EXHIBIT 2 How HB 340, PASSED BY THE ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE BUT VETOED BY GOVERNOR FAUBUS, WOULD HAVE AFFECTED ELIGIBILITY AND DISQUALIFICATIONS HB 340 CHANGES PRESENT LAW Voluntarily quit is disqualified until he | Voluntarily quit is eligible after a penalbecomes employed and earns 6 times his ty period of 8 weeks. weekly benefit amount. Discharged worker, whether fired justly or unjustly, is disqualified until he goes to work and has earnings equal to 6 times his weekly benefit amount. Discharged worker qualifies after serving 8 week penalty. period. Pregnant woman disqualified until she If a worker fails to accept suitable work | Eligible after serving 8 week penalty he is disqualified until he earns 6 times his weekly benefit amount. Pregnant woman disqualified until she earn 6 times her weekly benefit amount. A female who leaves work to accompany or join her husband in a new place of residence must have paid work equal to 6 times her weekly benefit amount. Also applies to female who quits to marry or perform household duties. Worker who quits employment to attend school or self-employed is disqualified and treated as a new worker entering labor market. Female who quits to marry disqualified until she has 30 days of paid work. Worker who quits employment to attend school or self-employed is disqualified until he has 30 days paid work. EXHIBIT 3 HOW HB 340, PASSED BY THE ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE BUT VETOED BY GOVERNOR FAUBUS, Weekly benefit amount is figured as 1/26 of Highest Quarter earnings (1/26 of $520.00= $20.00 Benefit) and during Base Period has been paid wages 30 times his weekly amount ($20 x 30 $600.00) EXHIBIT 4 [From the Arkansas Gazette, Monday, June 21, 1965] HOSPITAL LAYOFFS SHOW NEED FOR JOBLESS PLAN, ALLEN SAYS The executive secretary of the Arkansas Council of Churches said Sunday that interviews with several persons who were dismissed recently from Arkansas Baptist Hospital underscored a need for unemployment compensation programs at hospitals to protect employes. Rev. Sam J. Allen said he interviewed six employes who were laid off work at Baptist Hospital in January and April as part of the Council's program against poverty and found "a plight of human misery and despair" and "impending poverty." "One [employee] said that she went into a state of despair and depression after her layoff because she had given many years of her life to the hospital and loved the work of humanitarian service and was now over the age of 45, which is making it impossible for her to find other employment," Mr. Allen said in a statement, which did not mention the hospital by name. He said the six he interviewed reported that others who were laid off at the same time were facing a similar situation. About 75 of the nearly 1,000 employes at Baptist Hospital have been laid off during an efficiency study conducted by a management consultant team to streamline the operation of the Hospital and reduce costs. Most of the layoffs have been in the housekeeping, kitchen and laundry departments and reportedly have lowered morale among the Hospital personnel. About five persons have been laid off in a similar study at St. Vincent Infirmary. Neither hospital has made layoffs among technical and professional workers. None of those laid off at either hospital may draw unemployment pay because neither hospital has an unemployment compensation program. Hospitals, as charitable institutions, are not required by law to participate in the unemployment insurance program and generally do not. A hospital administrator said this was so because usually 70 per cent of a hospital's income goes for payrolls and because hospitals generally have excellent fringe benefit programs. "Management should be encouraged always in its attempt to streamline operations and cut costs," Mr. Allen said, "but in doing so it should make every possible effort to insure that layoffs are made fairly and that those to be laid off will not be put out on the street with no place to go for protection from poverty." He said if an unemployment compensation program were in effect, it would tide dismissed employes over until they find another job. Mr. Allen said the Missouri Pacific Hospital "has had no serious problems in making employe adjustments in streamlining and updating their operations and in spite of some layoffs employe morale remained high." He said he called Carl E. Reis of St. Louis, executive secretary of the Missouri Pacific hospital system, to find out why. Reis told him, Mr. Allen said, that the main reason for Missouri Pacific's success was the work done by the Hospital, Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Workers Union, which represents the employes there, to shift employes fairly and according to seniority to other parts of the hospital, to help those whose jobs were eliminated to find temporary employment outside the hospital before they were laid off and to give them the right of resuming work at the hospital as soon as a new job opening came. Earl F. Yeargan, international representative of the union, said last week that many of the employes at Baptist Hospital had come to him and that he had begun a union campaign at the Hospital. The Missouri Pacific Hospital is the only one represented by his union in Arkansas. The Missouri Pacific Hospital also doesn't have an unemployment compensation program, Yeargan said. "Let the hospitals streamline and cut costs wherever this can be done, but let them also express their humanitarianism to their employes as well as the patients," Mr. Allen said. 2 2 He said that several former employes at the hospitals had given from 12 to 18 years of service to the hospital and expressed disbelief when their jobs were eliminated with no advance notice. Two had received five-year pins and reported that they were not given seniority consideration, he said. ACTORS' EQUITY ASSOCIATION, Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, MY DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: During the course of my appearance before the Senate Finance Committee on Monday, July 18, 1966 in connection with H.R. 15119, you raised a question as to the possibility of an unemployed worker claiming in more than one State if the amendment suggested by Actors' Equity Association were incorporated in the bill. I am most happy to clarify this as follows: When a claim is filed in which covered employment in more than one State is cited, the State in which claim is filed-which will become the "paying" State if the claim is validated-must contact all of the States in which employment occurred and request a transfer of wage credits. Each participating State processes such request in accordance with its own individual statutes and regulations and transfers wage credits only when earnings and coverage have been verified, and, under present law, when the employment falls within the individual base period in such State. It may take as many as six to eight weeks for the processing to be completed, during which time the claimant must continue to meet reporting requirements in the State in which he files. Once any wage credit is transferred to the paying State and a claim validated, the employer's account is charged in accordance with the individual State's procedures, and the employment cannot legally be cited on a further claim. Accordingly, assuming it were physically possible for a claimant to file in a second State while still meeting reporting requirements in the first, it would be impossible for him to validate his claim as the wage credits would no longer be available. The amendment which Actors' Equity Association suggests would require merely that the base period criteria applied in transferring any unused wage credits be that of the paying rather than the transferring States, and that all States participate. It would not in any way alter or seek to alter any other criteria applied by the individual States or the general procedures now followed in processing combined and extended claims and transferring wage credits. Once again, I wish to thank you for all the courtesies extended to us, and respectfully request that you have this letter inserted in the record of the committee hearing together with my testimony. Sincerely yours, HELENE TETRAULT. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Senate Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, DEAR SENATOR LONG: On behalf of the General Electric Company, I should like to outline for the record our comments on H.R. 15119-"Unemployment Insurance Amendments of 1966"-now before your Committee. Additionally, and for the reasons to be explained, General Electric wishes to endorse H.R. 15119 and to urge that your Committee report it favorably to the Senate for early enactment. At the outset, you should know that the General Electric Company continues to support the present, soundly-conceived Federal-State unemployment compen |