Coverage for farm workers For some reason the feeling seems to exist that the farm worker does not need or is not entitled to the income protection provided by the unemployment insurance program. Yet farm workers, as a group, are more vulnerable to unemployment and as a result are most in need of this protection. Employment patterns vary from state to state but farm employment is, at best, highly seasonal and unpredictable. Droughts, cold weather and many other natural causes can result in unemployment for the farm worker who usually works year round as well as for the seasonal worker. The effects of unemployment for the farm worker is more severe than for the industrial worker. Wages paid to farm workers are usually very low and as a result he has less to fall back on when he does become unemployed. Like any other worker, he and his family still have to eat. North Dakota has made some progress in the coverage of farm workers. The state legislature passed a provision in our law that allows farmers to voluntarily elect coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Program. Very few farmers have taken advantage of this. However, the limited experience gained with the farm workers who have been covered under this provision point out the dramatic need the farm worker has for some type of unemployment insurance protection. Figures provided by the North Dakota Employment Security Bureau show that the farm worker's earnings are much lower than those of non-farm workers. In 1965, the average annual wage for non-farm workers covered by the North Dakota Unemployment Compensation Law was $4,755. The average annual wage for farm workers covered by the same Law was only $2,527. The average duration of unemployment for the farm worker was also higher, further pointing out the need for this protection. We favor the adoption of the proposal of Secretary Wirtz which would extend coverage to farm units with 50 or more workers with the coverage applying only to those workers who earn more than $300 in a quarter. This proposal does not go far enough but it does represent a start. Eventually coverage should be made available to nearly all farm workers on the same basis as for non-farm workers. The limited amount of experience in this area does make it necessary to take a cautious approach. The extension of coverage to employers with 1 or more workers should reduce the costs of farm coverage somewhat. The farm worker would be able to use the wage credits he earns in the small town businesses during the off-season. This would have the effect of spreading out the costs of the program. The farm worker needs some cash payment when he is unemployed, his community needs the continued purchasing power and the farmer needs to keep his workers in the area during slack periods so that they will be available to him when he again has work for them. Most important, eligibility for unemployment benefits would safeguard the pride and freedom of the farm worker by keeping him off the relief rolls when he does become unemployed. Miscellaneous 1. It is our opinion that the new starting date should be no later than January 1, 1968. 2. It is our belief that the taxable wage base should be increased gradually and that the first increase should be to $4,500 per year and eventually providing for a tax base of $6,600. 3. We agree that the "Reed Act" funds should be available to the States for at least another five years. 4. We urge that the program be adequately financed and that such funds be used only for the proper and efficient administration of the State Employment Service and the Unemployment Compensation Program. May your distinguished Senate Finance Committee give all due consideration to these comments. Updating and uniformity of the economy stabilizing unemployment compensation program is long overdue. Respectfully yours, WALLACE J. DOCKTER, President. STATEMENT OF MARSHALL G. MANTLER, BUREAU OF SALESMEN'S NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS This statement is made on behalf of the Bureau of Salesmen's National Associations to express the view of 40,000 salesmen in the apparel industry respect ing H.R. 15119 and S. 1991 pending measures to extend Federal unemployment coverage and benefits. The Bureau enthusiastically supports efforts to extend coverage under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. Of the two Bills under consideration the Bureau would prefer to see the enactment into law of S. 1991. However, the Bureau is not opposed to H.R. 15119. We are particularly interested in the extension of coverage in the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, in effect, to those same persons who are currently covered under the Social Security Act, Thus, the definition of "employee" for purposes of unemployment taxes would be applicable to the many commission salesmen who are not considered employees under the more restrictive common law rules. In an era when a need for adequate social legislation has become increasingly recognized, it is mandatory that those normal benefits of the employer-employee relationship be extended to all persons who are in fact dependent upon another for their employment. While this need has been previously recognized under the Social Security Act, it has not been recognized insofar as the benefits of unemployment compensation are concerned. It is essential that such benefits be extended to those same persons now covered by other social legislation. For an individual salesman in the apparel industry who must often look to another for his livelihood without the normal job security which employee groups have generally been able to achive, the prospect of being deprived of that livelihood without unemployment compensation benefits simply aggravates an existing social and economic problem of the industry. Unemployment compensation is necessary not only to help the salesman breach the gap between jobs but to, in some measure, increase the economic onus falling on the apparel manufacturer who discharges him for little or no cause. Therefore, we strongly endorse the speedy enactment into law of S. 1991 in its present form. STATEMENT OF LARRY BLACK MON, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS OF THE UNITED STATES The National Association of Home Builders of the United States (hereinafter referred to as the Association) is the trade association of the home building industry with more than 43,000 members organized in 387 local and state affiliated associations in all fifty states and in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. This statement is submitted on behalf of the Association to express the views of its members respecting H.R. 15119 and S. 1991, pending measures to extend federal unemployment compensation coverage and benefits. The Association supports H.R. 15119 as a reasonable attempt to solve some of the present ills of the unemployment compensation system. At the same time, the Association strongly urges this Committee to reject S. 1991, the counterpart of H.R. 8282. The Association would like to single out a few of the objectionable features of S. 1991. JUDICIAL REVIEW Under present law, in the absence of a specific provision, the decisions of the Secretary of Labor as to whether or not a state law conforms to the requirements of federal law are final. S. 1991 does not provide for judicial review of determinations to be made under the bill by the Secretary of Labor. The right to judicial review of administrative action is necessary to protect against unreasonable or arbitrary interpretation or application of law. H.R. 15119 fills this need by furnishing the state with a procedure for appealing the decisions of the Secretary of Labor. BENEFITS S. 1991 would provide extended benefits for an additional 26 weeks without regard to economic conditions. The extension of benefits for prolonged periods of time does not reach the heart of the problem-providing new jobs for the unemployed. Moreover, it would encourage those who have jobs available to them to continue in an unemployed status. H.R. 15119's restriction of extended benefits to a maximum of 13 weeks and only during “recession periods" as defined under the bill gears such benefits to cases of special need. FINANCING S. 1991 would increase the present wage base of $3.000 to $6.600 by 1971. This increase has been justified on the grounds that it will bring the wage base for unemployment compensation in line with social security. However, social security benefits bear a direct relation to the wage base, whereas unemployment compensation benefits do not. Increased spending in one type of social legislation does not justify comparable spending in all other types of social legislation. More realistically, large increases in one program decrease the ability of those who must pay for such benefits to absorb the costs of other programs. The modest increases in the wage base of $3,000 per year to $3,900 per year, effective with respect to wages paid in calendar year 1969 through 1971 and to $4,200 beginning in 1974 and thereafter are more reasonable than S. 1991's attempt to place the unemployment compensation wage base on a par with the social security wage base regardless of the cost. In conclusion, the Association endorses the enactment into law of H.R. 15119 and urges the Committee to reject S. 1991. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, AMERICAN BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS' Chairman, Committee on Finance, DEAR SIR: In behalf of the membership of the American Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO whom I have the honor to serve, I wish to present the attached statement for inclusion in the record of the Hearings now being held by the Senate Finance Committee on proposed measures to reform the unemployment compensation "System" by establishing federal minimum standards. The membership of our International Union numbers approximately 90,000 men and women who are employed in almost every state of the Union and in the District of Columbia. Recognizing the crowded hearing schedule which your Committee faces, I am not asking for time to appear personally in order to testify, I am asking that the statement be made part of the record. I have full confidence in the members of the Committee and I am firm in the belief that they will give as full weight to the statement attached hereto as they would had I appeared in person. Very sincerely yours, DANIEL E. CONWAY, International President. STATEMENT OF DANIEL E. CONWAY, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, because the House of Repre sentatives has failed to pass legislation which would bring about the long overdue recasting of our Unemployment Insurance system, the members of the American Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union, in whose behalf I present this statement, look to you to present and recommend to the U.S. Senate such legislation as would bring about the much needed reform of our chaotic unemployment compensation "system." Our concern is far from academic. The baking industry is one which is undergoing radical change. Technological change, among other developments, inlcuding the increasing pace of automation, has been taking its toll of jobs and job opportunities of our members. Over the past 48 months, 227 plant closings, department shut-downs and small retail shop closings have deprived 5,802 members of their jobs. In addition, roughly 3,000 jobs have been eliminated by the introduction of new production machinery and changes in production techniques. Our Union has a membership of approximately 90,000 workers and the loss of 8,800 jobs brings this loss to close to 10 percent of our current membership. These workers, deprived of their livelihoods through no fault of their own, are dependent upon unemployment compensation to tide them over their period of unemployment. They do not look upon unemployment compensation as an adequate substitute for jobs. They do expect that unemployment insurance would be available to them in an amount sufficient to enable them to meet the needs of their families while they are engaged in finding employment. And since their search for employment in their chosen craft is a difficult one, the comparative brevity of the period during which they receive unemployment compensation creates a hardship difficult to describe. What are we to say then about our members who lose their jobs as a result of the closing of a small hand-shop_production unit-the small retail bakery where the baker craftsman bakes bread, cake, rolls, etc., on the premises. This type of operation is generally exempt from required participation in the unemployment compensation "system" and our members cannot qualify to receive unemployment compensation. Surely equity and justice requires that the basic federal law be changed to provide for their coverage. The exemption of such enterprises, if continued, would only serve to prolong the suffering and discrimination which have plagued these workers for far too long. In using the term "system" to describe the various unemployment compensation arrangements which exist, I would not want the Committee to think that either I or the members of the Union I represent have the mistaken idea that there are uniform requirements, uniform insurance payments, uniform disqualification provisions, or uniform duration periods in all the 50 states. With membership in 42 of the 50 states we are very much aware of the lack of system, the lack of standards-in short-we are aware of the hodge-podge patchwork of 50 different arrangements that exist. Some order ought to be brought out of such chaos. As each year passes, and as the cost of living rises, the failure to establish federal minimum standards for unemployment compensation in terms of payments, duration, and extension of coverage, increases the hardships and reduces the meaning of unemployment compensation. The benefit levels, while they were initially geared to approach two-thirds of the average wages in a given state have hardly kept pace with the realities of life. The initial rationale has been forgotten or ignored. There is immediate need to restore the benefit levels to the levels originally intended. Only in this way can the unemployed worker meet the needs of his family and only in this way can the unemployment compensation arrangement provide the maintenance of purchasing power in the community which provides business with the customers they depend upon. So far removed from the original intention of the framers of the legislation when it was first introduced and passed thirty years ago, that in all too many instances unemployment compensation payments are well below the level of welfare relief payments. Our members do not want to become recipients of welfare relief. They want jobs and they need the type of insurance payments which will enable them to continue their search for jobs without facing the prospect of becoming welfare recipients. We appeal to the Senate Finance Committee to provide the needed federal minimum standards. We have too long gone along with minimum federal standards and this has not proven to be satisfactory. The House of Representatives has continued the unacceptable approach of minimum federal standards therefore we look to you to approve the list of standards, federal minimum standards, as contained in S. 1991. Only through action in the Federal legislature can we overcome the tendency in the various states to look upon the unemployment compensation system as a program which must be tailored to meet the demands of businessmen who complain of the taxes they must pay in order to fund the state system in which they participate. The object of unemployment compensation is to provide unemployed workers with temporary support and not to provide businesses with a minimum of tax contributions. It is our opinion that the payments of employers into the unemployment insurance funds are premium payments similar to what they would be required to pay for any insurance program. Their payments into the unemployment funds are as much a standing cost of doing business as is their fire insurance. Burglary insurance, or any other form of standing and regular expense they must face in the conduct of business. The system was not established for their convenience, it was established to meet a pressing social and economie need. Only through action by your Committee can we see any possibility of restoring the unemployment compensation arrangement into a semblance of rational order and put an end to its deterioration at the hands of various state legislatures. We urge that you recommend S. 1991. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, Re H.R. 15119. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Chairman, Committee on Finance, Senate of the United States, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Attached is a statement submitted in behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, the New Mexico Oil & Gas Association, the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association, and the Western Oil and Gas Association, which represents the position of the petroleum industry on H.R. 15119, Unemployment Insurance Amendments of 1966. Sincerely yours, FRANK N. IKARD. STATEMENT IN BEHALF OF AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, N.Y.; INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, TULSA, OKLA.; NEW MEXICO OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION, SANTA FE, N. MEX.; ROCKY MOUNTAIN OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION, CASPER, WYO.; WESTERN OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION, Los ANGELES. CALIF. The Unemployment Insurance Amendments of 1966, H.R. 15119, would make three major revisions in the existing Federal-state system of unemployment compensation. These revisions are (1) a provision for court of review of decisions by the Secretary of Labor concerned with determinations of state conformity and compliance, (2) a Federal-state program of extended benefits for persons who have exhausted their state benefit entitlement, and (3) upward adjustments in the Federal taxable wage base and in the Federal tax rate. The bill would also make several other less important changes in the law. The following paragraphs of this statement will present, first, a comment on the above enumerated three major revisions that would be provided by H.R. 15119. This will be followed by a brief reference to some of the less important changes that would be made under the bill. The concluding portion of the statement will discuss some of the issues presented by proposals that are being urged as amendments to the House-passed bill. These amendatory proposals would provide Federal standards in regard to benefits, eligibility, and employer experience rating and would provide a new program of Federal benefits. COMMENT ON MAJOR REVISIONS IN H.R. 15119 Judicial review In providing for judicial review of decisions by the Secretary of Labor ruling on the question of whether or not a state law and the administration of the law conform to the requirements of Federal law, the bill would permit an impartial determination with respect to areas of disagreement between the state and Federal governments. Under present law the absence of opportunity for court review has forced the states into immediate compliance with rulings of the Secretary, even though the states had valid reasons to consider the position they maintained on a point in controversy to be the correct one. Any state that does not comply with the Secretary's rulings under existing law is in danger of losing the offset tax credit and Federal reimbursement of administrative costs. The proposal in the bill to grant judicial review is meritorous. Extended benefit program The Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Program that would be initiated under the bill would provide a permanent means of dealing with benefit exhaustions arising in periods of economic downturn. On two occasions in the past when benefit exhaustions had reached high levels, the Congress |