Estimated weekly unemployment benefit maximums under proposed standards of H.R. 8282 and S. 1991 (reflecting assumption of continuing increases, corresponding to past 10-year trend, in average weekly wages in employment covered by unemployment compensation)-Continued

1 Source of data: "Handbook of Unemployment Insurance Financial Data, 1946-63," Bureau of Employment Security, U.S. Department of Labor.

2 Benefit maximums exclusive of dependents' allowance and higher maximums by reason of dependents that are payable in some States.

NOTE. The lower amounts of the estimated ranges of required benefit maximums shown in this table are based on simple extensions of the average dollar amount per year increases in average weekly wages during the 1953-63 period. The higher amounts of the estimated ranges are calculated on the basis of extensions of the average annual percentage increases of 1963 weekly wages over 1953 wages (percentage increase 1953 to 1963, divided by 10). By these methods, ranges of assumed average weekly wages in 1967, 1969, and 1971 were obtained and the respective ratios of benefit maximums to statewide average weekly wages, as provided in the bill, were applied.

1 Where two amounts are shown it indicates the range in dependent's allowance or variable maximum States.

? Operation of escalator.

* New escalator formulas: 50 percent in Iowa, Maine, and Rhode Island; 6634 percent in Hawaii.

ATTACHMENT III

1966 LEGISLATIVE INCREASES IN MAXIMUM UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS'

Alaska From $45 to $55 a week.

Delaware: From $50 to $55 a week.

Georgia: From $35 to $43 eff. 7/1/66 and $45 eff. 7/1/67.

Kentucky: Escalator provision—from $40 to $45 (est.).

Maryland: From $48 to $50.

Virginia From $36 to $42.

1 New Jersey and Louisiana still may increase benefits this year.

Maximum benefits increase automatically each year as average wages increase.

ATTACHMENT IV

Effects of S. 1991 and H.R. 8282 on maximum tax payable by employers, per employee (using selected experience rates for State unemployment compensation tax)

! This assumes that the State taxable wage base is the same as the Federal base of $3,000 per employee, as it is in most States. The following States currently have a State taxable wage base higher than $3,000: Tennessee, $3,300; Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, $3.600; Nevada, $3.800; California, $4,100: Utah, $4,200; Minnesota, $4,800; Alaska, $7,200.

Effects of H.R. 15119 on maximum tax payable by employers, per employee (using selected experience rates for State unemployment compensation tax)

This assumes that the State taxable wage base is the same as the Federal base of $3,000 per employee, as it is in most States. The following States currently have a State taxable wage base higher than $3,000: Tennessee, $3,300; Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, $3,600; Nevada, $3,800; California, $4,100; Utah, $4,200; Minnesota, $4,800; Alaska, $7,200.

Senator TALMADGE. Senator Williams?
Senator WILLIAMS. No questions.

Senator TALMADGE. Senator Gore?

Senator GORE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

How many States, to your knowledge, have disqualification provisions with respect to misconduct or voluntary quitting?

Mr. HENKEL. Sir, according to the latest publication of the Bureau of Employment Security that I have in the voluntary quit area, there are 24 States that disqualify for good cause connected with work.

There are, in connection with a discharge for misconduct, 18 or 20 States, 18 States, that postpone benefits for a fixed number of weeks. There are 24 that postpone benefits for a variable number of weeks, and 24 that disqualify for the duration of the unemployment, sir.

Senator GORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator TALMADGE. Senator Morton?

Senator MORTON. I see on page 7 of your statement that some 28 States or the State chambers of some 28 States endorsed your state

ment.

Mr. HENKEL. Yes, sir.

Senator MORTON. Which means that some 22 States are not associated

Mr. HENKEL. There are 32 members of the Council of State Chambers of Commerce.

Senator MORTON. I see.

Mr. HENKEL. There are some States that do not have State chambers of commerce, and for that reason it is 28 out of 32.

Senator MORTON. Your own company operates in a good many States. To your knowledge-and this is just a question of your opinion and knowledge on the subject-would most of these, the business community in most of these, States, that (1) are not members of your association and (2) that did not see fit, those members that did not see fit to go along on this statement, would it be implied that their position is similar to that which the gentleman from Louisiana stated earlier this morning, that if there is to be a bill, they would prefer this bill?

Mr. HENKEL. I think it would be a fair statement, sir, because, from my personal knowledge, this has been the general impression and the general feeling of most business concerns and those in industry with whom I have talked.

Senator MORTON. How many States does your own company operate in?

Mr. HENKEL. We operate in 48 States, sir.
Senator MORTON. Forty?

Mr. HENKEL. Forty-eight, sir.

Senator MORTON. Forty-eight States.

Mr. HENKEL. To varying degrees, of course.

Senator MORTON. Don't take a payroll away from Kentucky.

Mr. HENKEL. I might say that the Union Carbide Corp. position

is four-square with this.

Senator MORTON. That is all.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much, sir.

The next witness is Mr. Matt Triggs, representing the American Farm Bureau Federation.

STATEMENT OF MATT TRIGGS, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. TRIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to use my time to read our summary statement, which is the first page, and then request that the balance of our statement be incorporated in the record.

Senator TALMADGE. Without objection, the balance will be inserted in the record, Mr. Triggs.

Mr. TRIGGS. At our last annual meeting, the voting delegates of the member State farm bureaus approved the following policy recommendation:

We favor retention of experience rating policies and the preservation of State responsibility to determine eligibility and benefits. The inclusion of farmworkers would be impractical because of the temporary character of most such employment and the large number of multistate workers involved.

We are therefore in general accord with the revisions made by the House of Representatives and incorporated in H.R. 15119 and must oppose the provisions of S. 1991.

Since many witnesses will deal with the issues of experience rating and State responsibility and only a few with the proposal to cover farmworkers, we will limit our testimony to the latter issue.

Most farm labor employment is temporary and seasonal. Most hired farmworkers are not regularly attached to the labor force. Sixty-eight percent of the hired farmworkers worked less than 75 days a year as farmworkers and averaged 23 days of farm employment (1964 data). During the balance of the year most such workers were students, housekeepers, unemployed, retired, operating their own farm, et cetera. Very few of this group of workers would become eligible for unemployment benefits, but unemployment taxes would nevertheless be collected in connection with their employment if employed by a covered employer. This would be particularly typical of States in the northern half of the country where the period of farm labor employment is relatively short.

Thirty-two percent of the hired farmworkers worked more than 74 days a year as farmworkers. A substantial percentage of such workers who were employed by covered farm employers would become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. To the extent that limited experience and studies provide any basis for a conclusion, it appears that, if employers of this group of workers were taxed on a 3percent-of-payroll basis, benefits paid to such workers would be three to five times tax revenues, and quite probably more, thus representing a heavy drain on the unemployment insurance funds of many States. This is the reverse of the situation described in the preceding paragraph, but would be particularly true of the States in the southern half of the country where the period of farm labor employment is long enough for many farmworkers to become eligible for benefits.

About 5 percent of the farm labor force consists of interstate migrant workers who work for a series of employers in two or more States. Many such workers would become eligible for unemployment benefits since migratory workers usually work more weeks per year than local seasonal farmworkers. This would involve major problems of administration, of enforcement, of determination relative to eligibility for and amounts of benefits, of interstate transfer of records, and of division of the costs of benefits among the States in which such workers were employed.

I think I should take a minute to comment on the modified proposal relative to farmworker coverage presented to this committee by Secretary Wirtz on July 13.

Secretary Wirtz suggested that coverage be extended to farmers. who report at least 50 workers for OASDI purposes but only for those workers who had wages of at least $300 in a calendar quarter.

65-992-66-19