the trend to automation. The answer is to permit business a reasonable amount of freedom to deal with the problem of unemployment by itself without further encumbering business with higher taxes or penalty pay rates. OUR OPPOSITION TO H.R. 15119 It must be conceded that many of the objections which can be raised to S. 1991 do not apply to H.R. 15119. To the extent that this is true, H.R. 15119 is a better bill but, we believe it is still not good legislation. We oppose the enactment of H.R. 15119 as well. S. 1991 would lead to the elimination of experience ratings and H.R. 15119 is better, but no law is needed to preserve experience ratings. S. 1991 would impose federal standards with respect to eligibility for benefits, amount and duration of benefits, as well as limiting the rights of the states to disqualify claimants. H.R. 15119 largely eliminates the federal standards requirements but again, this merely preserves the status quo and no new law is needed to do this. Also, H.R. 15119 does not interfere with the rights of the states to control requirements for disqualification from benefits. The extended benefits provisions of H.R. 15119 are far superior to S. 1991. The "trigger" based either on a national or state recession is a good and a fair one and the principle of using such a trigger is especially sound. However, these provisions do not justify new legislation at this time, because we recently experienced a new law in unemployment and our economy is continuing in a prosperity of unprecedented length. We may one day need such recession benefits, though we hope we do not. In any event, there is no need for recession benefits at this time, so this provision of H.R. 15119 doe not justify new legislation. A desirable feature of H.R. 15119 not contained in S. 1991 is that providing for judicial review of determinations of non-conformity of state laws by the Secretary of Labor. We recognize the desirability of such a provision but it is not of such importance as to overcome the other undesirable features of H.R. 15119. S. 1991 would extend coverage to virtually every employer in the country. H.R. 15119, too, would extend coverage. While the extension of coverage under H.R. 15119 would be great, it would not be as broad as S. 1991. But extended coverage is not sufficient justification for new legislation. Half of our jurisdic tions now cover more employers than required by the federal law. In our testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means, we argued that H.R. 8282 was not needed because the states had responded on their own initiative to meet changing needs in the field of unemployment compensation. All fifty one jurisdictions have at least doubled their maximum weekly benefits payments. Thirty of them made changes in 1965 alone. The states have not abandoned their responsibility in this area. They each have acted to meet the special needs of their people. Since the states are doing what is necessary, there is no need for the federal government to interfere either through S. 1991 or through H.R. 15119. SUMMARY By approving H.R. 15119 by a vote of 374-10, the House overwhelmingly rejected an increased federalization of the field of unemployment compensation. We urge the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate itself to reject any further federalization of the field. Further, we ask the Senate Finance Committee to recommend that the Senate do nothing in the field of unemployment compensation at this time. The advantages of H.R. 15119 are not sufficient to justify its enactment at this time. Further, it must be recognized that while H.R. 15119 would not be as costly to employers as S. 1991, it would still be expensive. At present, the maximum tax under the federal law is $93 per worker per year. Under H.R. 15119, it would be $138.60. This is significantly below the maximum tax of $214.50 which would be required under S. 1991, but the maximum per employee tax under H.R. 15119 is still fifty per cent above that required by existing law. Neither S. 1991 or H.R. 15119 is needed. Both are expensive to employers. We respectfully request the Senate Finance Committee to recommend to the Senate that neither be enacted into law. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, Mr. Chairman and members of your Committee, as Director of the Agriculture Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, I urge you to support an amendment to include farm workers under the Unemployment Insurance System. Governor Brown on numerous occasions has asked the California State Legislature to extend coverage to farm workers under the Unemployment Insurance laws of the State of California. Unfortunately, the State Legislature has failed to enact legislation incorporating the Governor's recommendations. Many reasons are set forth by agribusiness and the commercial and industrial interests in California why agribusiness should be excluded from coverage in the Unemployment Insurance program. Primarily, however, two reasons are given more often than others: the first is that if agricultural labor is covered, it would place the State's agricultural industry in a disadvantageous, competitive position with the agricultural industry in other states. The second reason given is that the non-farming industries in California would have to help underwrite the program for the farming industry, and they would thereby be placed in a disadvantageous, competitive position with the non-farming industries in other states. We believe the inclusion of farm labor as proposed by President Johnson in HR 8282 would fully answer the competitive issue faced by California farmers And secondly, we believe the provision in the President's proposal for federal reimbursement of excessive benefits costs would lessen, if not totally wipe out, the fear of non-agricultural employers that sharing the cost of insuring agribusiness in California would result in a loss of business to competitors in other states. No segment of the working force is more deprived. Farm labor is poorly paid and as Secretary Wirtz found out, if he did not already know, poorly housed. In spite of the fact that farm labor produces the food for the best fed nation in the world, they are still economically the least secure in our nation's work force. Unemployment insurance as a system to protect the unemployed against the disasters of unemployment, has proved itself. Both political parties, the Federal government and all State governments recognize that unemployment insurance is here to stay. Because it has proved favorable in support of the nation's economy, we ask that the thousands of farm workers be included within its scope. We urge it not only because farm workers, as a matter of right merit the protection, but we believe as a counterpart business in the farming communities especially, and the nation as a whole, would benefit from a more stabilized purchasing power. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our members and all who work on farms, we urge you to include farm labor within the Unemployment Insurance System. Very truly yours, Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Chairman, Committee on Finance, C. AL GREEN, Director. ALABAMA LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO. DEAR SENATOR LONG: We sincerely hope you and your committee will report out and recommend a strong unemployment compensation bill along the lines of the McCarthy bill, containing uniform federal standards for the amount of benefits and length of benefits plus a maximum of 26 weeks of extended federal unemployment compensation benefits. The unemployed worker in Alabama is far worse off under the law than he was 28 years ago. In 1938 an unemployed worker could draw maximum benefits up to 92% of the state's average weekly wage. But in 1965 an unemployed worker drawing maximum benefits was entitled to only 42% of the state's average weekly wage. Bad as the above picture is, the real picture is worse-a large percentage of workers are barred from any benefits because of unreasonable disqualifications under the law, such as: 1. Employees of small firms are not covered under the law. 2. Unreasonably high qualifying amounts bar still more workers. 3. Total disqualification for voluntary quits. A worker who voluntarily quits his job to better himself at another job and then gets laid off or discharged before he has earned the high qualifying amount at the new job is totally disqualified. 4. A female Alabama worker who is given an unusually long pregnancy leave by her employer (many are arbitrarily given 6 months to a year, but told to report back whenever they are able) is barred from any benefits for the total duration of the leave if no job is available, even though she is ready, willing and able to work. 5. Average actual benefits paid in 1965 was only $25.73. 6. Benefits were exhausted for more than 30% of the workers, who then drew nothing. For women, the rate was even higher. 7. More than 10% of unemployed covered workers in Alabama were disqualified from any benefits because of unreasonable disqualifications written into the law. 8. Those laid off workers who had earned vacation pay or severance pay are barred from unemployment compensation benefits until this money (earned by them) is exhausted. 9. Alabama's tax base is too low and unrealistic and has not been revised in line with pay scales in this generation. 10. The tax rate is too low to support an adequate unemployment compensation program. 11. Workers in only three states in the nation-Alabama, Alaska and New Jersey-are themselves taxed to help support the program-yet Alabama benefits to the worker do not reflect this. In view of the above brief highlights of just a few of the glaring shortcomings of the Alabama law-many of which are faced by workers in other states-I am sure you can agree with us that the need for reform is imperative. Won't you give us and workers throughout this country the protection they are entitled to when unemployed? We respectfully urge you and your committee to give us a strong bill-providing uniform standards and amounts, plus extended durations. We also hope and request that you will have this statement printed in the record of committee hearings. Sincerely, BARNEY WEEKS, President. NORTH CAROLINA STATE AFL-CIO, Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Chairman, Committee on Finances, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: I am writing you requesting that you do everything possible to get your Committee to make a favorable report of Senate Bill 1991. The reason I feel so strongly about this particular bill is because of my experience with the North Carolina General Assembly each time we request an improvement in our Unemployment Compensation Law of North Carolina. When this law was originally enacted in North Carolina, it called for the payment of unemployment insurance of approximately two-thirds of a worker's weekly wage, however, since the original enactment of this law, not only has the General Assembly of this state failed to improve it in accordance with the increase in industrial wages of North Carolina, but they have on several occasions enacted what we commonly call "crippling amendments". To give you an example or two: When the law was originally enacted, a worker was required to earn only $250 a year to draw unemployment insurance providing he met the other qualifications of the act. In 1955 the General Assembly doubled this amount which is estimated denied something like 40,000 seasonal workers of this state unemployment insurance because they earned less than $500 per year. During the 1959 session of the General Assembly, they added $50 to this amount with a stipulation that this $550 must be earned in two different quarters. This again denied many people the right to draw unemployment insurance. The 1961 session of the General Assembly enacted what we call the “labor disputes" amendment which specifically states that anyone unemployed due to a labor dispute within the corporation for which they work will be ineligible for unemployment insurance regardless of the state in which the dispute exists and also regardless of the fact that they are not involved in this labor dispute. During the Eastern Air Lines pilot's strike in 1961 or 1962, it is my understanding that North Carolina is the only state in which Eastern operates that denied the employees of Eastern unemployment insurance, however, they did not draw it in North Carolina because of the amendment enacted in 1961 although they tested this in the courts. The conservative General Assembly of North Carolina was not satisfied with these crippling amendments or with their failure to keep the unemployment insurance law abreast of the rising cost of living and during the 1965 session of the General Assembly, they amended the law further crippling the act by stipulating at least "20% of the $550 base year earning must be earned in other than the high quarter". Senator Long, I could continue with a great deal more of the inadequacies of the North Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act and why Senate Bill 1991 should be enacted in its entirety. However, I have given you some of the main reasons as to why we need Senate Bill 1991 and will not burden you with a lot of other statistics. Let me close this letter by saying that in each effort to improve our state act we are constantly told that "you are better off than the surrounding states, why don't you let well enough alone?" In simple language, the states are competing with one another in their efforts to improve the act as little as possible. Therefore, we say to you that Federal Minimum Standards are most necessary if we hope to see the citizens of the individual states treated like human beings instead of a commodity to bargain with. I sincerely hope and trust you will grant this request to use your greatest influence in behalf of Senate Bill 1991. With best personal wishes to you, I remain W. M. BARBEE, President. P.S. Senator Long I respectfully request that you have this printed in the record of the Committee hearings. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION, INC., Chairman, Committee on Finance, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this letter is to present the views of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association (MCA) concerning proposed legislation on Unemployment Compensation pending before your Committee. For your information, MCA is a non-profit trade association with 192 U.S. member companies, large and small, which together account for more than 90% of the productive capacity of the chemical industry in the United States. We believe the present system of state-developed and state-administered unemployment compensation programs should be continued. In our judgment Congress acted with great wisdom in leaving to each state the authority to determine the amount of benefits, duration of benefits, and benefit eligibility and disqualification. These are matters which, in our opinion, must be adjusted to conditions within each state. We have studied in detail H.R. 15119, as passed by the House of Representatives, and it is our considered opinion that it embodies improvements in the Federal law on Unemployment Compensation while preserving those fundamen tal principles we believe to be important. As you are aware, H.R. 15119 replaced H.R. 8282 which is similar to S. 1991 also pending before your committee. At the time H.R. 8282 was being considered, our Association and other interested groups raised a number of objections to provisions in the bill which it was felt would have had the effect of "federalizing" the State unemployment compensation programs. The House Ways and Means Committee carefully considered all comments received including the advice and counsel in executive sessions of the administra tors of state agencies on employment security, and arrived at the provisions embodied in H.R. 15119. Although H.R. 15119 is not fully in accord with all of the recommendations made by the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, we view it as constructive legislation and in the public interest. We therefore urge that your Committee consider prompt and favorable action on this bill which is the product of such long and careful study. We appreciate very much the opportunity of bringing these views to the attention of the Senate Finance Committee and respectfully request that this letter be made part of the record of the hearings on this legislation. Sincerely yours, Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, M. F. CRASS, Jr. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, Chairman, Committee on Finance, DEAR SENATOR LONG: On behalf of the membership of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, please accept this statement for the record of your hearings in support of S. 1991, the long-overdue amendments to up-date and correct inequities in unemployment compensation. Uniform Federal standards in both the weekly benefits and duration of benefits are sorely needed, particularly because of today's high cost of living and rapid automation which causes sporadic unemployment. With best wishes, I remain Sincerely yours, P. L. SIEMILLER, International President. THE DETROIT EDISON Co., Re H.R. 15119, Unemployment Insurance Amendments of 1966. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Chairman, Committee on Finance, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of The Detroit Edison Company I submit herein, in lieu of personal appearance, a statement for the record in support of H.R. 15119. An additional 50 copies are enclosed for distribution to Committee members, staff, and other interested persons. Our Company is a regulated public utility engaged primarily in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electrical energy in the highly-industrialized Detroit and Southeastern Michigan area; it has about 9,800 employes and serves approximately 1.4 million customers in a service area containing nearly 4 million people. Since its earliest days the Company has conscientiously attempted to provide a high degree of stability of employment for its workers. As a result, our employment experience has been very favorable, and layoffs have been the exception rather than the rule. We support the enactment of H.R. 15119 in its present form because we believe that this Bill, as passed by the House, accomplishes reforms in a manner which generally is consistent with the basic philosophy and objectives of the unemployment compensation system as a whole. Any changes in present law should be made under concepts which are fundamental to the social purposes which such a system is to serve. These concepts include continuation of insurance principles in establishing amounts of employer contributions and employe benefits, the preservation of State administration and control in areas of unemployment compensation which are essentially and properly State responsibilities, and the maintaining of proper incentives for employers and employes so that funds contributed to unemployment plans will be conserved for the vast majority of workers whose needs are genuine. The extended benefit provisions of H.R. 15119 are much more realistic than those originally proposed in H.R. 8282. Since the maximum 13 weeks of additional benefits would be paid only during recession periods, it represents protection to workers during periods of unemployment which may be largely uncontrollable by their employers because of general economic conditions. The |