Finally, we are very proud of the fact that Actors' Equity is located in New York. It is one of our smaller, but to us, very precious unions, and it has greatly improved the position of actors in the United States. We only hope that present activities, including the Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, the New York State Council on the Arts, and those in other States, may enormously enlarge the opportunities for actors. We are very proud of the American stage. I think that goes for everyone in our Nation, and we want to do everything we can. in New York, and I believe the Congress feels the same way, to make the practice of this art, with all of its difficulties, a bit more economically viable.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you, Senator Javits.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much.

Senator TALMADGE. You may proceed, Miss Tetrault.
This is Miss Helene Tetrault, Actors' Equity Association.

STATEMENT OF HELENE TETRAULT, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, ACTORS' EQUITY ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JACK GOLODNER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE Miss TETRAULT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the Actors' Equity Association I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and to ask your consideration of what we believe is an inadvertent but extremely unjust shortcoming in our present unemployment compensation system. Its effect is to deprive many Americans of insurance benefits merely because they pursue work in many States and for many employers.

Perhaps the actor is in the vanguard of these multistate workers. The very nature of his profession requires that he be highly mobile. His work for one employer is often of a short duration, and he must be prepared to move about this country wherever there are employers and communities seeking his art. But the actor is not the only one who finds our present unemployment insurance program discriminatory against interstate workers. Other workers-construction people, resort employees also feel the inequities of a system that penalizes and frustrates worker mobility.

I am speaking now of people who are engaged in "covered" employment. Their employers are paying contributions on their services. Yet, because of the miltistate nature of their employment, they are often unable to collect benefits in time of need even though their work and wage history is more than ample.

For many years the association I represent and other organizations and individuals have condemned this wholly unfair, unjust, and economically unwise condition. Time and again, we have questioned why our system should be permitted to make it possible for two covered workers with similar work experience to be treated differently and be offered different protection solely because one is employed in many States by many employers and the other-less mobile-is not. Thus far, we have received no valid answer. But we have seen no action to correct the situation either.

I prefer to think the discriminatory system now working to the detriment of the multistate workers is not intended. I prefer to believe that the status of second-class citizen which our unemployment insur

65-992-66-15

ance system imposes upon the more mobile worker in our country exists because it is generally unknown and men who can do something about it-such as yourselves have been led to believe that all workers who are engaged in "covered" employment and boast a proper work and wage history are protected. Congress may have intended that such workers be protected, but in fact, gentlemen, many of them are not. The basic reason lies in the fact that the career of the multistate worker recognizes no State boundaries and yet unemployment insurance benefits, if he is to enjoy any, must derive from individual State laws fashioned with the immobile intrastate worker in mind. So different are these laws that any claim filed by the multistate worker is like some crazy jigsaw puzzle composed of pieces from as many as 50 different boxes. Sometimes it can be put together and make sense. Often, it cannot.

In order to file a valid combined claim-that is, a claim against several States in which the applicant was employed-a worker must first satisfy the basic requirements of the State in which he files. Accordingly, if a claimant files in New York, where eligibility is based on workweeks, he must have the requisite number of weeks; if in California, where eligibility is based on earnings, the requisite amount of earnings. These weeks or earnings, in order to be considered in a claim must have been gained during a 1-year "base period" established by State law. The multistate worker, therefore, must demonstrate not only that he has been engaged in sufficient covered employment as required by the State in which he files but that the employment he cites also fell within the base period year defined by that State, as well as the base periods established by the State or States in which he was employed. The more States in which a claimant is employed, the more difficult it becomes for him ever to satisfy these varied requirements.

As will be seen from the charts attached to my testimony the differences in the State base period are staggering. The root of the problem lies in this matching of base periods, the fact that all of the employment must fit within the base period of a State where the claimant files and the base period of the State where the employment was worked and covered.

The difference in base periods is so great that this is almost completely impossible in many cases.

For example, in the State of New York, the base period is the 52-week period ending with the Sunday preceding the filing of the claim. In California it is the four quarters ending 4 to 7 months prior to the filing of the claim. In North Carolina, it is the four quarters ending 6 to 9 months prior to the filing of the claim, and in States such as Maine or Washington where a fixed calendar-year base period is utilized, the base period may end 15 or 18 months prior to the filing of the claim. This means that a worker must wait as long as 18 months before he can cite his "covered" employment in these States to substantiate a claim.

These differences may not be of much consequence to the average intrastate worker who remains for extended periods of time in one State and thus has only one "base period" to worry about. But, to the multistate worker who works for short periods in many States and who is forced to qualify under several State-defined base periods, the problem is overwhelming.

I will try to make this situation clear by referring to a hypothetical case. One, incidentally, which is typical of the many that come across my desk.

Joe Actor, currently residing in New York, is unemployed and while making "the rounds" seeking work he files for unemployment insurance on January 3, 1966. Since the base period in New York is defined as the 52 weeks ending with the Sunday preceding the filing of the claim, Joe's New York "base period" runs from January 1, 1965, through January 2, 1966. To qualify for benefits in New York a claimant must have had covered employment at wages of $15 or more in each of 20 weeks in the base period.

During the period January 1, 1965, to January 2, 1966, Joe performed for 10 weeks in a Broadway show in the first quarter of the year; 6 weeks with the Seattle Repertory Co. in Washington in the second quarter; 2 weeks in Alaska, also in the second quarter; 9 weeks in a summer theater in Michigan in the third quarter; and 10 weeks with a theater in Florida in the fourth quarter. Joe has 37 weeks of covered employment during the year preceding his period of unemployment. Each of his employers paid his insurance. Furthermore his earnings in every instance exceeded those required to qualify him for maximum benefits in New York. Joe is confident that he is eligible for unemployment insurance. He has much to learn.

He learns first that he does not have a valid claim under New York's system because he does not have 20 weeks of covered employment in New York. He only has 10 weeks in the first quarter of his base period year. And so, he is sent to New York's interstate office. Here he learns that he does not have a valid claim against any of the States in which he worked because he didn't work long enough in any one. is then referred to the New York Combined Claims Section where they will help him put his 37 weeks of work together in a combined claim against New York, Washington, Alaska, Michigan, and Florida.

He

Unfortunately, Alaska is one of two States in our Union that refuses to participate in combined claims so Joe has lost 2 weeks of employment credit, and the money paid for Joe's insurance by his Alaskan employer will never benefit Joe."

But the other States do participate in combined claims, and if they will agree to participate with New York by sharing the cost of Joe's benefits, Joe will be in good shape.

Unfortunately, each State, though willing to participate, insists that Joe meet its own base period requirements.

The State of Washington has a base period of a calendar year and any employment occurring in that year cannot be cited in a claim until after July 1 of the succeeding calendar year. For the purposes of his claim, Joe cannot cite his 6 weeks work in Washington until July 1966.

Florida's base period is defined as the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters. This means that Joe's employment in the fourth quarter of 1965 in Florida cannot be used for a claim until after April 1, 1966. For this reason, another 10 weeks of covered employment is useless to Joe in substantiating his claim.

Of all of Joe's workweeks, only his employment in Michigan and New York can be used to validate his combined claim. But this gives him only 19 weeks-1 week shy of New York's 20-week requirement.

And so, gentlemen, Joe Actor, with 37 weeks of covered employment taking place in the base period time defined by New York is turned away from the New York office and received no unemployment benefits because he cannot possibly meet the very diverse requirements of five different States in which he was employed.

What if Joes is still unemployed on April 1? Knowing that Florida law will now allow him to claim those 10 weeks of Florida work he hurries back to the New York unemployment office. And, true enough, he can now cite his work in Florida in presenting his claim. but according to New York law, his New York base period has changed and is now the period of March 26, 1965, to March 27, 1966; it is no longer January 1, 1965, through January 2, 1966. Now Joe cannot claim his 10 weeks' work in New York in the first quarter of 1965; it is outside of his new base period. Thus, while gaining the 10 weeks from Florida, he loses 10 weeks from New York employment for pur poses of his claim. He still has only 19 weeks of employment that he can cite, and he is again denied unemployment insurance.

H.R. 15119, which is before you, establishes a Federal-State extended unemployment compensation program to assist long-term unemployed workers who have exhausted the benefits of their State program. What about the American who works in many States and like Joe Actor is unfairly denied qualification in any State for even the basic benefit program? Is he to be denied coverage under this new Federal program as well? Why? Why should he be penalized? Because he is willing to move about looking for work and because the nature of his work requires that he accept short-term employment in many States?

I respectfully suggest that this inequitable situation can be corrected by this Congress through the legislation being considered by you. I submit that this can be done without altering the fundamental base period-benefit year structure of our State systems and without requiring any additional financing. This can be done by inserting the following into the legislation you recommend:

1. A requirement that all States participate in "combined claims," the procedure whereby wage credits earned in one or more States are combined for the purpose of establishing a valid claim in the State where the claim is filed. All but two States have voluntarily entered into agreements to participate in combined claims. The overwhelming majority of States have experimented and have found such procedures practical and workable. It remains for Congress to learn from the experiences of the States and to make the practice uniform.

2. A requirement that all States participate in arrangements whereby not only an individual's eligibility but the amount and duration of his benefits can be determined on the basis of his employment outside of the State in which he filed his claim. At present, only six States have not gone along with the majority on this matter.

3. Most important, a requirement that all States waive their base period requirements when unusued wage credits earned therein fall¦ within the base period of the State in which or against which the multistate worker files his claim so that such credits can be used by that worker to support his combined claim.

In sum, I suggest that the legislation you recommend include a requirement that all States shall participate in arrangements with other States pursuant to which an individual's eligibility for compensation, and the amount and duration of the benefits payable to him, are determined on the basis of his combined wage credits from all States for the base period under the law of the State paying the compensation (whether or not, in the case of any transferred wage credits, such wage credits were in the base period of the transferring State).

I hope that through the hypothetical case I cited I have demonstrated to you the fact that the multistate worker is a victim of widely diverse definitions of base periods determined independently by the various States. In each State the object has been to establish the worker's attachment to the labor market by forcing him to meet the requirements of the State's "base period" definition. It is impossible, however, as well as grossly unfair, to judge the attachment of the multistate worker to the labor market on the basis of work performed in. only one State or on the basis of several different and often conflicting base period requirements. The base period requirements of the State in which or against which he filed should be sufficient for this purpose. A requirement that all States waive their own base period requirements and allow the law of the State in which or against which the claim is filed to govern entails only a minor adjustment in administrative procedures on the part of the States concerned. For though the difference in base periods among the States may be great, a difference does not exist regarding the due dates for employer contributions. In all States, regardless of their different base periods, employers pay contributions at the close of each calendar quarter. And they are paying them without discrimination for multistate employees as well as for those who are less mobile.

The money is there to pay these multistate workers. They have earned the right to protection by meeting all reasonable requirements regarding their work and wage history. A continuance of the present discriminatory system serves only to frustrate a desired goal of achieving greater worker mobility.

It is sad, but true, that the multistate worker in our Nation has been likened to the man without a country when it comes to seeking unemployment insurance protection. Since he works in many States, no State is concerned with his peculiar situation. Only Congress can act to cut the tangled snarl of unintended but nevertheless real obstacles that prevent such workers from participating in this program on an equal basis with other Americans.

(The charts referred to follow :)