for the duration provision, very frankly, because I think all of the facts and the background that have come to my attention clearly demonstrate that it was the intention of the Congress at least that there be this 50 percent in connection with wages. In this, they did say 16 weeks or one-third of the individual's earnings. That is a standard, a very definite standard, one-third of the individual's earnings. That may be less than 39 weeks, even if you said 50 percent of his earnings. But some philosophy of that sort might carry out the original intent, whereas I have some question in my mind about the advisability of paying for 39 weeks in all States. I can see that a case can be made on the background and history of this for the 50 percent weekly wage. I mention this because nobody else has referred to it at all in the testimony. I was surprised it had not been referred to. Mr. CAREY. Well, of course, I don't agree that the local community should bear the full weight of the situation. I even wonder if they should after the 39 weeks. I think there has to be devised methods by which the local community will have Federal help in terms of surplus foods and other assistance. But when a person exhausts unemployment compensation, then are they to be left entirely at the mercy of the elements? The CHAIRMAN. No, sir; Mr. Carey. I am certain that I would agree completely that they should not. In my opinion, the question arises as to how long, under all the varying circumstances that exist in the various States, should we use this vehicle as a means of taking care of the need that exists? Certainly, there are many other things that could be done.. I would not say that this is all that should be done, and neither would you. I think both of us would agree that it would be much more desirable to have the unemployed people doing something else if we can figure out ways to have them do those other things. It is not that I would say that they should be left to the mercy of the elements, if I did not vote for 39 weeks. That would not be my thought at all. But it is a question of how long shall we use this as the vehicle for taking care of that individual when in the process of doing it we may completely overlook his connection and the extent of time that he has been connected with the labor force in his wage year. Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, there is no magic in the term 26 or 39. But I would contend that with 39 weeks we can do. There is general acceptance of 39 weeks throughout the Nation at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. Now, if we reach the conclusion that the States have not done as much as we then initially intended, if we tell them then that they have to do more, then, in place of saying that everyone should have this many weeks, I would much prefer to require that whatever the payment is and for whatever the weeks are, the total wage loss should be replaced in some percentage of what he was earning, as this committee did in 1939. They said one-third. I am not saying that I have thought this through, but I had this in my mind, Mr. Carey, when these hearings started. In my first year in Congress I was not on the committee, but I remember that we voted on such a bill as this. I asked the staff to find this for me so I could refresh my recollection. I knew at the time we were talking in terms of certain standards that had to be followed if the States were going to be permitted to do something. I could not remember the details. I thought the earlier hearings would be appropriate in connection with your testimony when you were trying to find out that it was not really the question of States rights, as you said, but a question of whether or not the original intent is now being carried out. Mr. CAREY. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Carey, I want to thank you, sir, for your very fine statement and the manner in which you have answered all of our many, many questions. I know that you have shed light on this subject, and we appreciate your being here. We look forward to your coming again. Mr. CAREY. Thank you. I appreciate the patience of the committee. We have some continuing work that I would like to continue with these two members. The CHAIRMAN. If you and Mr. Alger want to continue in the record by insertions, you have that permission. (The following material was filed with the committee:) Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., Washington, D.C., April 17, 1959. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: During the hearings being conducted currently by the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives on the subject of unemployment compensation, three witnesses have mentioned the position of the General Electric Co. on this subject. Therefore, we would like to have included in the record of the committee this company's overall position. For many years, we have actively supported sound constructive improvements by the States of their own unemployment compensation laws, and have urged that State laws be kept current and modern. Naturally, recommendations in any particular instance would, of necessity, be governed by the conditions applicable to that case, but there has never been any doubt as to the overall consistency of General Electric's approach to this problem. This General Electric Co. position stems from its own pioneering unemployment pension plan established in 1930 and operated until 1936 when State plans became effective. Most recently, the company in the early part of 1958, pioneered again in developing and recommending a program for use by each State providing for automatic extension of the duration of benefits during periods of abnormally high levels of unemployment. This proposal has now been adopted by several States, and is being considered by others. In support of these comments on the company's position, there are attached photo copies of a number of typical exhibits presented in the fall of 1958 to one of our unions to demonstrate our positive position. I would particularly like to call your attention to the exhibit containing the statement by Mr. Ralph J. Cordiner, chairman of the board of General Electric Co., made on May 20, 1958, to the economic mobilization conference of the American Management Association, which sums up concisely the position of the General Electric Co. on the subject of unemployment compensation. Yours very truly, ROBERT T. BORTH, Washington Representative. General Electric Pioneered in General Electric's concern for the economic security of its employees was translated into a practical unemployment insurance program some five years before New York adopted its own Unemployment Insurance Law which is now in operation. In fact, 30 years ago President Gerard Swope suggested to employees that a plan for unemployment benefits be established. Four years after his suggestion, a plan for payment of unemployment payments was formulated within the Company. The General Electric Employees Unemployment Pension Plan was formally adopted on August 1, 1930. Under provisions of this plan, participation in which was voluntary except under emergency conditions, members paid in 1 per cent of their income and this figure was matched by the Company. In December of 1930 an unemployment emergency was declared by Pres. Swope and contributions were mandatory for all employees with the Company again matching this total. Payments to contributing employees amounted to 50 per cent of average weekly or monthly earnings for full time, but in no case more than $20 per week. With the declaration of the unemployment emergency, the maximum payment was decreased to $15 a week. Payments to participating members were limited to 10 weeks during any 12 consecutive month period. The Unemployment Pension Plan continued in operation until December 31, 1935. On the following day, January 1, 1936, the New York Unemployment Insurance Law became dilective. Today General Electric, because of its stable employment record is paying into the state unemploy ment insurance fund an annual amount equal to 1.5 per cent of its employees' taxable income. The employee pays nothing. The cost to General Electric locations in New suff to pay the baments co by their c General Electric has always been for a strong However, General Electric is opposed to paying benefits to persons who are not in fact out of work. Such practice would eventually jeopardize the gitimate rights of workers who are in fact unem ployed GE SCHENECTADY NEW! Syracuse - 5/10/57 Schenectady General Electric Schenectady News April 5, 1957 GE ENDORSES MEASURE -SEE PAGE 5 G-E Supports Dr. Haller Terms Unemployment Pay The recent veto of unemployment insurance legislation ment so tha to $45 per week; s State and the majority of employees or "This action was not in the best interests Key features of the legislation maximum weekly unemploymen |