Page images
PDF
EPUB

It is my hope the committee to the Senate will recognize the needs of the unemployed and not allow them to be utilized merely as pawns in the competitive world of industry.

I feel it only just that in this, the greatest nation on earth, the unemployed worker should have a better alternative than hunger or despair. I, therefore, urge the approval of the strongest possible unemployment compensation reforms. It is high time that pressing needs of the working men and women of this nation are realized and met. In this, an age of transition, we must not forget the human factor. It we do we perpetrate a grave injustice against this nations greatest asset, its workers.

Most sincerely,

BENJAMIN J. DORSKY, President.
MISSISSIPPI AFL-CIO,
Jackson, Miss., July 19, 1966.

Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,

Chairman, Committee on Finance,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR LONG: I have recently been advised that the Senate Finance Committee is currently conducting hearings on proposals for unemployment compensation reform. Specifically, I understand that your committee is presently considering SB 1991 which provides federal minimum standards.

Please be advised that the Mississippi AFL-CIO is in favor of this bill and urges your Committee to give it a favorable report. Many unemployed workers in this state are consistently denied compensation under the existing law and the only way this can be overcome is to strengthen the Federal Act.

Employer and other groups in Mississippi have succeeded in virtually emasculating the Employment Security Act in recent years. All of this has been done under the guise of making the state more attractive to industry. The gimmick is low tax rates. In order to keep tax rates low, weekly benefits are held down and workers are denied compensation for various and sundry reasons. Frankly, we feel the only answer to this problem is to strengthen the Federal Law. We certainly hope your Committee can come out with a bill that will eliminate these evils at the state level.

I will be happy to furnish your Committee with affidavits of individuals who have been victimized, if such a need exists. I would also like to request that this letter be made a part of the record.

Sincerely yours,

CLAUDE RAMSAY, President.

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
New York, N.Y., July 20, 1966.

Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,

Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR LONG: On behalf of the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, I wish to go on record as strongly supporting the enactment of H.R. 8282 and its companion Bill S. 1991 in order to provide urgently needed improvement in unemployment compensation benefits to millions of workers throughout the United States.

Our Union represents many thousands of workers employed on local passenger transportation systems, airlines, railroads, public utilities, universities, and related industries, situated in many different states throughout our country. We know from firsthand experience that existing unemployment compensation laws are grossly inadequate.

In most states, unemployment compensation laws are obsolete and reflect a system of benefits designed to meet the standard of living of the era of the Great Depression in the 1930's. Such benefits have not kept pace with the huge increase in living costs and do not reflect credit on our Nation in the era of the Great Society.

In recent years, automation has had a sharp impact on the industries represented by our Union as well as upon other major industries in the United States. Some of the ravages of automation can be lessened and the economic plight of affected workers alleviated through the enactment of H.R. 8282.

I do not suggest that enactment of H.R. 8282 will eliminate all of the economic dislocations and hardships resulting from unemployment. However, this Bill does represent a step in the right direction and constitutes the minimum measure necessary to correct long-standing inequities in the administration of unemployment compensation benefits throughout the United States.

Very truly yours,

MATTHEW GUINAN, International President.

Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,

KANSAS STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR, AFL-CIO,
Topeka, Kans., July 18, 1966.

Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR LONG: The officers and members of the Kansas State Federation of Labor are extremely interested in legislation that will establish minimum standards in unemployment compensation and in improving some of the benefits the unemployed worker so properly deserves.

We earnestly appeal to you to lend your support to S. 1991, the bill that was introduced by Senator Eugene McCarthy and fifteen other senators. Our members who work in more than one state continuously involved with variations of the Unemployment Compensation Law, in each of the states where they have experience. A few of the variations are: qualifications for benefits, variation in the amount of compensation allowable, disqualification variations, number of weeks of eligibility, and the inadequate amount of benefits provided as compared to the loss of income.

The bill introduced by Wilbur Mills, HR 8282, provided for minimum Federal standards and improvements in the law that we subscribe to, although the bill that passed the House was so watered down that it is totally inadequate. We are therefore trusting that the Senate Finance Committee of which you are Chairman will report a bill to the Senate Floor which will provide broader coverage to include employers with one or more employees; workers in non-profit institutions; establish a formula for raising the maximum benefit to % of the average weekly wages of the respective states; extend the benefit period by an additional 26 weeks; provide uniform methods of qualification; and standardize or make uniform disqualification penalties in cases where the worker quit voluntarily. was discharged for misconduct or refused suitable work.

Surely the Congress will give these needed amendments favorable consideration which would eliminate the jungle of confusion that the present 50 laws create nationwide. The unemployed worker is dependent upon the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for improvement in our Unemployment Compensation Laws due to the failure of the respective states to assume the responsibility through legislative procedures of working out any guide of uniformity between the states and keeping the maximum benefits in pace with the economy, and extending the benefit periods to correspond with the needs of unemployed persons. I hope these remarks will be carried in the record of the hearings for your committee.

Respectfully yours,

F. E. BLACK, Executive Secretary.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA,
New York, N.Y., July 20, 1966.

Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,

Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Permit me to address you and your conferees--for the record of the current hearings on S. 1991-in behalf of the approximately 250.000 members of the American Federation of Musicians, AFL-CIO.

Our musicians, by the very nature of their transient employment, are anong the most adversely affected workers coming under present provisions of the unemployment compensation act. We sorely need the reforms proposed in the

65-992-66- -47

bill introduced by Senator McCarthy and 15 co-sponsors. I stress, on behalf of this, the largest of all entertainment unions, the dire need for uniform Federal standards, for the weekly benefits as set forth in the so-called McCarthy proposal, and for the specified duration, plus a minimum of 26 weeks of extended Federal unemployment compensation benefits.

These reforms are minimal to satisfy a crying need for modernization of the basic principles of job insurance and protections. Our musicians were among the first to feel the damaging impact of automation, and we have always been and shall be subjected to shifting venues of employment.

Therefore, may I cite for the record urgent need of the added job protections, as proposed.

May I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you include this petition for relief by all professional musicians, as a part of the record of the current unemployment compensation hearings.

Sincerely,

HERMAN KENIN, President.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
Washington, D.C., July 21, 1966.

Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,

Chairman, Committee on Finance,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR LONG: This is to state the position of the IBEW, which represents more than 820,000 members, on the very important Unemployment Compensation issues now before your Finance Committee. Members of the IBEW have not been exempt from the excessive unemployment that has plagued our country in the last several years. Many of them, faced suddenly with loss of employment, have been hard put to support their families on the totally inadequate Unemployment Compensation benefits available to them in their states. And in too many cases, even these inadequate benefits have been exhausted before they were able to return to work.

On their behalf and on behalf of all working men and women I want to make this statement in strong support of a meaningful Unemployment Compensation bill, such as S. 1991, which will provide a fair measure of protection for the unemployed. I ask that this communication be made part of the record of the Committee hearings now in progress.

First, we favor the broader coverage in the bill which would extend protection to five million workers now denied any Unemployment Compensation benefits at all.

We urge approval of uniform Federal standards providing minimum benefits equal to two-thirds of the state's average weekly wage for not less than 26 weeks, plus an additional 26 weeks of extended Federal benefits for the long-term unemployed with a record of firm attachment to the labor force. Federal standards will put the states on a more even basis. Workers in similar situations will be treated more equitably regardless of which state they live in. And the difference in state tax rates due to the uneven quality of state laws would be narrowed. This would discourage states from trying to improve their position for industrial development by sacrificing their unemployment insurance systems. We feel the tax base should be raised substantially, since it now covers only about half of payrolls. One reason the unemployment insurance system is short of funds is because of the out-dated taxable wage base, which has not been changed since 1939.

Finally, we feel that states should not be allowed to withhold benefits longer than six weeks in cases of disqualifying acts. After that time they should have to reexamine the case to see if the worker is still voluntarily unemployed. If he is able to work, available for work and seeking work, he should then be entitled to benefits.

The provisions of S. 1991 are long overdue amendments necessary to strengthen the unemployment insurance program. Because of all the present limitations in coverage, benefits and eligibility we feel that our members do not have as good protection now as they did many years ago when this program was in its infancy. Wage insurance today compensates a much smaller proportion of the unem ployed worker's wage loss than it once did.

We are pleased that your Committee is making a review of these developments. We strongly and sincerely urge Committee approval of the provisions of S. 1991. Thank you for this opportunity to submit our views. Very truly yours,

GORDON M. FREEMAN,
International President.

NEW YORK STATE AFL-CIO,
Albany, N.Y., July 21, 1966.

Senator RUSSELL B. LONG,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: The New York State AFL-CIO representing more than two million organized workers in New York state wishes to go on record in support of amendments to the Federal unemployment compensation program as embodied in the bills S. 1991 and HR 8282.

It is our position that such legislation is badly needed to correct inequities and failures in the New York unemployment insurance system. It takes but the simplest arithmetic to realize that this system falls far short of the needs of our economy and our under-employed:

1. According to most recent statistics published by the New York State Division of Employment (Employment Trends, May, 1966) the total unemployment in May 1966 amounted to 325,000 or 4.1% of the state's labor force. This figure is obviously too optimistic since it fails to reflect an invisible army of unemployed composed of those people who were forced out of the labor market some time ago, who are willing and able to work but have become too discouraged to search for a job. Adding this "invisible army" to the official statistics would raise the unemployed to some 500,000 or 6% of the total labor force. However, in the same month of May, 1966, only 132,500 persons received unemployment insurance benefits, thus leaving some 60% of the unemployed entirely outside the protection of the law. This is due to a number of reasons: lack of coverage of many workers, exhaustion of benefits, harsh eligibility and disqualification rules, to mention only a few.

2. The erosion of our unemployment insurance program is especially visible in the area of benefits. In 1939, the national average weekly wage in jobs covered by unemployment compensation was a little over $25. Most states-and New York was among them-provided maximum benefits of $15, which was then 60% of the average weekly wage. The weekly wage loss suffered by the unemployed person receiving the benefit was about $10 a week.

In 1965, the New York State average weekly wage in covered employment was about $120. Thus, the maximum benefit of $55 is only 46% of the average weekly wage as contrasted to 60% in 1939. The unemployed worker who is fortunate enough to receive the maximum benefit still will suffer a weekly wage loss of $65 or more, as contrasted with a $10 loss in 1939.

Neither does our unemployment insurance system adequately meet its proper role as a preventive of poverty. The war on poverty has used a rough average of $3.000 a year for a family of four as the pivotal measure below which poverty should be assumed. Reduced to a weekly figure, this would require an income of more than $57 a week for the elimination or prevention of poverty. However, the average full-week unemployment benefit in May, 1966, was only $41.49 (New York State Division of Employment, Operations, May, 1966, p. 19), which is far below the out-of-poverty level for the overwhelming majority of the unemployed, especially in view of the fact that in that month only 32% of new beneficiaries were eligible for the maximum rate of $55 (Division of Employment, Weekly Summary of Key Statistics, July 7, 1966).

3. The New York State unemployment insurance law is one of the harshest in the nation with respect to depriving workers of benefits through disqualification procedures. In cases of voluntary separation without good cause, refusal of suitable work or misconduct, the payment of benefits is stopped until after the particular worker either works for at least three days in each of four different weeks or else until he earns at least $200.

Thus this harsh, abrasive and vindictive provision of the law punishes the unemployed worker even when his continued unemployment ceases to be a matter of his own doing and becomes the result of economic dislocations over which he

has no control. No wonder that the number of disqualifications increased in New York state from 385,871 in 1959 preceding the year when the new disqualification provisions of 1960 were put into effect, to 428,987 in 1965, which is utterly inconsistent and inappropriate to a sound social security program.

4. The present structure of the New York state provision for 26 weeks of maximum duration of benefits is clearly inadequate. The bills S. 1991 and HR 8282 provide a minimum of 26 weeks of benefits with 20 weeks of employment and a maximum of 26 weeks of federal benefits to supplement those provided by the states. These changes are necessary to reduce the excessive number of exhaustees which totaled 17.4% of all beneficiaries in 1965.

The continuing large number of persons exhausting benefit rights-121,218 in 1965, 152,208 in 1964, 166,945 in 1963, 153,000 in 1962 and 207,000 in 1961-clearly justifies the extension of benefits.

The proposal to establish Federal unemployment adjustment benefits is urgently needed to deal with the problem of long-term unemployment, especially in areas of substantial and/or persistent unemployment. According to most recent official statistics of the U.S. Bureau of Employment Security (Area Trends in Employment and Unemployment, March, 1966), there are in New York four labor areas of substantial unemployment and eight areas of persistent unemployment. The impact of technological and economic changes on these areas is such that 26 weeks of benefits are not sufficient to enable displaced workers to find alternative employment. A U.S. Department of Labor study of claimants who exhausted benefits under the TEUC program, 1961-62 (Special TEUC Report No. 2 BES No. U-225-2, Feb., 1965) found that in New York state 72% of the exhaustees were still unemployed after exhaustion of extended benefits under the TEUC program.

Clearly, a period of 26 weeks in addition to the duration by state law is essential to provide the measure of protection which the long-term unemployed need to help meet the difficulties facing areas where alternative jobs are difficult if not impossible to secure.

In view of all these and other shortcomings of our state unemployment insurance system, we most emphatically favor the intent and provisions of the bill S. 1991. It will extend protection to thousands of workers not now covered, establish a Federal program for the long-term unemployed, provide minimum standards for benefits and duration, set up uniform standards for eligibility and disqualifications, increase the taxable wage base so as to obtain a more equitable and adequate financing of the system and provide additional Federal funds to assist the states.

Unfortunately the bill HR 15119 which passed the House of Representatives does not meet the objectives of the original bill to extend and improve the unemployment compensation program. For that bill fails to provide for Federal unemployment compensation standards, reduces the number of employees to whom new coverage would be extended, cuts the original wage base proposal from $5,600 in 1967 and $6,600 in 1971 to $3,900 in 1969 and $4,200 in 1970 and does not contain the supplemental benefits provision which would extend benefits for an additional 26 weeks and instead provides for only 13 additional weeks restricted to times of unusually high national unemployment.

We therefore earnestly urge this committee to report a bill to the floor of the Senate which would restore the objectives of the original bill and make our unemployment insurance system responsive to the needs of our times.

We also respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the hearing record on the respective bills before your committee.

Sincerely yours,

RAYMOND R. CORBETT, President.

HAWAII STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR, AFL-CIO,

Honolulu, Hawaii, July 20, 1966.

Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,

Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR LONG: On behalf of more than 30,000 members of the AFL-CIO in the State of Hawaii, I would like to express our feelings on H.R. 8282 and S. 1991-Unemployment Compensation

« PreviousContinue »