SECTION 3 This proposal while new to the District law has been adopted in a great many States. It would permit any employer to make a voluntary contribution to his account within 30 days following mailing of the notice of his tax rate for the succeeding year. The simplest explanation might be the following example: An employer receives notice that because of the balance in his account his tax rate will be 0.5 percent. The notice states that his balance is $860. It can be seen that a balance of $890 would constitute the reserve ratio requirement for a 0.1 percent rate. The employer, therefore, might voluntarily send a check for $30 which when credited to his account would give him the 0.1 percent rate. If he did not make this voluntary contribution, his tax rate would be set at 0.5 percent. SECTION 4 This section raises the maximum weekly benefit amount from $30 to $35. It does not increase the amount paid to anyone having earnings less than $1,035 during the preceding base year or $667.01 in the high quarter during that base year. It adds five brackets to the top of the table as follows, and those who can qualify would receive the higher amounts. A high percentage of regularly employed people will qualify for these higher brackets, but it will be apparent that those who cannot qualify for more than $30 under the present law will get exactly the same benefits if these amendments are passed that they do now. There is attached a compilation of the maximum benefits paid in all of the States. It will be seen that the present $30 maximum in the District is about $2.50 less than the average of the States. We know from experience that the Congress will not long permit a belowaverage payment of benefits in the District of Columbia. This is particularly true since Maryland pays up to $35 per week. We have been reliably informed that bills will be introduced by labor for considerably higher benefits, and it was therefore concluded that it would be well for us to take the initiative and suggest the $5 increase at the same time we are seeking reduced taxes amounting to a million dollars a year or better. OTHER PROVISIONS H. R. 10625 does not contain any reference to any amendments sought by labor and the Labor Department and which we have consistently opposed. Specifically, there is no reference in this bill to altering existing or present penalty provisions of the District law. There is no reference in this bill to changing the very desirable District provision allowing benefits for 26 weeks or until the claimant has drawn one-third of his earnings during the base period, whichever is the lesser. Employers should support this bill. Maximum State unemployment compensation benefit provisions as of ! Where two figures are shown dependents' allowances are involved, except for Colorado where other factors govern. No maximums are shown for Massachusetts because of high fluctuations in dependents' allowances. Source: State Unemployment Compensation Acts. Research and tax department, Washington Board of Trade, Washington, D. C. DISQUALIFICATION FOR BENEFITS Section 10 (a) is amended to read as follows: "An individual who has left his most recent work voluntarily without good cause, as determined by the Board under regulations prescribed by it, shall not be eligible for benefits for the week in which he has left work voluntarily without good cause, and for each week thereafter until he has earned in employment at least four times his weekly benefit rate, as determined in each case." Section 10 (b) is amended to read as follows: "An individual who has been discharged for misconduct oc‹ urring in the course of his most recent work, proved to the satisfaction of the Board, shall not be eligible for benefits with respect to the week in which such discharge occurred and for each week thereafter until he has earned in employment at least four times his weekly benefit rate, as determined in each case." Section 10 (c) is amended to read as follows: "If an individual otherwise eligible for benefits fails, without good cause as determined by the Board under regulations prescribed by it, either to apply for new work found by the Board to be suitable when notified by an employment office or to accept any suitable work when offered to him by any employment office, his union hiring hall, or any employer direct, he shall not be eligible for benefits with respect to the week in which such failure occurred and for each week thereafter until he has earned in employment at least four times his weekly benefit rate, as determined in each case. "In determining whether or not work is suitable within the meaning of this subsection, the Board shall consider (1) the physical fitness and prior training, experience, and earnings of the individual, (2) the distance of the place of work from the individual's place of residence, and (3) the risk involved as to health, safety, or morals." (The foregoing language was submitted by the board of trade for subcommittee consideration, as was the following letter addressed to Mr. William Press, executive secretary of the Washington Board of Trade, under date of April 22, 1958, and signed by Mr. Ralph E. Dewhirst, president, the Graphic Arts Association of Washington, D. C., Inc.) THE GRAPHIC ARTS ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON, D. C., INC., Mr. WILLIAM PRESS, The Washington Board of Trade, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. PRESS: Members of the Graphics Arts Association of Washington, D. C., Inc., having united together for common action upon matters or laws peculiar to their industry, as well as ones affecting general economic conditions in the Nation's Capital, have determined after a careful study and analysis of Senate bill No. S. 3493, which could best be described as a statute of "excess," that it should be opposed as one not in the best interests of the printing trades or Washington business in general. The association feels that the liberality of the benefits does not make for the best management-employee relationships. Further, that if this legislation were enacted, it is not unlikely that the cost of doing business in the District of Columbia would become so burdensome that there could be a destruction of the incentive to contribute further necessary capital for expansion of local business, as well as a deterrent to the establishment of new businesses. The finances necessary to the conduct of a business are difficult enough to obtain without further saddling it with frightening and unpredictable costs, which most certainly appear to have been arbitrarily set. For the foregoing reasons the association, by appropriate resolution on April 21, 1958, is opposing Senate bill No. S. 3493 and sponsoring House bill No. 10625. We will be most happy to cooperate and support the board of trade in this matter. Should you wish a representative of our association to testify at the hearings, please contact us. Sincerely, RALPH E. DEWHIRST. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, HOT SHOPPES, INC., Washington, D. C., April 29, 1958. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I called your office and explained that I would write a letter stating our position with regard to the "model bills" for the District of Columbia insofar as they are related to our company. In this connection, we know of no instance where any legislation which has been enacted for the District has influenced our moving any of our business out of the District. This is all I could tell you if I were to appear at your hearing and I hope it is satisfactory to you. With best personal regards, I am Sincerely, Hon. WAYNE MORRIS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. J. WILLARD MARRIOTT. ARLINGTON, VA., April 28, 1958. SIR: Your letter of April 25, 1958, addressed to Mr. Frank L. Grimm, president of this company, has been referred to me in Mr. Grimm's absence. I contacted a gentleman in Mr. Casey's office by telephone this date and he requested that we write you stating our reasons for transferring the location of our executive offices from the District of Columbia to Arlington County, Va. An operational reorganization within our company made it advisable for us to vacate our old address in the District of Columbia. After a survey of the office facilities available in the District of Columbia and nearby Maryland and Virginia, we elected to establish our new location in Arlington County, Va., for the reason that we found suitable quarters in Arlington Towers and preferred this location to any other we had investigated. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We are pleased to respond to the request of the subcommittee of the Senate District of Columbia Committee considering proposed new legislation on unemployment compensation for our views on the several bills now before the subcommittee, and also with respect to certain statements made in recent testimony before the subcommittee. Insofar as the legislation is concerned, we have not thus far given the several bills the detailed consideration which we feel would be necessary to enable us to take a position upon their respective merits or to suggest possible amendments. With respect to the reasons which motivated the establishment by the Fred S. Gichner Iron Works, Inc., of a plant at Beltsville, Md., we may state unequivocally that no legislation either previously enacted by the Congress, or presently under consideration, was even in the remotest way involved. We should like to point out that all of our other plants continue in operation within the boundaries of the District of Columbia, and we have no plans for any change in such operations. The prime reason for the establishment of plant No. 5 in Prince Georges County was the availability of ample acreage for expansion both for the present and for the future. Operations of those divisions of our company which require considerable space have been centered at the Beltsville plant. Moreover, since it has been the privilege of this company to provide materiel for our Armed Forces over a long period of years, we felt that the dispersal of a plant of this kind was substantially in the public interest in these times. We appreciate the opportunity of placing this statement in the record of the hearings of the subcommittee. Sincerely yours, FRED S. GICHNER IRON WORKS, INC., HENRY GICHNER, President. WASHINGTON, D. C., May 1, 1958. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Committee on the District of Columbia, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated April 25, 1958. Due to previous commitments, I regret my inability to appear at the open hearing scheduled for Thursday, May 1, 1958, at 9:30 a. m. Our reason for establishing plans to move our Washington division wholesale drug operation to Maryland is because our present building is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Agency's jurisdiction for ultimate condemnation, and we have not been successful in locating suitable land in the District of Columbia. Yours very truly, Senator WAYNE MORSE, The Capitol, Washington, D. C. THE HENRY B. GILPIN Co., R. C.-NEHI BOTTLING Co., DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We received your letter which was addressed to Mr. Robert Lipps, manager, Royal Crown Cola, inviting us to have a representative present at your open hearing on May 1, 1958, to discuss reasons why businesses moved out of the District of Columbia. This is to advise you that the Royal Crown Bottling Company of Washington, Inc., was purchased by this organization on January 7, 1957. The business was located in Virginia at the time of our purchase, therefore, we are unable to give you the information you request. Mr. William C. Franklin, president of the former company can be reached at the Royal Crown Bottling Co., 401 East 30th Street Baltimore, Md. Perhaps he can supply you with the reasons for his move from the District of Columbia to Virginia. Very truly yours, HARVEY E. WOOD, Manager. WASHINGTON, D. C., May 1, 1958. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SENATOR: In reply to your letter of April 25, 1958, requesting information as to the reasons for this firm's proposed move, the most important are listed below: 1. More space for immediate use and additional space for expansion at a later date. 2. Need for a railroad siding. 3. The plant is on a three-shift basis and there is concern for women entering and leaving the plant late at night in our present location. Yours truly, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, NATIONAL PUBLISHING CO., TOM'S CHEVROLET, United States Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, the Capitol, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I wish to extend my most sincere regrets for being unable to attend your hearings this morning. I was scheduled for a physician's appointment this morning and could not change my time. Insofar as the subject matter of your current public hearings on the District of Columbia, I will, in this letter attempt to explain our position on our withdrawal from downtown to the suburbs of Maryland. |