seasonal or market dislocations had passed, the worker would return to his former or similar job. However, in today's changing technological and economic pattern the causes of unemployment have changed in ways that create a far greater risk for particular workers of long term unemployment due to major changes of occupation, skill, or location that require considerable time for readjustment.

Thus, the exhaustion of claimants' benefit rights unde existing duration restrictions of the state laws has become a major factor in creating poverty.

The actual number of claimants exhausting their benefit rights before securing employment has decreased in recent years, however, they still constitute approximately one quarter of all beneficiaries. These people have no choice but to turn to public assistance if jobs cannot be found.

RETRAINING

Closely related to the problem of duration, is the question of whether the unemployed worker can hope to find a job without acquiring a new or different skill. For a worker displaced by automation, changing skill requirements, or major shifts in employment distribution, continuous availability may prove an actual handicap to reemployment if it prevents him from acquiring a new skill through training or from moving to a new location to seek employment. The bill would make a progressive step toward solving this problem by requiring states to pay regular benefits to unemployed workers while taking training approved by state agencies.

DISQUALIFICATION PENALTIES

There is necessity for uniform Federal standards on disqualification penalties as those contained in the bill in order to prevent unjust, harsh, and unrealistic penalties as now practiced by some states.

A uniform Federal system of Unemployment Insurance where many states must function within a single national market is seriously needed. The Federal Government is the only jurisdiction which can assure simultaneous updating of provisions among all the States, thus providing a reasonable standard of adequacy without competitive disadvantage to any one state.

The benefits of uniform Federal regulation are not confined to workers. Employers will share equally through protection to their own work force and their own competitive position. It is the surest way to maintain the market on which their prosperity depends.

Respectfully yours,

W. J. BASSETT, Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. A number of these letters, like the one from Louisiana, advocate not precisely what Mr. Meaney advocated. Some advocate that we go beyond what S. 1991 would propose and others advocate some variation from Mr. Meany's statement, but in general they do support S. 1991.

Senator MORTON. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator MORTON. When do you contemplate the conclusion of the public hearings?

The CHAIRMAN. Tomorrow.

Senator MORTON. Assuming we do complete them tomorrow, when would you contemplate that copies of these hearings with these various proposals would be available for the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, I will be glad to make all these letters available to you right now.

Senator MORTON. I will get them.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have the galley proof on the entire hearings by Thursday and the reporter can make available his printed hearing tomorrow morning and the same thing will be true of Wednesday morning, and I would hope then that we could commence executive session on this bill Wednesday, and proceed to start voting on it and, hopefully, report the bill sometime this week.

Now, our remaining witness, Mr. John F. Nagle, wanted to appear for the National Federation of the Blind. Mr. Nagle is ill and unable to be here and the point he has to present in his statement is not of the nature that other witnesses have already presented, and, therefore, I would like to ask that our chief counsel, Mr. Tom Vail, read that statement to us, and that will be our concluding statement for today. STATEMENT OF JOHN F. NAGLE, CHIEF, WASHINGTON OFFICE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, AS READ BY TOM VAIL, CHIEF COUNSEL TO THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

Mr. VAIL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John F. Nagle. I am chief of the Washington office of the National Federation of the Blind. My address is 1908 Q Street NW., Washington, D.C.

Mr. Chairman, recognizing the need to improve and expand the existing Federal-State unemployment compensation program, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 15119, a bill intended to provide better and broader protection against the disastrous consequences of unemployment upon a workingman and his family, a bill designed to minimize these consequences.

Presumably, however, Mr. Chairman, the loss of wages resulting from unemployment is considered a disaster only when it happens to a physically fit workingman, for, by specific provision of H.R. 15119, section 104, a facility-a sheltered workshop conducted for the purpose of providing a program of remunerative work for individuals who because of their impaired physical or mental capacity cannot be readily absorbed in the competitive labor market, and the handicapped workers employed in such a facility, are specifically and categorically excluded from the provisions of H.R. 15119.

We ask you and we urge you, Mr. Chairman, to delete this unjust and discriminatory exclusion from H.R. 15119.

Mr. Chairman, much progress has been made in recent years toward the democratic goal that all men should be and must be judged for their merits, that they should be and must be considered and judged as individuals that they not be prejudged and condemned by false and derogatory generalizations, that they not be condemned to live differently because they are physically different.

We who are impaired by blindness share with our sighted fellows the expectations of equal treatment and full and fair opportunityand we have not sat patiently and passively by while others fought our battle to make the American dream a reality for handicapped Americans.

Rather, we have joined together in our common cause, and we have worked and struggled together against the disparagements of ignorance and the discriminations and denials of cobwebbed thinking,

« PreviousContinue »