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 Total monetary determinations__. Of those found ineligible: 18 (17.6 percent) 8 (7.8 percent) 18 (17.6 percent) 41 (40.3 percent) 17 (16.7 percent) Had no record of covered wages in the base period. Had less than $250 earnings in the high quarter of the base period. Had total base period earnings of less than 11⁄2 times the high quarter. Did not have 26 weeks employment at $18.00 and 24 hours. Ineligible because of insufficient information given by claimant, had not worked in covered employment, misstatement of fact and other reasons. UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Chairman, Committee on Finance, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: Remedial action by the Congress on our national unemployment compensation system has been long overdue. In state legislatures all over the country, AFL-CIO state and city councils have been urging on their elected representatives that the time to modernize the state's UC Program is now-while unemployment is relatively low, and the impact on the state's unemployment insurance fund therefore minimal. Labor's spokesmen have been saying that sound social and economic policy in this area calls for building up reserves and raising benefit levels in periods of prosperity-against the day when the business climate changes, when we shall need the cushion of a realistic and comprehensive income maintenance program to provide adequate support for those out of work through no fault of their own. In the meantime, labor has argued, it is nothing less than a mockery of the principles of the Social Security Act, through which our UC system was established, to permit benefit levels and duration of eligibility to fall further and further behind. We are thus penalizing most unfairly those who are sharing least in this country's current affluence that 4.0% of our civilian labor force unable to find a job, plus the uncounted hundreds of thousands more who are underemployed because of short work weeks, or who have dropped out of the labor market because of discouragement and disillusionment. The response from our state legislators, Senator Long, has been consistent, almost without exception, on its indifference to the problem and in its refusal to take meaningful action. Labor, therefore, turns to the Congress with hope and with expectation, urging that Washington do what the state capitols have so callously refused to do. On behalf of more than 160,000 members of the United Rubber Workers throughout the United States, I therefore want to register our most emphatic support for modernization of the Federal-state UC system, as provided in Senator Eugene McCarthy's Bill, S. 1991, now before your committee. I would emphasize three areas in this Bill of particular concern to URW members and their families: (1) A uniform standard for maximum weekly benefits established at twothirds of each state's average weekly wage.-The raising of benefit levels which would thus be accomplished would, at long last, bring our UC system substantially closer to the principle to which it was originally geared. Federal standards on benefit levels would quite obviously represent a major step forward in eliminating competition between the states for "cut-rate" UC programs. Federal standards would, in the case of the URW, eliminate an inequity within those companywide agreements negotiated by our Union which include provisions for Supplementary Unemployment Benefits. As our SUB programs operate now, the plants located in those states which provide the lowest weekly benefit levels are actually being subsidized by the workers in states where UC benefit levels represent a higher proportion of wage make-up. The inequity, in terms of disproportionate burden on the companywide SUB fund from plants in low-benefit states, occurs because all eligible employees laid off (from plants covered by the SUB agreement) are assured a weekly regular benefit in the form of a uniform percentage of their straight-time weekly earnings. The lower the UC payment which such laid-off employees draw, the higher the SUB benefit they are entitled to (up to a fixed maximum benefit amount). Thus, even under the most advanced collective bargaining techniques, we are forced to "dig deeper" to offset the recalcitrance of those states which have done the least in meeting the benefit level objectives of our UC system. (2) A uniform standard for duration of benefits at the state level, coupled with an additional 26 week benefit program under Federal funding.-There is nearly as great a disparity in the number of weeks for which a laid-off employee may claim benefits as there is in the level of UC payments which the various states provide. Such variations occur both because of statutory limitations on weeks of benefits and because of stringencies in earnings and eligibility requirements. It is our observation that the low-benefit states tend also to be illiberal in covering the full duration of a worker's layoff. A federally-financed extended benefits program has already been tested-in a somewhat different form-during the recession of 1959-60. We wholeheartedly subscribe to that section of S. 1991 which would make an additional 26 weeks of UC benefits available to those suffering longer term unemployment, to be funded through an increase in the Federal portion of the employer's UC contribution. (3) Broader UC coverage to include workers not now protected under the law. The United Rubber Workers firmly support the inclusion under the umbrella of UC protection of all workers who have a regular employment relationship with their employer. We believe that there is no longer justification in logic or in equity for excluding any regularly-employed person from the assurance of income maintenance for himself and his family in the extent that he loses his job through no fault of his own. We are aware of the fact that the House of Representatives has already acted on a bill dealing with some of the shortcomings of our present UC system. We feel that the House bill is seriously inadequate, particularly in the areas cited above. We urge that the Finance Committee and the Senate as a whole take bold and affirmative advantage of the opportunity which is now theirs by raising the sights of our national unemployment insurance program to the needs of 1966. We respectfully request that this statement be printed in the record of the Finance Committee hearings. Very truly yours, GEORGE BURDON, International President. SEATTLE, WASH., July 23, 1966. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The King County Labor Council of Washington urges your support of a stronger unemployment compensation reform bill with uniform federal standards for the amount of weekly benefits and for the duration of weekly benefits plus a minimum of 26 weeks of extended federal UC benefits also the support of H.R. 8282. We also request that this telegram be recorded in the committee hearings. KING COUNTY LABOR COUNCIL, Executive Secretary. ILLINOIS STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR AND Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, U.S. Senator, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: Much information and misinformation has been presented by various groups in Illinois relative to Federal Standards for Unemployment Compensation. We understand that some statements have indicated that Organized Labor in Illinois is satisfied with the status quo. On behalf of the 1,000,000 AFL-CIO Members in Illinois, we wish to emphasize that is not true. As spokesman on legislative matters for the AFL-CIO membership, we have sought to broaden the coverage, raise the benefits and revise the eligibility provisions. While the weekly benefits have increased, we are sorry to report that coverage is lessened due to provisions which narrow the eligibility. The average weekly wage in Illinois (not including Building Tradesmen, which is $160.00 plus) is approximately $114.00. The Illinois average weekly benefit of Unemployment Compensation Insurance was $41.33 during June, 1966. Because employment and unemployment are affected by policies and economics nationally rather than statewide, we have supported and requested that good Federal Standards be applicable to every state. We have been whipsawed far too long over what other states do or do not do. We understand our colleagues in these states have the same problems when the endeavor is made to upgrade U.C. We think the goals of the original H.R. 8282 and S. 1991 should be revived by the U.S. Senate. We would hope that your Finance Committee will recommend to the full Senate a measure which will end hypocrisy in U.C., and one which will buttress the economy of each community when unemployment occurs. Our Nation will be the real beneficiary of a realistic U.C. program. The unemployed spend the weekly benefit immediately. The direct impact on the business community is very effective. Privately, business interests tell us of the wonderful impact of even the present U.C. Publicly, the spokesmen for employers decry U.C., and some even would like to eliminate U.C. We have consistently supported the position of the National AFL-CIO on U.C. We would appreciate the inclusion of these comments into your Committee Records. We purposely were very brief. If you need our personal testimony, please feel free to let us know when you would wish us to appear. May your Committee report out a proposal of worthwhile standards, and the best of wishes to all. Sincerely yours, ROBERT G. GIBSON, Secretary-Treasurer. STANLEY L. JOHNSON, Executive Vice-President. MICHIGAN STATE A.F.L.-C.I.O., Detroit, Mich., July 22, 1966. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: Your committee has before it the matter of federal standards for unemployment compensation. We strongly favor the principles of the McCarthy bill S. 1991. There are three basic reasons we favor improved federal standards for unemployment compensation. The first is the need of our members and other workers to adequate compensation when they are laid off from work. We are sure your committee has before it many examples of workers and their families who are in dire need of income who find either that unemployment compensation benefits are inadequate, that they are denied coverage for some technical reason, or that they are not entitled to any further compensation because they have exhausted their benefits under the existing state law while they are still unemployed. The second reason is that during times of widespread unemployment, the economy needs the substantial aid that can be created by filling the gap of supplying purchasing power to workers through dispensation of unemployment compensation benefits. If these benefits on a national basis are adequate in amount and duration, a state and even a national crisis may be averted. The third reason we need federal standards is to prevent the cut-throat competition among states to see which one can "attract industry" by having the most inadequate compensation system. The labor movement in Michigan as in other states has pressed hard for substantial improvements in unemployment compensation. Time and again in hearings before legislative committees we have convinced legislators of the needs for improved compensation only to be asked the question: "If we improve Michigan's compensation above that of other states, won't it put Michigan industry at a competitive disadvantage and drive industry from the state?" It is our experience that even though the cost factor of improved unemployment compensation is very small-often less than a penny an hour-the subtle and persistent effect of the charge of "competitive disadvantage" inhibits the development of needed legislation. For example, corporations which pay the federal government over 50% of their profits in a federal corporation tax never threaten to move form one state to another for that reason because the federal corporation profits tax is uniform on all states. The same principle applies to unemployment compensation. Once there is a firmly established federal minimum standard which is fairly adequate, industry will realize that unemployment costs will be practically identical regardless of which state they operate in. The result of such uniformity can then be to further encourage industry, labor. and government to reduce unemployment compensation costs in the only sound way which is to solve the basic problem of providing full employment and job opportunities on a national basis instead of arguing about "competitive (tax) disadvantages" in the various states. We sincerely believe that to the extent your committee and the senate establish non-competitive, sound standards for unemployment compensation on a national basis, you will be acting in a humanitarian manner, and at the same time will focus the attention of our society on the need to reduce unemployment compensation costs by attacking the root problem of providing full employment. I would like to request that my statement be printed in the records of the Committee's hearings. Very sincerely yours, AUGUST SCHOLLE, President, Hon. RUSSELL LONG, ST. LOUIS LABOR COUNCIL AFL-CIO. Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: In behalf of the members of the AFL-CIO in the St. Louis area we desire to express some thoughts on improvements in the unemployment compensation program which is now before your committee. We endorse Senate Bill 1991 as introduced by Senator McCarthy of Michigan with other Senators. We believe there is a need for broader coverage for workers who are not now covered, such as employees in non-profit institutions, hospitals, foundations, universities, etc., and workers with regular employee relationship. We believe that improvement is needed in weekly benefits paid as in our area we find that in the service trades and textile industries most of the wage earners draw less than the maximum benefits because of the wage scales that prevail in some industries. Upon investigation we have found that many people in this category are being subsidized by food stamps in the City of St. Louis and surplus commodities in St. Louis County. It is our opinion that raising the benefits to at least two-thirds of the State's average weekly wage would be of great benefit to these people. Many are unskilled workers who are unable to find employment for long periods of time and feel that a Federal fund extending the benefits beginning with the 27th week would be beneficial to these workers and to the economy of our area. At the present time workers in this category are not eligible for any relief under the State Statutes. The only remedy that would be available to them would be food stamps if they have money to purchase them and those who live in the St. Louis County would still get surplus commodities if they could travel to the disbursing depot either by car or taxi cab because there is a lack of public transportation. We believe that there should be uniform disqualification penalties, as in our State the penalty for a person discharged for misconduct is disqualification for benefits for the entire year. We sincerely hope that your committee will give serious consideration to the above subject matter by incorporating provisions of Senate Bill 1991 into your report. It would be appreciated if this communication is inserted into the record. Respectfully yours, JOSEPH P. CLARK, President. MINNESOTA RETAIL FEDERATION, INC., AN OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE S. 1991, H.R. 15119-UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION The Minnesota Retail Federation, Inc. is a trade association of Minnesota retail merchants, most of them small stores in hundreds of communities. Several large merchandising firms are also members. The Federation has consistently opposed federalization of unemployment compensation. It has consistently hoped that power and authority would remain in state legislatures in this and countless other fields. It has been astonished at the constant federal grab for power. It fears that state powers, authority and prerogatives are about to be drowned in the Potomac. Minnesota has a new and progressive unemployment compensation law. It helps the unfortunate employee during his unemployment period. It denies some compensation to the undeserving wrongdoer. It rewards the employer who maintains a good employment record. It levies a high tax on employers, a levy sufficient to build and maintain a solvent fund. By and large it is a good law. We feel that the House showed courage in rejecting many of the shockingly bad features of H.R. 8282 and that H.R. 15119 went a long way toward preservation of the rights of the states to legislate in this field. (Thousands of small employers were stunned by House action forcing coverage down to employers of one employee. They hope you will restore the four-or-more provisions.) During the campaigns in 1966, in 1968 and beyond we expect to hear candidates at the local, state and national levels espouse the virtues of small business and the need for its protection. We are prepared to test these avowals for elements of sincerity or hogwash. Your refusal to steal unemployment legislation from the states will be evidence of sincerity; your approval of S. 1991 or other legislation like it will be evidence of insincerity. The small businessman may have seemed unimportant in the past. He knows he does not have the strident voices of the George Meanys and Jimmy Hoffas. But he's wiser now. He's learning to use his voice and his vote. He wants a moratorium on federal seizure of power over him and his state. If you insist on injecting the federal government further into the unemployment compensation field, we plead with you to approve H.R. 15119 (without the one-or-more provision) or legislation like it and to bury S. 1991 and others like it. Respectfully, THOMAS H. HODGSON, STATEMENT OF RUSSELL R. MUELLER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ON Behalf of NATIONAL RETAIL HARDWARE ASSOCIATION The National Retail Hardware Association has a membership of more than 20,000 hardware dealers located in communities throughout the United States. These hardware retailers maintain independently owned and operated establishments. More than one-half of these stores are located in towns with less than 10,000 population. |