PMA supports the non-cancellation of benefit rights except in cases of misconduct connected with an individual's work or fraud involving a claim for benefits. In the case of pension payments, vacation pay, separation allowances and holiday pay, deduction of such amounts from benefits should be applied. Disqualification of an individual who voluntarily quits without good cause or refuses suitable employment should be for the period of unemployment, but benefit rights would not be disturbed. PMA supports the individual who avails himself of a training opportunity to help himself obtain gainful employment and agrees that benefits should not be denied while he is in such training. PMA always has believed that a claimant conscientiously seeking employment whether in his labor market area or elsewhere should be paid his state benefit rate so long as he follows the prescribed procedures. PMA has advocated for years judicial review of the Secretary of Labor's "conformity" or "administrative decisions" which may adversely affect any state in the application of its UC law. PMA supports an extended benefits program in times of individual state recession or a nation-wide recession period. Pennsylvania adopted a state recessionary extended benefits program in 1964. While the program for the states seem to "trigger in" at an exceedingly low 3 per cent of unemployment with certain other conditions which must be met, nevertheless in the interest of some "norm" that had to be found, we support the proposal. PMA supports the increase in federal tax from 3.1 per cent to 3.3 per cent (net tax from 0.4% to 0.6%) recognizing that costs generally whether for salaries, buildings, maintenance or travel, have been rising in both governmental and private enterprise. While we still feel that any additional revenue needed should primarily be obtained from a tax rate increase rather than a sizable hike of the tax base (from $3000 to $3900 in 1969; $4200 in 1972 and thereafter), we will support the wage base increases in the spirit of cooperation. PMA OPPOSED TO FEDERAL BENEFIT STANDARDS It is no secret that the Administration and Oraginzed Labor will press the Senate Finance Committee to amend HR 15119 so that federal benefit standards as in S. 1991 will be included in the bill to be reported to the Senate. Proponents of federal benefit standards argue that the states will not face up to the need for higher benefits, longer duration and less drastic disqualification procedures. Yet, in most states, benefits have continued to rise with reasonable increases in duration of benefits. Disqualifications on the other hand are viewed by the public as not drastic enough. Since the House passed bill includes recession extended benefits on a national state basis, no further comment need be made. BENEFITS AND ELIGIBILITY H.R. 8282 (S. 1991 companion bill) included: a) Federal Unemployment Adjustment Benefits of 26 weeks for the so-called long term unemployed. b) 26 weeks of regular state benefits for all claimants even with as little as 20 weeks of work. c) Weekly benefit amount of 50% of an individual's average weekly gross wage with maximum weekly benefits of 50%, 60% and finally 66%% of the average weekly gross wages in covered employment in the respective states PMA rejected the long term FUAB proposal as unsound, discriminatory and not the sole responsibility of employers. Where additional need of assistance to the long term unemployed is demonstrated then all taxpayers must shoulder such expenditures. However, we did support the need for a recessionary extended benefits program. PMA rejected the proposal of 26 weeks of regular state benefits for all claimants with at least 20 weeks of employment. One of the reasons for the near collapse of the Pennsylvania UC program prior to 1964 when corrections were made, was the 30 weeks uniform duration of benefits. Here a claimant at the low end of the benefit scale could receive $300 in benefits for $320 of base year wages or a 94% return; and at to top of the scale $1825 in base year wages paid $1200 in benefits or a return of 66%. The original federal proposal in H.R. 8282 completely disregarded any concept of weeks of work in relation to weeks of benefits, exactly as was done previously in Pennsylvania. PMA rejected the fantastic proposal increasing the state maximum weekly benefit amount in steps to 66%% of the average state-wide weekly wage. Applied to the entire federal benefit proposals made in H.R. 8282 (S. 1991), an individual qualifying for the maximum benefit and the 52 week period (federal and state), would receive $82 a week in Pennsylvania or $4,264 tax free for doing nothing. This is over $2 per hour. We still argue that each individual state is best qualified to determine eligibility requirements and proper benefit amount and duration of benefits for its citizens who become unemployed through no fault of their own. DISQUALIFICATIONS PMA rejected the proposal that claimants who by their own actions cause their own unemployment be limited to a six weeks postponement of benefits. Those persons who champion such a proposal argue that any penalties beyond six weeks becomes a punitive measure. Their theory is that if an unemployed person does not secure employment in six weeks time, then the labor market has failed to provide employment opportunities. Thus, the reason for any continued unemployment is no longer the claimant's fault. Employers do not accept this theory. Employers believe and the general public seems to concur that too many individuals are paid unemployment insurance who are not deserving of its benefits. Employees who cause their own unemployment should be disciplined in some manner for their action. This the states have done according to the best judgment of their respective state legislatures. To hand over such powers to the federal government to create a federal standard would be a travesty of justice. RECOMMENDATION PMA therefore supports the House passed unemployment compensation bill H.R. 1519 and recommends it without amendment to the Senate Finance Committee for their consideration. IDAHO STATE AFL-CIO, Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: I would like to urge you to work for a stronger Unemployment Compensation bill than the bill passed by the House of Representatives. I would like to urge that Federal weekly benefit standards be placed in this bill of at least two-thirds of average weekly wages paid in the states involved. Idaho now has 52% of average weekly wages, which makes the present rate $50 per week, and the benefit amounts to about 25% to 30% of the average wages paid in the construction and lumber industries. It is my firm opinion that one qualifying period should be standard for every State in the Union, as presently in Idaho the only surrounding State that has the same qualifying time as Idaho is Washington. These different qualifying times have the effect of knocking many full-time workers entirely out of unemployment insurance. I believe there should be a standard disqualification established for workers who quit their job or are discharged for cause so that some penalty is established. In Idaho if a worker is disqualified for some reason, he has to earn 8 times his weekly benefit to qualify. In Idaho this is tantamount to knocking him out of work for long periods of time, because if he is disqualified in the fall when the weather is closing many jobs down, he has no chance to qualify again until the spring of the year. I also would urge you to include in this new bill the raising of taxable wages to the full amount of wages paid in covered employment. In Idaho the tax is paid on the first $3,600.00 of wages earned, and this figure is unrealistic to the amount of benefits being presently paid. I would also urge your committee to include in the bill extended benefits to be applied to unemployed workers after 26 weeks of unemployment up to a full year so that these workers will not be in poverty. I am hopeful your committee will give my recommendations your fullest consideration, and that you would include them in the record of the committee. Sincerely yours, DARRELL H. DORMAN, President. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING Chairman, Committee on Finance, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C., July 22, 1966. DEAR SENATOR LONG: This is in regard to the unemployment compensation legislation now before the Senate Finance Committee. As General President of the United Association, representing a membership of more than 270,000, I should like to go on record in support of the statement made by AFL-CIO President George Meany before your committee earlier this week. The House-passed unemployment compensation bill simply does not do the job that must be done if unemployment insurance is to be brought up to date so as to provide wage and salary employees with the kind of protection needed today. We hope that your committee will support unemployment compensation reform along the lines of the McCarthy bill, S. 1991, and give the whole Senate an opportunity to act on it in this session of Congress. Sincerely yours, PETER T. SCHOEMANN, General President. WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, Senator RUSSELL B. LONG, Chairman, Committee on Finance, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: The statement accompanying this letter reflects the views of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, on the need of reform of Unemployment Compensation in the State of Washington. We believe that strong federal standards for Unemployment Compensation are necessary in order to improve the jobless benefits for unemployed workers in this state, in fact the entire nation. This statement does not pretend to be a detailed analysis of every problem encountered in Washington State's Unemployment Compensation program of benefits and financing. Rather it is designed to show some of the reasons why we believe new federal standards are needed to make unemployment Compensation do the job it originally was designed to do. We respectfully ask that the statement accompanying this letter be entered into the record of the Senate Finance Committee hearings on reform of Unemployment Compensation. Very sincerely yours, MARVIN L. WILLIAMS, STATEMENT OF MARVIN L. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY-TREASURER, WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO The Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, officers and members fully support Unemployment Compensation reform as set forth in the McCarthy bill, S. 1991. We are disappointed at the weak and inadequate U.C. bill passed by the House of Representatives. The U.C. bill, as passed by the House, would do little in this rapidly developing state to help involuntarily unemployed workers. Unemployment Compensation benefits have not been raised by the Washington State Legislature since 1959. For the past seven years the maximum Unemployment Compensation weekly benefit has been set at $42. The minimum benefit is set at $17 per week and the average Unemployment Compensation benefit is at or near $35 per week. The average U.C. payment in the State of Washington is only 30 per cent of the state's average weekly wage. This figure is so low that it makes a mockery of the Unemployment Compensation program in this state. During the past three sessions of the Washington State Legislature the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, and other independent labor organizations have repeatedly pleaded with our legislators to modernize our stagnated U.C. benefits and financing program. Industry has fought this to a standstill and the unemployed worker has been hurt. Since 1940 the State of Washington has taxed only the first $3,000 of payroll per individual for this program. As individual wages have risen the $3,000 tax base has become a smaller and smaller proportion of the total wage for industry to pay tax upon. This has meant a steady "erosion" of tax support, and a growing "dividend" to industry. Strong federal standards for Unemployment Compensation would solve many of the problems now encountered by unemployed workers in Washington State. The actual operation of the Unemployment Compensation program has been generally good due in no small part to the fact that federal standards prescribe its operation. But a well functioning staff is meaningless when U.C. benefits fail to keep pace with economic conditions. Under the present system jobless benefits become a political football on the state level and again the unemployed worker is the loser as well as society. Unemployment Compensation was a bold program when Congress enacted it in 1935. If the protection that U.C. was designed to give to the unemployed worker and society is not to decay further then the time has come for courageous Congressional action to strengthen U.C. through the approach outlined in S. 1991. Uniform federal standards for the amount of weekly benefits as well as uniform duration of weekly benefits are sorely needed. No industry should be lured from one state to another-causing hardship and dislocation for thousands of workers-simply because one state can "advertise" to industry that its U.C. program is cheaper than any other state's U.C. program. We believe it is also vital that a minimum of 26 weeks of extended federal U.C. benefits be provided by federal law as well as extension of coverage. OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, July 21, 1966. HONORABLE AND DEAR SIR: It is the firm conviction of the officers and members of the Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO that the present provisions of the Unemployment Compensation system should be reformed and revised by Congressional action. The basic program of Unemployment Compensation, established by Congress in its wisdom in 1935, was established to alleviate the crushing financial burdens of unemployment experienced by the individual citizen, and to protect the economy from the spiraling adverse economic effects of unemployment. These aims the Unemployment Compensation program has accomplished to an increasingly diminished degree since the program was established. Acutely needed today are a number of revisions which would enable the Unemployment Compensation program to effectively fulfill the goals for which it was originally established. The Office and Professional Employees International Union urgently recommends strong and prompt action by the 89th Congress to revise and reform the present system of Unemployment Compensation. This Union recommends specifically that the distinguished members of the Senate Finance Committee give favorable consideration to the provisions proposed by the Honorable Eugene McCarthy and other distinguished Senators as Senate Bill 1991, and that Congress promptly enact the provisions of both this bill and H.R. 8282 introduced by the Honorable Wilbur Mills. It is our considered opinion that the revisions proposed in these resolutions will effectively restore the original principles of job insurance protection, as adequate protection for both the unemployed citizen and for the economy as a whole. It is requested that this statement, made on behalf of the 70,000 members of the Office and Professional Employees International Union, working in 43 states, be printed in the record of the Hearings of the Senate Finance Committee. Sincerely, HOWARD COUGHLIN, President. GADSDEN, ALA., July 22, 1966. Hon. RUSSELL LONG, Washington, D.C.: By direction of the members of Local Union 2176, United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Gadsden, Ala. I urge you to vote for and support the unemployment compensation bill. Respectfully submitted. DAFFORD BREWSTER, Recording Secretary. ARIZONA STATE AFL-CIO, Phoenix, Ariz., July 21, 1966. Senator RUSSELL LONG, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, New Senate Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: On behalf of the Arizona State AFL-CIO Executive Board I would like to express our very deep concern over H.R. 15119 proposing certain changes in the unemployment compensation law. We regard the present bill as shockingly inadequate. We favor the provisions of the original H.R. 8282: particularly the provisions raising the base and providing federal standards for payments. Sir, it is my desire that this letter be included in the records on the matter of Unemployment Compensation Federal Benefit standards. Yours sincerely, Hon. RUSSELL LONG, Senator from Louisiana, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. JOHN E. EVANS, WYOMING STATE AFL-CIO, DEAR SENATOR LONG: We in Wyoming are very much concerned about the weak unemployment compensation bill passed by the House. We hope that the U.S. Senate will strengthen this bill in many areas; but, most of all, in setting Federal standards requiring each state to pay at least half of its average weekly wage with the level moving periodically up to two-thirds over a period of time. Too many times, the states think much more about protecting the funds than paying unemployment benefits to the people. The only way that working people can be assured fair and equal protection in each state is by the Senate establishing federal standards. In the state of Wyoming, restrictions have been so severely tightened that our people can't draw benefits. Attached is a review of September 1964 experience showing the typical pattern for those found ineligible under the monetary determinations made by the Wyoming State Employment Security Agency. We urge that you do all within your power to place a strong federal benefit standard into this bill. Also, we urge that you have this letter read into the Congressional Record. Sincerely, JOHN D. HOLADAY, |